Available Light

Play of light
A photograph
The way I used to be
Some half-forgotten stranger
Doesn't mean that much to me

Trick of light
Moving picture
Moments caught in flight
Make the shadows darker
Or the colors shine too bright

Oh the light can carry
All the visions of the sea
Oh the light can carry
All the images to me

Run to light from shadow
Sun gives me no rest
Promise offered in the east
Broken in the west
Chase the sun around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light

-RUSH - Available Light - Presto (1989)


Nevertheless, I'm certain that man will never give up true suffering, that is, chaos and destruction. Why, suffering is the only cause of consciousness
. . . The meaning of man's life consists in proving to himself every minute that he's a man and not a piano key.

- Dostoevsky


Last Book Read: What's It All About - Philosophy & The Meaning of Life - Julian Baggini



There are some who say reading a book like this is a waste of time. Beyond asking what someone knows about the particular book (nothing), I would argue that there is no more important question in all of human experience. There is no point to philosophy or anything else without addressing this question. As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." The first consideration is to determine if there is a meaning to life. If there isn't, we are left in a Schoepenhauer-esque world of nihilism, contemplating Camus' question - why don't we just commit suicide? Of course, nihilism doesn't hold up very well, and I doubt it has many adherents. Therefore, we are left with the question of what it is, or where it derives from. Bagginni presents the meaning of life from a humanist point of view, and he argues that this is really the only possibility. Even if we are the creations of a God, we still have to find this meaning for ourselves. His whole point is that this endeavor can be done without the need to rely on the spiritual. Secondly, he reduces the vagueness of this large question, into specific areas.

Baggini anticipates that some regard this as a waste of time, as they think the answer is simple. He replies by showing that the concept of Carpe Diem is not as simple as these "pub philosophers" think it is. He basically equates these people with those found in Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage. Living in the moment becomes unsatisfying because it is made up of unconnected moments. Life is a tragedy because it contains "the inevitability that even the most wonderful experiences cannot be held in our grasp but rather run through our fingers like water. Life is ultimately sad because we are doomed to lose the most valuable of times." He continues on to suggest "that the most intense aesthetic experiences actually have their power precisely because they remind us of our mortality [and they] make the transitory nature of existence evident and thus bring home to us the fact the very possibility of experience itself will come to an end." This profound version of Carpe Diem "draws a necessary link between the joy of the moment and the pain of its passing." So these moments show us the value of life, because moments of experience do have value, but in themselves they contain an emptiness and require a more substantial viewpoint to provide overall meaning.

There are others who think the search for meaning is a waste of time because it cannot be known, it is "opaque." Baggini concludes that even an unexamined life can be meaningful - it may contain elements of meaning - authenticity, love, aesthetic experience, happiness, altruism and success - without the person having actually thought about it. I believe that he is too generous to those who are non-philosophical about life. He even states that this shows "how unreflective much of humanity is." It may be true that they are living meaningful lives, at least on appearance. On the surface they may be, but if they haven't thought about it - have they done the work? It could just as easily be an accident. Without thinking about it, they haven't made the choices to reach their goals. Like doing anything else they may have a finished product, but without doing the construction of it, it seems somewhat empty. Of course the only missing piece is the simple attempt to think about it- to contemplate the possible alternatives. And to do this, Baggini has provided anyone with a good start by reviewing this book.

I'm not sure what viewpoint Baggini comes from, other than humanist. He references much from Sartre, although this is probably because it represents the best humanist viewpoints. However, he only sees authenticity as one of many components to a meaningful life. He also warns against"existential snobbery" of brooding too much over angst, and he downplays the significance of philosophy in examining life as "intellectual arrogance." He concludes, as others have, that meaning and morality are inseparable, and then claims that this is a problem for existentialists, because they "do not provide any guidance on what kinds of moral choices are morally acceptable." First, I think this is a flaw in the development of Existentialism, and it is unfortunate that Sartre did not deliver his promised Ethics before abandoning Existentialism, although, we are left with Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity. But, I would argue that the concept of authenticity entails morally justified behavior through responsibility, where integrity of the self is defined and developed through the awareness of freedom, both of the self and of the other. Therefore authenticity/morality/meaning are all intertwined. This is an area where Existentialism makes a break from other radical viewpoints and continues as a sustainable, coherent and justifiable philosophy. Individual relativists and rebels like Norman Mailer are the ones who are in this indefensible position, where anything can become one's project - even if it is evil and destructive. The arguments against transcendence rely on the historic wealth of thought from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. So, it would seem to me that Existentialism has the most thorough of all humanistic viewpoints, and has yet to be superceded.

