The Gum Thief

Last Book Read: The Gum Thief - Douglas Coupland

December 21st, 2012:  What better day than to start reading a Douglas Coupland novel? (which always contain an impending sense of apocalypse, whether explicit or implicit)  The Gum Thief  follows a pretty straightforward Coupland formula: dysfunctional Mcjob workers contemplate their own significance in the superficial, bland consumer world.  Of literary interest, all of the interaction between characters is through written correspondence, mostly a shared journal, but also email and Fed-Exed letters.  Within the journal, Roger, a disillusioned Staples worker, writes a novel (a complete take off of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf).  And, within that novel, the sub-character Kyle writes a novel about Staples workers.  The resulting story within a story within a story (within a book within a book) creates a inside/outside/inside infinite regress Mobius loop.  Along the way the usual Coupland-esqe characters speak in a way that no real person does (well, almost no one[1], however, this is addressed in the last chapter): full of witty pop culture references and cutting criticism - cataloging the interesting and bland details of life in the early twenty-first century.

Perhaps more interesting is Coupland's analysis of his own work in context.   In "A Conversation with Douglas Coupland: The Hideous, the Cynical, and the Beautiful" [2] Coupland reflects on the time period and events that has inspired his work. While he has tried to distance himself from postmodern styles in his writing, there is no way to remove his work from postmodernity. Here he discusses Marxism in relation to the Jameson-style capitalism discussed in his novels, as well as Fukuyama's end of history.  Two points of history seem to emerge as significant: 1991 and 2001.  1991, the year Generation X was published, was the emergence from the Cold War into uncharted temporal and political territory (and I would argue the end of modernity).  Any optimism of possibility ended ten years later on 9/11.  The constant anxiety of apocalypse found in Coupland's work began as the fear of the Cold War turned hot and the resulting MAD.  In actuality 9/11 brought that danger to us on a much smaller but much closer scale.  His work for the last ten years always contains elements of dealing with that (as well as gun violence in the case of Hey, Nostradamus).  The end of the structured order of modernity has brought us unhindered late-capitalism and political danger and uncertainty, resulting in the empty "blankness" of contemporary life that Coupland so aptly describes.  Although he sees 9/11 as history reasserting itself and negating Fukuyama's theory that history has ended, his description of the end if the twentieth century suggests that history has disappeared at the personal level: 

I remember the 70s were like a pit. The 80s were about climbing out of the pit. The 90s were actually kind of a golden age, because things were good. So I’m glad we had that final bubble. . . I think 2001 was the last year that we actually think of as being a year. Like, the 20th century was 1989, 1990, 1991. But what’s 2002? What’s 2003? It’s like buying gas or something. It’s not even time. It’s something else. We don’t have that bubble of modernity that just accidentally happened to be encapsulated by the 20th century. Lately, we just have this yawning, gaping infinity. We’re in a vacuum. Fear of the vacuum. 

Curiously, I think the last decade has been one with absolutely no defining style of its own. Like, nothing. You can’t look at something and say, “That’s really 2007.” There’s just nothing. And the only real defining style of the decade, aside from maybe Apple products, is the aggregation of lots of small objects. . .

What are we left with from the last decade?  We have ever evolving, stylized personal technology.  But, that is about it.  We have style over substance and form over content, leaving just a blank structure of culture. This superficiality is perhaps best portrayed in 1992's Shampoo Planet.   In the aftermath of 9/11 we now have economic collapse and the constant danger of getting stuck where we are.  As he illustrates it: "We’re now in an age of earthquakes. It’s just never going to stop.  9/11 was the first domino in that process."

Coupland has an accurate and detailed take on contemporary culture that no one else seems to be discussing.  This particular interview had numerous points of interest and it suggests that we could benefit from Coupland's thought if he would take a break from having fictional characters speak for him and write a work of analysis.


[1] Coupland's characters seem to be hyper versions of himself, amplifying the unique way he articulates and conceptualizes, but quite different from most people in the real world.

[2] Gray, Brenna Clarke "A Conversation with Douglas Coupland: The Hideous, the Cynical, and the Beautiful." Studies in Canadian Literature. Volume 36, Number 2.

Disclaimer:  I believe the quoted material falls within fair use for commentary and criticism.   Copyright owners may email me with any concerns.

Land of Confusion

It don't make no sense. - Mr. Plinkett

Windows 8 is a great example of the integration of technology into a culture unwilling to actively engage with technology.  Simply put, it is symptomatic of the dumbing-down of technology. [1]  There is a large difference between increasing usability through an interface, and oversimplifying something to the point of breaking its most fundamental features.  Trying to make a desktop computer function in the same way a mobile device does is idiotic.  Windows is attempting to emulate the iPad, which only makes me winder why someone would continue to use a Windows PC and not just buy an iPad.  Unlocking the computing power in portable devices to make them more useful is progress.  Limiting the power of computers to make them look and function like portable devices is backwards. The point of a desktop machine, besides it hardware configuration is the access "under the hood" to be able to reconfigure applications and have direct access to the code, or the file system in order to make things more efficient and productive.   Microsoft is doing great advertising work for Apple. We now have apps, tiles and charms.  Before it was simply icons and applications and that was good enough.  Creating cool names for them doesn't help, it just facilitates the anti-intellectualism involved in the new computing.

As PC World claims that "the unfortunate reality here is that Windows 8 doesn't work as a desktop operating system."  Even Paul Thurrott  claims "Windows 8 isn’t even Windows anymore. It’s a tablet OS that’s been grafted onto Windows like a monstrous Frankenstein experiment . . . it is those very users who don’t want or need tablet functionality that are financing Microsoft’s push towards an OS—that is not really Windows—that will replace what they’re using."

It seems clear that every alternating version of Windows is a complete catastrophe.  Windows 98 was a great improvement over 95 (although 95 brought the PC into a new generation of usability).  ME was terrible.  Microsoft hit a double target with 2000 and XP, both highly stable and applicable.  Vista was annoying (although at least it functioned).  7 seemed to have stabilized and added some evolutionary qualities to the PC.  And, with another attempt at a generational leap, 8 seems like the best one to skip.


[1] Notice how other countries have had more advanced smart phones, but here simpler versions have been sold just because Americans don't want to learn how to use their devices.  The iPhone may have changed that.

Talk Talk

Scanning by Alistair Begg on the radio tonight I heard him discussing the "stupidity" of deconstructionism and the "idiocy" in the "ivory towers" of those in the field of postmodernism.  Now, I have to give him credit for bringing up these concepts - where else can anyone hear about them publicly? Unfortunately, I imagine his audience doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  To reduce these movements of thought to the terms stupid and idiotic is, at best, lazy and at worst deceptive.  It shows his own lack of vocabulary.  For someone so interested in language in order to propagate his message, he should be more interested in how language works.  Does he think the word of God was handed to us in modern English in completely unambiguous terms?  The answer is, of course, yes.  And this shows his own stupidity and idiocy.  He proceeds from the premise that every word and phrase in the Bible has a singular, immutable meaning.  At which point his work diverges from any intellectual pursuit.  

First, given the unending amount of religious media, the massive amount of religious denominations (along with their internal conflicts), the history of religious wars, and the endless "talk" (babble) about this passage and that, its clear that there is no center of Biblical interpretation.  There are as many interpretations as there are readers, and it is constantly reinterpreted in new light.  Otherwise, he would be out of a job and everything would have been decided two thousand years ago.  Second, it is clear that language is a construct of humanity that continues to evolve and that we operate only with concepts found inside this construct.  So, even if the original authors intention was to relate a directly perceived truth, it had to be "encoded" into the language of the time, reduced from a pre-language meaning.  And that meaning has been re-translated though history into new languages as they come into existence.  So, what we have now is a multi-generational copy of the original thought.  Further, there is no indication that the Bible was intended to be such a precise, narrow vision.  Given the factual and logical contradictions that are constantly present, if that was the intention then it is a complete failure.  Alistair's problem is that since he operates from that illogical premise there is no way to reason with what he saying, he has closed off any possibility of negotiating a new and improved conclusion.  He condemns the intellectuals, but since he doesn't work in the rational field of the intellect, he is not proving their arguments to be invalid.  It is comparing oranges and apples, and all he can do is resort to name calling. 