Exposing "Exposing 'Northern Exposure'"

Beyond Postmodernism? - Exposing "Northern Exposure"

A critical and philosophical appraisal of the function of
Intertextuality and Metanarratives in Universal's 'Northern Exposure'

Postmodern analysis of popular culture is all very interesting, but I wonder why after 40 years of such analysis, it can still only be communicated in hyper-technical language. We are living in a post-modern culture, constantly surrounded by it, but expressing it seems impossible without learning a foreign language. Anyway, I guess I'll stop reading this and pick up Heidegger - which would be just as easy, and then pull out the Northern Exposure Dvds. If anyone wants to translate this article into something that is more accessible, let me know.

Not Now John

"The problem with capitalism is that "man exploits man." The beauty of communism is that it is the other way around."

Here is one article detailing the latest spike in oil prices. As it notes, the oil companies have been getting tax breaks from the Bush administration, and yet we are getting gouged at the pump more than ever. It is not a case of drivers continuing to use more gas, thereby driving the prices up. The demand for gas dropped slightly over the last year. People in the oil industry are saying there is simply no explanation for the prices, all of the technical indicators are gone and there is just no control on the market Our inventory is the highest its been in many years. So, it seems to be a case of a really bad economy and a desire to continue record profits. This article also notes that most of the usual corrections don't seem to be there. A very weak dollar is part of the problem, but the speculators seem to be playing a big part. "Maybe its just greed." That seems to be a good explanation, with no good investment opportunities left, traders are trying to get rich off of oil, and that is going to have major ramifications.

Energy costs show were capitalism is a failure. Energy is one area that shouldn't be left to a free market, where some get rich and many get left out in the cold, literally. Besides destabilizing personal economics, this enormous jump in costs threatens the national and global economies, and since it doesn't seem to be easily replaceable, it threatens are national security and global security. I don't want to sound too MadMax here, but we have had a strong military presence in the Middle East for many decades, and I don't think that is a coincidence. We've known for 30 years that oil will become a problem and quickly destabilizes our domestic and foreign interests. But instead of following a plan of conservation and developed alternatives, we have successfully ignored the problem.

The word Nationalization is a very scary concept for the free market conservatives. Yet, every time the corporate sector crashes because of immense greed and fraud, the government has to foot the bill - which means we, the taxpayers, end up funding this robbery. The S&L bailout alone cost us $400 Billion It seems that Europe has realized the need for Nationalization, and this is a concept we should further investigate. Not only would we quit being robbed of public (taxpayer) money , but the nation as a whole could benefit from the profit. We should start by Nationalizing the energy industry - yes that means taking oil off the free market. Besides stabilizing the economy, we would increase national security and global security, and profit could be funneled into R & D for alternative energy sources, thereby increasing future stability and security. At the very least, there should be a legal end to speculation.

Just how bad does the economy have to get for Ben Stein (who recently said we should be thanking the oil companies) to publicly admit that the only solution is going to be taxing the rich? That realization must have been a painful experience for him. At least he realizes that a significant part of the problem is the weakening dollar. This is an idea that has escaped intellectually-challenged people like Sean Hannity, who seems to still think the economy is great and that the value of U.S. currency is irrelevant to a recession. Of course he only says that because Bush bears the responsibility, and if a democrat was in office, his viewpoint would be quite reversed.

Dancing in Berlin

MACLEOD
How do you fight such a savage?

RAMIREZ
With heart, faith and steel.



Some people think the future means the end of history. Well, we haven't run out of history quite yet.
- James T Kirk



Top 10 Cold War Songs:

1. Berlin - Marillion
2. Games in Germany - How We Live
3. 99 Luftbaloons - Nena
4. Russians - Sting
5.Wind of Change - The Scorpions
6. Heresy -Rush
7. The Tide is Turning - Roger Waters
8. Seconds -U2
9. Distant Early Warning -Rush
10.Under Lock and Key - Rush

And, finally, best Cold War album:
Achtung Baby - U2, not for what it said about the Cold War, but for what it said about the postmodern place that was left after it.

The Cold War: A New History

Last Book Read: The Cold War: A New History - John Lewis Gaddis



"The world, I am quite sure is a better place, for the conflict having been fought in the way that it was and won by the side that won it." It "was a necessary contest that settled fundamental issues once and for all."

The tragedy of World War II was "victory would require the victors to either cease to be who they were or to give up much of what they had hoped, by fighting the war, to attain."

Like all wars, the Cold War contained a conflict between appearance and reality. In reality it was possible that we were always going to win the Cold War, but it did not always appear that way. There were times that the influence of the Soviet Empire seemed unstoppable. Communism not only had an appeal for poor countries, but for intellectuals, like Sartre, in developed countries. It seemed that communism was a new level of progression in human history, just as capitalism has progressed beyond feudalism. Gaddis acknowledges that the world viewed the World Wars as caused by capitalism, and that U.S. policy had to integrated elements of Socialism to reduce the "harshness" of capitalism. This capitalism promoted freedom, but at the cost of equality, which communism was able to offer.

I don't think that the intellectuals championing the cause of communism were necessarily wrong. I would argue that the Cold War, Like World War II before it, was a fight against authoritarianism, not fundamentally of economic theory. The communism offered failed because of evil and corrupt governments. The human rights abuses committed by Communist governments far outweighed any advancements of their secular progressivism. Because of this it a was an imperfect solution, and the only alternative is still an imperfect capitalism, as the problems of disparity in the free world are even more evident today than they were in the 1940s. However, the Soviet accusations of American imperialism were of course absurd, at least in relation to themselves. Soviet influence over their satellite countries reveled an extreme level of imperialism.

So, besides the fact that we had more freedom and integrity on our side, it was likely that by 1950, when the arms race escalated, we were inevitably going to win militarily. There was however, a perilous road to navigate. First, the critical factor in outlasting the Cold War was not to trigger a nuclear hot war. And , as there were times when nuclear force was threatened over quite insignificant issues, its somewhat amazing that we didn't fall into this trap and forfeit the entire game. Second, we had to follow the path of containment by playing this tug-of-war game and constantly applying to pressure to the outward expanding East Bloc. While performing this constant battle, we had to be careful not to destroy ourselves by overextending our means and becoming off-balance. The threat of economic implosion was an ever-existing challenge. After the Vietnam war had exhausted our military resources, we began to lose ground in the 1970s. The Soviets , experiencing a better economic situation through oil exports, were able to spend a higher percentage of their economy on their military. They had closed the gap and had overtaken us in several areas of strategic deployment.

Finally, numerous factors converged in the 1980s. The Soviets over-extended themselves in Afghanistan and Africa. Civil unrest exploded in Eastern Europe, under the influence of the Pope and Solidarity. And Thatcherism and Reaganism accelerated the weakening of the foundations of the Soviet Bloc. Reagan decided to play a risky game and move the Cold War into an endgame state. Once again, I think we experienced a bit of luck, as this gambit did pay off, and the inevitable implosion of the Soviet Union occurred sooner than hoped.

And so we won, but I think we did pay a big price. The world would never again be what it was in pre-war days. It had become a very dangerous place. At home, the freedoms we were fighting to protect, had to be partially given up. These misfortunes are continuing to invade our society as we enter into 21st century wars. During the Cold War, things appeared to be black and white, right versus wrong, and East versus West, had well defined boundaries. But in the aftermath, things are not as clear. Policies that we once necessary for our survival, are now possibly more detrimental to our future existence as a world leader of integrity.

The Philosophy of Film Noir

(Recent) book read - The Philosophy of Film Noir, edited by Mark T Conrad


Despite its decline as a continuing genre, Film Noir has had a lasting and significant effect on film. This book, from the University of Kentucky Press, is the best of the Philosophy & Popular Culture series that I have come across, and I can only comment at present on a few of the very deep threads found in this volume. Beyond the interesting use of expressionist cinematography, film noir is fascinating for what it can tell us about the culture from which it came.

The 20th century saw a tremendous change in human society. First, the the advancement of science led to Nietzsche's predicted "death of God" when our scientific values clashed with our superstitions, leading to disorientation. Without a solid foundation for values, tradition lost its meaning. Furthermore, lessons from Kierkegaardian subjectivism and Einsteinian relativism destroyed the possibility of a neutral or objective viewpoint. Secondly, World War II and the following Cold War brought humanity to new levels of destructive behavior and totalitarianism. The victory of WWII was not a complete victory and it was quickly realized that we were less safe than we were before the war. The resulting possibility of instant global war brought on severe anxiety. The European reaction was the development of Existentialism, as well as other connected philosophies such as absurdism. Here in America though the tradition has been to continue on with a sense of optimism (at least superficially). Hence the dread and anxiety of the postwar age was relegated to places like film noir. Thirdly, the economic surge following the war led to a new consumer culture, and this mass production resulted in alienation of people from their communities. The new urban landscape became a Dark City, cold, lifeless and unconcerned with the individual, a land of isolation and anonymity.

R. Barton Palmer discusses this postwar anxiety as the "dark mirror theory", asserting that film noir is a reflection of the bleak national mood. This mood was also manifested in the increase of psychotherapy, pop psychology, and pseudo-science such as UFO sightings. There was also an increased attendance in church, which had been declining in the earlier part of the century, and a Spiritual Revival involving new religious superstars like Billy Graham, as well as a syncretic national religion. Left with no security and an uncertain future, postwar America experienced a desperate hope of escape.