Begg can denounce the deconstructionist for removing meaning, the postmodernist for rejecting the meta-narrative and the atheist for rejecting the existence of God.  But even if this group of miscreants were to proceed without any arguments, reason, or evidence (in the worst un-intellectual case), all they would be doing is coming down to his level - operating from a presumed premise based on belief.  Deconstruction and postmodern thought do not state that anything can mean anything (or nothing), they only reveal the internal contradictions, ambiguities and multiplicities that are inherent in human thought and magnified by the limitations of language.  I understand that Begg wants to believe in a transcendental signifier and must be concerned with the deconstructionists' lack of belief in one.  But, if he wants to discuss deconstruction then he needs to do it on their terms and argue convincingly why there is a transcendental signifier that gives a pre-established meaning.  Calling it stupid is not nearly enough. Perhaps he could start by reading Who's Afraid of Postmodernism and Postmodern Theology.  On second thought, maybe its best if he didn't discuss these concepts, as he only promotes misinformation that may be blindly accepted by his audience.

No, you're not entitled to your opinion

In  No, you're not entitled to your opinion, Patrick Stokes argues (quite well) that not all opinions are the same.  It is not enough to say that I have my opinion and you have yours.  There has to be some reason, and as he states: "you are only entitled to what you can argue for." Allowing every possible opinion to be right makes all views correct, and therefore nothing is more true than everything else and we end up in nihilism.  Relativism in morality is difficult enough (and presents problems even for us non-absolutists) but add extreme relativism into aesthetics and knowledge in general and the whole idea of truth is destroyed.  Opinions (at least about the external world [1])  must have some correspondence to reality and its facts.  Furthermore, views- if anywhere near complete and worth holding- must hold some level of rationality that can be argued for.  If one wants to support a right wing candidate because of belief in the super-capitalist view of trickle-down economics, then one must be able to argue why that is the correct course of action (and be able to overcome contradictory evidence found in the facts of data).  Otherwise, your "opinion" cannot be taken seriously.



[1] As Stokes notes, there are matters of taste which involve matters pourely internal to oneself.  What do I like better? - chocolate or vanilla? But this is of no consequence to anyone else. If we are to have discourse with anyone outside of ourselves - then we have to invoke criteria to evaluate competing statements in order for them to have any meaning at all.

Grand Designs

I:
Rush @ Target Center, Minneapolis, MN, 2012.09.24

On this tour, Rush presented a different kind of setlist, (to the disappointment of the narrow-minded 70s fans) that included a lot of mid-80s tracks along with nine tracks off the new album Clockwork Angels.  I would have liked a little more late-80s material (which was rotated on an alternating setlist), and I think there was still too much old material.  The addition of the orchestra added more than I though it would, particularly on Manhattan Project, and it was interesting to the members integrate into the band and the rock-show.

+ :  Subdivisions, Force Ten, Manhattan Project, Bravado

- : 2112, omissions of The Pass, Dreamline

View from the front row:

Part II:

As for Clockwork Angels, I haven't been able to get a handle on it for a couple of reasons.  First is the brickwalled sound.  Production-wise, this is Vapor Trails III, with each sequel getting heavier.  I find it incredibly fatiguing to listen to.  Additionally, so many of the tracks are so similar in tempo and structure that it sounds like one long song.  At most I can only listen to half of the album.  The Garden stands out a little bit, but there really isn't much variety.  Furthermore, the triple-tracking pattern for the guitars and bass that they have adopted over the last three albums is just too much.  Lyrically, its a bit too progressive in my opinion.  It's far too dense and sci-fi-ish.  This would almost work better as a book (oh, wait.  It is).   There have been criticisms on how thin the lyrics were on Presto (and in a few lines this is true, although it became far worse on the insipid and shallow Test for Echo).  But here the density of the story put into verse is just too much, especially when combined with the density of the music. It also includes the worst, most vacuous phrase in English "it is what it is." I'll give it a little more time, but I'm hoping for a change of sound for the next album.

Duluth Airshow 2012

Duluth IAP, MN, 2012.09.22

This year's airshow was very scaled back.  There was no Air Force or Navy support (The F-16 demo team came to fly a few passes in the heritage flight - the gas, pilots and airframes were paid for - so if anybody can explain the AF's demo team stand-down to me, I can't figure it out), and the 148th didn't even fly, being mostly deployed to Afghanistan. That left the Marine's AV-8 demo, F-4, and the Canadian snowbirds.  Statics were very light including the F-16, EF-18G, F-18, T-38, C-130 and the impressive C-5A.  Weather was 37 degrees with high wind and rain, making quite a contrast to this summer.