Escape is central to film noir. Stranded in the impersonal city, one is left with a conflict between appearance and reality. Things are not what they seem. People are not who they seem and intentions are often disguised and dark. Culture is transitory, change is constant. Without an ethical system as a reference, decisions become the responsibility of the individual and choice becomes significant. The maze has evolved from classical, being escapable by faith, through mannerist, escapable by reason, to the rhizome, as defined by Umberto Eco [1]. The rhizome has no beginning or end, it has no entrance or exit, no perimeter and no center but always a middle. There is no escape from it. This is the postmodern maze. All that remains is to find meaning in a potentially fatalistic universe. This is the struggle dramatically presented in film noir, although possibly less optimistic than the attitude found in Existentialism.

Perhaps the best postmodern work of recent times is Lost. Here, escape does seem truly impossible. The odds are continually being stacked against the survivors. Even if they escape the island, it is a futile endeavor and they will need to escape back. Beyond their current situation larger forces are at work and, more immediate, they can't escape from themselves, or the past (or the future for that matter). No one is who they seem, alliances are continually changing, and as events progress even individual characters switch from one point of view to another. Alan Woolfolk discusses the nature of time in film noir, asserting that it "merges narrative space, time, and events in such a way as to give priority to time past - someone (or something) is always coming 'out of the past.'" He continues on to say "film noir threatens to subvert the very concept of time, to obliterate the distinction between past, present, future, by placing individuals at the mercy of unknown forces that not only negate simple notions of making a clean break with the past but also deny the very notion of a coherent narrative character development." This description seems quite a propos of Lost to me.

I would argue that Film Noir was the beginning of postmodern film and is therefore tied linearly to our current postmodern culture. It also inseparable from Existentialism, as it comes from the same origins, explores the same themes and reaches the same conclusions.

[1] Discussed by Jerold J. Abrams in the chapter "From Sherlock Holmes to the Hard Boiled Detective in Film Noir"

Everthing is Miscellaneous

(Recent) Book read - Everything is Miscellaneous : The Power of the New Digital Disorder




David Weinberger's work is an excellent look at the current state of informational organization and the history of the philosophy of information. This book is a great read, and really shows the underlying significance that is forming from the information we are producing.

Weinbeger chronicles the development of organization. The first order is the real world, things can physically be organized, but there has to be a system, as things can only be in one place. The next step was the second order - the paper order, where lists were maintained detailing the locations of thins, such as a card catalog. But this systems has its limitations, things can be cross-referenced to have multiple locations on a list, but the physical limitations of paper make it hard to change and hard to search. The periodic table, for example could be reformulated in many different ways, but this was not possible until technology had a way of instantly reorganizing the data. The third order - the digital order is an advanced evolution of this system. Information is made into bits and then thrown into a miscellaneous pile. It can then later be sorted in any way the user wants, making searching easy and the results much more useful.

One of the latest improvements is the use of tags and labels. These provide metadata that can be searched and cataloged. This metadata becomes data of its own, and conversely data becomes metadata. For example searching on the name of a Shakepeare play (metadata) results in the text of the play, but if you want to learn the name of the play, then you could search by using text from it. Through the use of tags, things are organized as they're searched for. Information is only useful because of what it leaves out, as Weinberger says " the explicit diminishes the implicit". So maps such as Google Earth, become much more useful because they can be customized to include whats important, and exclude non-relevant locations. Music playlists have become the 21st century "mix tape", but the playlist itself is only metadata - it only points to the music that is the data itself. But, as the mix tape had meaning, there is also meaning in whats include in the playlist.

The implicit is the context, or meaning, of the data. The development of technology has been the externalization of human abilities, books and computers have externalized memory, and now information has externalized meaning. Weinberger notes that making something explicit is often difficult as we have to oversimplify to make things fit. "My lists of interests at Friendster is not really a list of my interests. It's a complex social artifact that results from my goals, self-image, and anticipations of how other people will interpret my list." An interesting problem that most of us have encountered on-line. His solution is finding the balance between implicit and explicit. As our data is becoming more meaningful, we can hope that this balance will become easier. As he shows, we have entered an era where small improvements to our on-line experience are having a dramatic impact on the usefulness of digital information.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience

Last Book Read : The Varieties of Scientific Experience - Carl Sagan



Back in 1999, I was absolute stunned when I heard about the Great American Think-off. The essay competition for that year was: Which is more dangerous, Science or Religion? Of course, I was enraged that the winner declared science more dangerous, but I was even more appalled that any organization that considers itself intellectual would possibly be able to reach that conclusion. The reason given - that science is blindly accepted by people without question- is the very antithesis of science, and obviously the writer didn't understand the concepts of verifiability and coherence. I think a prerequisite should have been a reading of Carl Sagan.

Sagan's 1985 lectures on natural theology examine just how much evidence there is for the existence of God. He asks why a divine creator did not leave a message in holy texts - an equation of some sort, that when eventually understood would provide evidence of that creator. Our investigation so far has come up empty, and if we simply haven't advanced enough to read the sign, then in the absence of all other evidence, we shouldn't concern ourselves with such matters until we do find it. As for verifiable evidence, there appears to be none, even though people do seem to have religious experiences. Just because there has been millions of UFO experiences, there has not been one trace of compelling evidence, and we would be reckless to assume their existence at this point.

Sagan's use of the Drake equation puts the possible number of civilizations in the galaxy between 1 (us) and one million. Now, there is an immense distance between 0 and 1, and a similar enormity between 1 and many (2 or more). Given the lack of evidence for a second civilization, like the search for God, it seems premature to me to think that there are other civilizations. If we were to discover one, then the likelihood of finding numbers 3, 4, etc would go up dramatically. If we look at the high end of the Drake equation, then the next nearest civilization would be a few hundred light-years away. And, if they happen to be in the vicinity of Polaris, then they will soon be treated to the music of the Beatles, and we can expect a response, possibly an aesthetic critique, in about 860 years. Although, I am on the side of those who think that we should not be broadcasting our existence to the rest of the galaxy. We are ill equipped to handle negotiating with other civilizations and until we have a better understanding of our place in the universe, hiding may be the safest course of action. The prevailing notion is that other civilizations will be far more advanced than us, and therefore will have a more mature moral nature, but I think this is also premature to consider. In fact, I think its possible we haven't encountered transmissions from others because we may be the oldest one. Even though life developed rather quickly once Earth formed, 500 million years, it may be the case that the chemical compositions hadn't reached a critical mass until there was 10 Billion years of stellar evolution to produce the complexity necessary for life.

In terms of the anthropic principle, it seems as though we are in a special time. We have finally reached an adolescence, on our journey to cosmic self-realization, as we begin to understand the universe and our place in it. It may be that this window of time is more important than Sagan realized. A recent article in Scientific America proposes that as time progresses, the universe will expand so much that everything outside of our local Galactic group will be to far away for light emission to reach us. An event horizon will form around us and all information from outside will be inaccessible. The Universal history that we can now look at will be forever lost, and the knowledge of its very existence will be gone.

Sagan notes a reference from Dostoevsky - "So long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as someone to worship." The will to believe, the want to believe is very strong in people. The burden of existence is then removed from one's shoulders and left to the creator. The question of what to do is then answered by the directives of the divine. Besides this psychological motivation, there is also a political one. Religion provides a sense of contentment, and this is a useful tool for the ruling elite. People are pacified by the concepts of an afterlife and divine justice. The status quo can be maintained easier, of course the danger is that real injustices are not fought. Another quote is presented by Pierre Simon from The System of the World - "far from us be the dangerous maxim that it is sometimes useful to mislead, to deceive, and to enslave mankind to ensure their happiness." He asks why isn't there a commandment to educate oneself. It would seem that intellectual education and scientific awareness of reality are not something valued by religion.

The crucial point in the Drake equation is the longevity of Technical civilizations. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. The difference for humanity is that we have means of our own destruction, which only increases the chances of our extinction. In reference to nuclear weapons, Sagan asks "where are the religions?" There seems to be no larger moral question than our continued survival. Any other endeavor - goodwill to our fellow humans, the elimination of suffering, moral and intellectual development as a species, are completely futile unless we contain our internal destructive tendencies. Not only has religion done very little to prevent catastrophe, but has in some ways increased its likelihood. The conservative, fundamentalist government that has been in power for the last 30 years is ready to use WMDs in the name of their religion, to bring about God's plan prophesied in Revelation. Sagan points out that the non-religious state of the Soviet Union is less inconsistent with their policies of WMDs.

So, what kind of God could exist? Professor Sagan notes that not all of God's qualities can be true. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient or not benevolent. An immortal creator that would create beings and subject them to suffering and death would be apparently cruel. If he allows civilizations to be regularly destroyed in galactic explosions, then he is at least incompetent. Furthermore, he remarks that the God portrayed by religions is really too small for the universe we know. He is more the God of a planet. He notes that Christians were called "atheists" by the Romans because they did not worship a real god. Something for current to Christians to remember. A more accurate God would be of a pantheist nature, as seen in the ideas of Spinoza and Einstein, something related to the universe and the physical laws governing it.

I think the best response a theologian could enact would be the Kierkegaardian existential leap of faith, and not try to justify their beliefs rationally. Sagan does acknowledge that religion could exist purely in this realm, but then they should not challenge the findings of science and make claims that our ultimately false. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on the problem of evil - I think it's still conceivable that this is the best of all possible worlds, but only if we realize how important our own future is, as he argues.