Full Album

Sound That Can't Be Made

Sounds That Can't Be Made  - Marillion



"People change and they turn strange and so will I"

After the longest pause in output in Marillion's career, album 17 - Sounds That Can't Be Made has finally been finished. (Thanks to Marillion for providing me with the Mp3 album while my CD makes a transatlantic journey). Not being the biggest fan of the 2008 release Happiness is the Road, I have not committed as much time to absorbing the latest Marillion works, although I think 2007's Somewhere Else is an amazing record and is holding up as some classic Marillion work. There were difficulties with writers block as it seems that H has already said a lot of what he has to say, although it would seem unfortunate circumstances in his personal life have given him more to say.  Even though there are many thematic repeats in his writing career,  I think H is good at expressing the same stories in different ways. Some of the problems with making this record, I think, involve the 20 songs put onto Happiness is the Road.  I would rather see single disc releases like this that take time than a massive and quick output. To begin with, Sounds has a title that is in my opinion is a bit awkward.  I would have preferred something with a little more mystique, something simple like "Rain" would have been nice (there can't be enough Marillion songs about death and water.)


"Nothing's ever simple - that's for sure
There are grieving mothers on both sides of the wire" 
 
"With the love of our family we can rise above anything
Someday surely someone must help us"

The standout track seems to be the opener Gaza - musically heavier and jarring, although somewhat disjointed.  However I think this track is Marillion in top form, I can't get enough of it.  From the orchestral beginnings, to the distorted guitars to the ethereal vocals this song is a dramatic story.  Lyrically, this song has already produced heated controversy.  People want to see it as anti-Isreal/Pro-Palestine/pro-terrorist.  But I think this is to add a political/historic narrative that isn't present. This is rock music.  This is art.  This is revolution.  It's about an oppressed population living in a war zone, particularly from a more innocent viewpoint.  Really the controversy can only come from the title.  Without a location name, it could be about any war. The meaning is not far from the Police's Invisible Sun, a song that only generated controversy from the British government.  It is surely less ideological than Roger Water's anti-war songs like Leaving Beirut. H comes from a culture that is the dominant in a violent political conflict.  Likewise, I, and many offended listeners from America, live in the dominant culture of a conflict.  I don't want to see the US lose the "war on terror" and I don't think H wants the IRA blowing up London.  But I think that we can look at reasons why these conflicts continue and understand that there are losers on both sides.

"Love had died but love is gonna live again"

Lyrically, the album as a whole is fairly simple and straightforward without much complex metaphor. Power is a strong track and was a welcome addition to the 2012 US tour, although I feel like some of the lyric/vocal transitions are a bit awkward.  Pour My Love is a very nice track, a sad theme but presented in a positive and calm manner.  It reminds me a bit of Prince (without any funk).  Sounds That Can't Be Made , Montreal, Invisible Ink, and Lucky Man are perhaps less memorable lyrically but musically strong. The Sky Above the Rain presents another simple tale of lost love, it's not as epic or moving as I was led to believe, but it is well crafted and has great bluesy guitar work by Rothery.

There is in fact a lot of classic Rothery guitar sounds throughout the record.  After their releases in the early 2000s I was beginning to worry that this had become history, but it is back in force.  In all instrumental respects this album is musically intriguing and of sound quality.  Musical phrases on this album leave me thinking about songs like Out of This World, The Space, Fantastic Place, This Strange Engine, Quartz and much of the Brave album. Although there are only eight songs, the album is 70 minutes long.  There are a lot of musical bits, many of which I would like to see explored in longer sections.  To be fair, I should give this album a few more weeks of listening before making judgements.  But as I can't stop listening to it, I think that's good sign that this album will make its mark and overturn any disinterest I was beginning to feel with the last release.  I can't wait for the next one.

The Beginning is the End is the Beginning

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/promiscuous-reading.html

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/mar/13/why-finish-books/

After reading these two articles, I got to wondering about the importance of finishing books. I try to read only one at once so that I can finish it without being promiscuous, but occasionally I don't finish one and this leaves me with great feelings of guilt and failure.  But, should that be so?  The information age has reorganized information into discreet units and changed these units at the fundamental level.  It has shown us, for example, that the album does not have to be the proper unit of music, the track itself can now stand on its own.  When a work is cognitized and placed into our mental warehouse of information is the linear nature of beginning, middle, and end a necessary part of that experience and of that information?  After watching a movie, the significant elements might just be a scene or two, or even a line of dialogue.  Perhaps just he visuals of the cinematography are important.  Unless a story centers on beginnings or endings, the start and end can seem a bit arbitrary anyway, especially in the era of ongoing sequels.  And, in the postmodern age, non-linearity becomes more interesting, as re-juxtaposing scenes in a "random shuffle" fashion becomes a more significant element of form. When viewing a painting it doesn't always seem necessary to understand the entire story and context.  Just seeing a depiction of a particular world is sometimes enough.  It seems plausible that this can be transposed to the world of text and just comprehending the world created might be enough.

Of course, non-fiction works present more problems.  Hopefully the author develops a progression of propositions that lead to a conclusion.  However, it is rare that most works follow that form, even in modern philosophy.  The thought process is often obscured and not as organized as it should be.  Perhaps, if done correctly, each chapter can stand as discrete element of discourse.  Furthermore, just by reading a significant insight found within a book, a useful conception might be formed in one's database.

I don't think I can change my practice of finishing works. But, in a universe formed by an ever-expanding plurality of perspectives, it seems that the future of information may involve reduction to significant and discreet points.

Player One

Last Book Read: Player One - Douglas Coupland

"You can have information or you can have a life.  You can't have both."

"Time is the fire we burn in." - Soran, Star Trek: Generations

Although Douglas Coupland has missed the mark with some of his later works, Player One seems to be a logical extension of the thought process he began with Generation X.  Once again we are confronted with contemporary existence, as hyper-concious characters living in the margins of society contemplate individuality and meaning in the new superficial world.  And once again we are presented with an apocalyptic event without explanation.  What once seemed like a quirky and surreal diversion in his early works, now becomes clear as a central theme in the world Coupland is trying to reveal.  In his vision of  a "Life After God", meaningless and sudden catastrophe become a replacement for a purposeful intervention by God.  Reading this book amid news reports of a bleak economic future, Coupland's view of a sudden jolt of society into a "new normal" no longer seems like fantasy.  In a world that has become completely superficial, absurd events seem like the only way to force one to contemplate their place in the universe.  In this way I see Coupland not far from Camus, portraying the absurdity of life in relation to violence and death in works like The Plague.

This book is perhaps Coupland's most post-modern work, touching on themes such as the spectacle in consumer society, hyperreality in "no places" like airports, and meaningful life as as a complete narrative (or the lack of one).  Two themes seem to emerge as the most significant as the book asks the question: How is life played out?  First is the nature of the human self.  What makes a person who they are? Is it just neurological processes which revolve around defects in functioning mixed with pop-culture influences?  Is individuality really just a propagated falsehood as postmodernism suggests?  Here, Coupland uses interesting character traits in the autistic, geek Rachel [1] and in opposition refers to characters who have Alzheimer's disease which very literally erases who they are.  Second, the book constantly contemplates the nature of time.  Does time exist as a dimension so that one can experience a life among events? Written as a real-time five hour story, the book does break from linearity with Player One's viewpoint from "no time." It also breaks from traditional narrative, lacking much in the way of a beginning, middle, and end. Rather it mixes time to show that eternity, infinity, and a whole life can be experienced in the matter of seconds or minutes.

When it comes time to remember what life was like before and during the transition to the new-normal postmodern, post-9/11 world, I see no better record keeper than Coupland, and I already miss the colorful and discreet world that existed as we entered the period of Generation X before the subsequent mixing of everything into a homogenous blandness.  In the new virtual and connected information world we are all "Player One", but will we continue to be players in our own lives?



[1] Rachel plays on the 21st century coolness of geek culture, much in the way the Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory does.

Out of This World

Marillion @ Park West, Chicago 2012.06.22-23

What can be said?  Marillion came to Chicago and played 30 songs (including 3 Fish ones) without any serious difficulties.  Its hard to say anything critical when, to be fair to Marillion, they could come play a night of Britney Spears and it would sound good (a theory established by their Toxic performance).  However, to be fair to myself I feel some analysis is warranted.  Mark Kelly recently stated that Marillion would do a limited tour so fans wouldn't have to go 500 to 1000 miles to see a show. In reality, their US tour allows fans to only have to go 500 to 1000 miles, which is far better than 4000 miles.