I have been asked many times why an atheist would earn a degree in Religious Studies. A question that, to me, seems like an easy one. First, it would be impossible to study the entire sphere of humanity - philosophy, art, politics and history itself without an understanding of God and religion. Secondly, it would be just as hard to understand those disciplines external to humanity without the same ideas. The works of Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking constantly refer to the concept of God- it is inseparable. I'll end with a quote about professor Sagan from the foreword, "he took the idea of God so seriously that it had to pass the most rigorous standards of scrutiny . . . His argument was not with God but with those who believed our understanding of the sacred had been completed."

Random Notes

Last book read - Wikinomics. It wasn't exactly the book I thought it would be. It was a little dry and repetitive, probably more compelling to the business mind, than the technologist. It is interesting to think about open source as bringing us into a new era. I was listening to Leo recently discuss Microsoft, and he pointed out that Microsoft created their own industry and set the paradigm that we should pay for software, but those days might be coming to end, hence their need to buy Yahoo and get into the online game. As I've stated before Google has really set a new standard with their free applications. Additionally I think the days of the "classic" PC will come to an end. It seems that most people don't care about what OS they use anymore. Most of the tasks previously requiring a PC will move to other devices. Smart phones will take up IM, Chat, email and some browsing. Game consoles have already taken over the gaming side of computers. I use my DVR to do more video editing than the PC. This may leave the home computer as an entertainment component, with its main importance being a home server to store multimedia files. I'm already considering building my next PC as an HTPC. Strangely, ten years ago it seemed like such an advancement for PCs to move into the "Tower" form factor to free up valuable space, but the trend seems to be moving back to those wide boxes.

In other news. . .

Russia is once again displaying its military might and is trying to re-enter global politics. They recently reaffirmed the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons.

They have also recently begun playing games with their bombers, after sixteen years of non-use. Besides flying into American and British airspace, they seem to like the USS Nimitz, first buzzing them in February, and then again this week. It will be interesting to see what Global Chess moves result from this activity.

All Along the Watchtower

"There is no freedom without religion." This is the message coming from the likes of Romney and Huckabee. What an absolutely ignorant and myopic viewpoint. These guys stand for everything I am against (which means on the slim chance one of these geniuses win, I will have to move to Europe - eight years of one talking monkey is enough for me). While Romney promotes religious tolerance, he labels secularism as a religion and than advocates intolerance to it. An amazing example of hypocrisy, both for a government official, and for the religion he represents. If tolerance is a virtue, then he shows that religious "ethics" are not necessarily ethical. Many people are concerned about the moral decay of today's culture, and rightfully so. But their targets are usually 180 degrees off. The problem isn't the new culture that has pushed the limits of acceptable language on TV shows such as "South Park" and "Californication." The problem is the moral decay in Corporate and Government officials and policies which are trying to de-educate the public and starve the middle class out of existence. Religion isn't the solution. Nietzsche predicted in the Nineteenth century that traditional religion would come into conflict with the modern scientific age and that would lead to the destruction of values, resulting in "God is dead." Rather than having some base-less fantasy world as a foundation for ethics, what we need is a solid secular-based ethics. The first problem is politicians and people with low IQs (the kind that can only get jobs as political talk show hosts) claiming that ethics can only exist as a part of religion, and doing a good job of convincing the American public of such nonsense. The second problem is the senselessness of the public education system. High school students are required to take math classes every year, but there may be only one Humanties class, which a select few take. The idea of philosophy seems to be banished from these halls. Now, math is important for one to learn and apply daily in our consumer culture, and it should be taught better. But, really, who the fuck has ever needed the quadratic equation in real life? What education needs is to concentrate on the practical (consumer mathematics, reading) as well as higher level concepts (philosophy, critical thinking, and ethics) that students can use to form better decision making skills and develop better patterns of individual thinking. Combined with more creative freedom, students would be able to apply learning in a more satisfying and productive way. What needs to be eliminated are useless methods that are only necessary for specialized occupations, ones that the students would learn eventually and far more efficiently in their technical training anyway. Only when we teach people to think in sophisticated way, can we expect to live in a sophisticated society.

In other news, the economy seems to be in bad shape. Those of us that live in the real world knew this a long time ago, particularly those of us trying to sell a house. The general media seems to have finally caught on. Of course, there are still a lot of idiots in the media. Every time I hear republi-tard Hannity talk, he goes on endlessly about how strong the economy is under the Bush administration. If he can't grasp basic facts about whats going on in the American public, how can we trust what he has to say about anything (answer: we can't). So, we have the biggest drop in consumer spending in over 25 years and the economy has been given the lowest approval since 1992. I wonder what was similar in 92? Question: what's worse: an evil monkey or a retarded monkey? Its beginning to come out that the housing catastrophe had a corporate Enron-style cover-up. But I'm beginning to wonder about the media as well. Maybe the so-called "left wing" media mentioned it, but other "balanced" outlets have found it convenient to ignore. Now it seems that economy is going to have an effect on the election, particularly the republicans. Bush is going to SW Asia to beg for a drop in prices, probably the smartest thing he can do for his party. Maybe he should have thought about having a domestic policy seven years ago, rather than wasting his time on a foreign policy that has been a complete failure.

This is the 21st Century

After recently deciding to supplement my Pioneer DVR/DVD-R Hard Disk recorder, I realized that there isn't many of these types of machines on the market. I had hoped that in the last two years these recorders had advanced a bit, possibly utilizing DVD-DL, while we wait for HD-DVD-R. This article by CNET confirmed my fear - these machines aren't being made anymore - here. They are popular in other countries, especially the UK, we just can't get them in the "free world" of America. It seems either the cable companies are pressuring manufacturers because they want to rent out their own units, or the makers are being pressured by the MPAA. Since March, all devices are required to incorporate digital tuners, which may have played a part in this disappearance, and which strangely enough has affected VCR's - many of which I've seen without tuners (making them VCPs?). So, after finding out only two or three models are still being made, I decided to get 2 Phillips DVDR357Hs while I still can. Perhaps the best feature, besides being able to watch my DVDs upconverted to 1080p using an HDMI connection, is the digital tuner. While it doesn't record HD (down-converting it to SD), I can record off the HD channels, which results in a much better recording which is letterboxed for better viewing on my HD TV. Apparently the editing on this model doesn't seem to be as convenient as the Pioneer, but my old 520H will now be used for projects such as VHS conversion, while the Phillips are used for TV recording. Although its not a leap forward in technology, its probably the most practical purchase. While I believe that Pioneer did eventually make DVD-DL recorders, these are rare, expensive and DL doesn't seem to be catching on. Even when HD-DVD becomes affordable, I have my doubts about recordable versions, given the Draconian HDCP restrictions.

Jeremiah Blues

Here's a paper on the current state of copyright law. John Tehranian concludes that an average person could violate roughly 83 copyright laws per day, resulting in $12.45 million in damages, or $4.5 BILLION per year. These activities don't even include blatant attempts such as P2P file sharing. Of course, he stretches the possibility of each scenario to the limit of what's possible, and he totally disregards any fair use exceptions. Who would get sued for a public performance for singing in their car? Although, after the precedent set by the DMCA, fair use is essentially non-existent in digital terms, and that sets a dangerous precedent for non-digital mediums. I won't be surprised if someday I'm sitting in a nice minimum security prison, owing billions in compensation (his paper radically changes my original estimation of roughly $600,000) - but at least it will be a vacation.

The End

This article presents the current state of PC gaming: according to the industry it's fine. Of course, us PC gamers know this is not the case. It started about seven years ago - with the death of the Flight Simulation, a game genre that is not reproducible on a console system. Just as bad, has been the numerous console titles that have not been ported to the PC. Notable inclusions are Obi-wan and Dead Rising. Come Spring, there will be a major media event with the release of Stars Wars, The Force Unleashed, hopefully the most playable SW title since Jedi Academy, but quite shockingly it will not be available for the PC. Someday, if I ever want to experience these titles, I'll have to break down and get an XBOX system. The need to do this is quite absurd given the investment in high-end PC hardware, and Microsoft OS, a company which, if not so greedy, could easily port the games for their own XBOX system to their OS.

Computer World

As we get closer to the singularity, I've been thinking more about how technology has changed throughout my lifetime. Previously I had thought of this in terms of hardware, advancing from my Commodore 64 though a 486, Pentium II, Pentium IV, to a Pentium D. But now I'm beginning to think more in terms of how I use computers. Most of the programs I use now, didn't exist 5 years ago, and I can barely remember what I was using back in the 90s. Who can remember a time before iTunes? How about the days when we had to a CD-ROM encyclopedia instead of instantly accessing a VERY current Wikipedia. We now have a myriad of choices for using our PCs. My computer is so customized - using quick launch shortcuts, keyboard shortcuts and programs and plug-ins like Slickrun and Googlebar, that its hard for me to use other people's machines efficiently.

I never really jumped on the idea of internet apps. Of course when I first used Google years ago, I knew it had a future as THE search engine, but I never imagined how far they would go. I started using iGoogle (or Google IG back then) as my home page, and now I couldn't live without it, I have all the links and precise news that I need in one place, plus some cool tools and toys. Last week I was doing an update, and I unintentionally installed Google Desktop. This program is excellent. It has a nice transparent design with time and temp and a cool photo slideshow. It also has a handy notepad, so I don't need to open a new program or file to quickly remember something - and it reads html, which is the first time I've found a text editor that does. It also provides news articles to the desktop and its has a web clips section that shows near-real-time additions to web forums, discussions, USENET groups, Wikipedia, and blogs (now I'll know when I update this page). I now have a new appreciation for RSS feeds. This is all done so much more effectively and stylishly than Microsoft's failed Active Desktop could ever do. Of course, the real power of Google Desktop is the Desktop search. I never really thought I would need this back when I heard about X1. But now, I read so many various articles on the net, I begin to forget what I was reading and I spend way too much time trying to find things again. Like so many other geeks these days, I now need a Google-assisted memory. The desktop search not only remembers these articles for me, but it also searches documents, email and files, so I can search for everything in one place.