The first set featured more progressive-oriented songs, ones which might challenge the listener more such as the 18 minute Ocean Cloud, which along with the 11+ minute tracks Invisible Man and Neverland and the more accessible songs You're Gone and Fantastic Place, amounted to 50+ minutes of Marbles, roughly half the double album.  The inclusion of the 15 minute This Town trilogy infused the show with energy to bring it to a full rock level.

The second night featured a much more energetic set of songs and felt like a true Marillion event. Unfortunately, Invisible Man and Neverland were repeated, displacing the great opener of Splintering Heart and taking set space for what could have been Somewhere Else. Otherwise, it was great to hear Kayleigh after a twenty year wait and plenty of Afraid of Sunlight.  Although the set for this tour was a great mix of songs and much improved over their latest world tours, it was strange that after skipping America the last two times, this one featured eleven songs played at the 2004 show.  Of the two new tracks played Power has a classic Marillion essence, indicating that the upcoming Sounds That Can't be Made will once again be a great addition to the catalog.  Special mention has to go to opener Sun Domingo, who exhibited great musicianship among all band members as well as great aesthetic taste in music. Although Marillion has hinted at not coming back to the U.S. in the future, this tour has seemed to be a success, and we can only hope they return within the next eight years

Setlist 1:
Invisible Man
Beautiful
You're Gone
Easter
King
Fantastic Place
A Voice From the Past
Ocean Cloud
Power
This Town/ Rakes Progress/ 100 Nights
Man of a Thousand Faces
Neverland
Sugar Mice
Happiness is the Road

2:
Invisible Man
Cover My Eyes
Slainte Mhath
Out of This World
Afraid of Sunlight
Cannibal Surf Babe
The Great Escape
Estonia
Lucky Man
Between You and Me
Neverland
This Strange Engine
Kayleigh
No One Can
Three Minute Boy

+: AOS, HiE tracks, Kayleigh, songs about water & death: Estonia, Ocean Cloud and Out of This World.  Epics This Town & This Strange Engine.  Slainte Mhath, No One Can.
-: Heavy on Marbles material, Invisible Man & Neverland repeats rather than skipped Splintering Heart & Somewhere Else. Weak Marillion songs Cannibal Surf Babe & Three Minute Boy.  The weakest songs from the last two albums: A Voice From the Past, Happiness is the Road. .

Living in The End Times

Last book read:  Living in the End Times - Zizek


Slavoj Zizek is the new Heidegger. And not necessarily in a good way. In this work, Zizek uses Hegelian dialectical philosophy, Lacanian psychology, and Marxian economics to deconstruct late capitalism. I think? perhaps more precisely he deconstructs the underlying ideology of the global economy that has been normalized as capitalism. It would seem that analysis of Kung Fu Panda and I am Legend, along with Rammstein to present  hidden ideologies is genius. But, it soon becomes clear that this work suffers from a lack of clarity and organization. There are brilliant points, but often the discussion will shift from geopolitics to deep psychological trauma (or worse the frequent references to bodily functions [1]) without coherent transitions. This work would be much improved with divisions into many more chapters, each one explicitly providing a systematic progression to his final conclusion. Better yet, it should have been broken into several books, each dealing with a different area. Zizek wrote How To Read Lacan, now someone should write How to Read Zizek. I'm afraid that he takes Continental philosophy to such an extreme that it begins to break, and the structure of analytical philosophy becomes sorely missed. On the other hand, it may be true that Zizek is "the most dangerous philosopher in the West."  He seems ready to break down all of the current global constructs in true revolutionary fashion, although he does not offer (apart from a few specific examples) what kind of "system" should replace capitalism.  There is just so many fragmented ideas here that I wouldn't know where to begin a coherent discussion, so for now I'm going to take a break and go read some Heidegger.

[1]  Zizek criticizes modern American morality and its acceptance of vulgarity while he praises Chavez's banning of US television.  However, he is guilty of the exact same thing that he blames artists like Serrano of doing.  The book is filled with references to bodily functions, which he uses to make extreme rhetorical points in a provocative manner.  In most cases these are completely unnecessary and I can only imagine that he employs the shock value of it to fulfill the role of a  "rock star" philosopher (doing "excremental philosophy").

Jeremiah Blues (3/12)

In the latest developments in the culture wars, this is an interesting look at how the Republican party has been taken over by radicals, turning it into a party of theocracy.

On the other obvious front, here's a piece about the theist/atheist/anti-theist fight.  I think the key part here is that it should not be reduced to a science/religion battle.  Neither side may be right.  As Appleyard notes about Stephen Hawking, "he was contemptuously anti-philosophical."  This, in my opinion, is the flaw in science - it is self limiting and there may be modes of thought that, while remaining rational and logical (or not [1]), are deeper, wider, and higher than science. Another interesting aspect of this conflict is the intensification of ideology in the post-9/11 world.  In this respect both fundamental Christianity and militant neo-atheism share the same tactics and the same goal: the eradication of an impending, alien culture (Islam).


Rush v Rush

Finally, I have to give credit to Peter Gabriel and Rush for standing up against misuse of their music by vile, ignorant, disgusting loud mouths who are always more about creating the problems and less about the solutions.  From a liberal perspective, both of these artists have always promoted the importance of the integrity of the individual.  From a conservative perspective, a la Ayn Rand, comes the importance of individual autonomy - the artist should always have control over their own work and not allow it to be appropriated by other ideologies.







[1] In a Nietzschean view, rationality is only one mode of thought and irrationality may be just as valid

Jeremiah Blues (2/12)

It would have been previously unimaginable to think that 2012 would be the year we fight about birth control, but yet here we are in some kind of regressive loop.  There is a war on freedom of religion.  Unfortunately this war is coming from the side of religion.  Refusing to provide birth control to an employee is a pure form of religious discrimination.  One's employer should not dictate what a worker must find moral or immoral.  This is no different than other labor laws.  If a particular religion found it against their code to employ blacks, would that mean its acceptable for them to racially discriminate?  I can't imagine any sane person thinking so.  If a group wants to do business and employ people than they should all be subject to the same fairness and anti-discrimination laws as anyone else.  Furthermore this is not the case of the religious organization being forced to pay for something they find immoral.  Employer-provided health insurance is provided as a part of the worker's compensation for being employed.  It is absolutely no different than their paycheck - it is the same as giving the employee a paycheck and having that worker spend their money on birth control.  Dictating what one can spend their income on would be totalitarian (and we all know how conservatives feel about private-property rights).  However, I think there is a solution for this.  Why are we forcing the burden of insuring people onto employers?  By going to a single-payer system, where we all obtain insurance through the government, we can free employers from the these kinds of problems, and every American citizen can have access to the same healthcare.

Given the recent surge in Santorum's campaign, I have the a feeling that the right has decided to say "f***-it, burn it down".  Santorum, being both for big government and against personal liberty should be a concern for everyone, particularly conservatives who love to throw around words like liberty and freedom.  Having someone like this in office (especially after dangerous legislation like the NDAA) would risk a danger of creating a fundamentalists theocracy - no better than radical Islam and as dangerous as Hitler.  That's right, I'm already invoking Goodwin's law.  But conservatives, rather than giving in to a candidate that might be somewhat moderate, would rather destroy their own party and reverse their core values just to spite the rest of America. For now, all we can do is watch the Republican party fall into chaos and become a joke

Midnight at Noon

Amid all of the ridiculous Obama bashing from the Republican candidates recently, Andrew Sullivan makes an excellent examination of his presidency, revealing why he is not a Socialist and why he is not incompetent as the candidates would have us believe.  He argues that the stimulus was a success, adding 2.4 million jobs, more than Bush created in his entire presidency.  Meanwhile, government jobs have declined 2.6% (more than under Reagan). What happened to Obama massively increasing government?  Furthermore, Obama has lowered taxes for 95% of the population.  He has created $1.4 trillion in new spending , a;though that is more conservative than Bush's $5.07 trillion.  His healthcare program will reduce the deficit, unlike the results of Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit. In terms of foreign policy, Obama has "simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war."  Sullivan also discusses why the liberal critiques of Obama are also off the mark, arguing that the President makes pragmatic progress rather than being a "liberal crusader."  Additionally, Sullivan has presented a graph on his blog regarding defense spending which shows the truth in response to the oft-repeated lie that Obama is neglecting the military and slashing funding.

While I can't agree completely with Sullivan, I think the operation in Libya was justified, and I think that Obama does share too many of his predecessors' traits of pro-corporatist policies, he presents a fair look at his accomplishments.  It would seem that the Republicans don't have much in the way of real issues and solutions to base their arguments on.  They are left to spin the truth in a desperate and jealous attempt to advance their ideology against a president that has been more competent than their own party members.