My other new tool is the Google Notebook. I've apparently made notes in it before, but I never realized it. By simply selecting Note This, I can put something from a search into the notebook. I have previously been using Evernote for this, but the great thing about Google Notebook is that it is stored online. This way, I can do work on one computer, and then continue on another machine. I don't have to remember to keep moving various text files from one PC to another, as it is all easily integrated into the browser.

So , I've now reached a new level in computer use as we have reached the point where a computer isn't all that useful with an internet connection. Just as web pages have now become dynamic, our desktops have become much more useful and interesting than the static ones they used to be. Besides these applications, I can't get enough of Google Earth, along with Google Sky. These guys really have a vision for applications, and their pricing scheme is much better tan Microsoft. I can't wait to see what Google will have for us in the future.


edit - 10.21.07: I just listened to Leo's 10.02 show and he was talking exactly about this, saying that technology has matured enough that we can now talk about content and not hardware. Great minds.

De Do Do Do De Da Da Da

So, for today's post we have yet another Sting entry. Only because Sting is in the news, and its been a long time since he has been. Blender magazine further confirms my assumptions about the media's assault on intelligence. Sting has been voted the worst lyricist. Wait. What? That's right, and Neil Peart comes in second. Seriously?! WTF?! Add Bono, Sarah Maclachlan, and H in there and you'll have my list of best songwriters. Now, Sting is used to being called pompous, arrogant and pretentious. But, I never though anyone with a functioning brain would actually question his lyric writing ability.

His strength lies in the fact that he can discuss complex ideas, put into a simple, three verse structure. Like his musical writing, minimalism is the key, but yet there is serious depth and intensity. His songs are easily accessible, he's not overly verbose or obscure, (with the possible exception of Wrapped Around Your Finger). He also strikes a good balance between intellectual and visceral dimensions of a song. As for the subject matter, Sting's lyrics encompass the whole sphere of the humanities. In the words of Daryl Jones, "I've never heard a Sting song that's a nothing song." So he throws in a little Shakespeare, Chaucer, Nabakov, St Augustine, etc. He was one of the inspirations that led me to pursue degrees in English and Philosophy. "Cloying spirituality"?? Are we listening to the same songs? I assume they don't mean that in a religious sense. (and by the way, by using that phrase they are being pompous themselves - their readers can't understand Sting, but they're going to understand that?). Maybe its in the personal sense, but as for being overly sweet - remember "Every Breath You Take" is NOT a love song - Sting usually focuses on the dark side, or at least the dual side of things. Apparently his lyrics are good enough to be made into book form.

So, basically he's too smart for these people. It's strange that we have constant debate about the failure of our educational system, yet we criticize any attempt to appear smart. We now have people on TV that say they don't know, or care, if the world is flat. Who would have thought we would get this stupid? The media wants to retard people so they can tell them how to think. Then its easier to sell Britney, Justin, and any rap to people. Smart people aren't going to stand there and eat crap that they paid for just because that's what they are told to do. This is a magazine that had Kanye West on their latest cover - that shows where Blender's IQ level is at (and thanks Kanye, for ruining the Police performance at Live Earth).

Luckily for me, I usually consider these polls to be the opposite of reality - there's usually too much Bon Jovi and GNR to be taken seriously. As for Sting, he gets free publicity, which coincidentally happens right before his Lyrics book is released. And what about Neil? I dare anybody to listen to "The Pass", and then tell me Neil is a bad songwriter - talk about depth and intensity!

Princes of the Universe

Advanced Theory I

Check out the Advanced Theory Blog for an interesting cultural theory. I'm not sure it makes coherent sense, or if it is even supposed to. It may be as esoteric as many other post-modern theories, or it may just be a pseudo-intellectual way to criticize and make fun of modern culture. Either way, it seems worthy of some consideration. Every post he makes regarding Sting (no pun intended - really), contains a statement to the effect of "I don't know if Sting is advanced or not", which I find quite amusing. It seems Sting is so super-Advanced, he has confused the founder of Advancement theory, but I'll have more to say about that later.

The Sun Always Shines on TV

OK, the new TV season started this week, which means I have to allocated more time to staring at another screen. Now I know that television is mind-numbing, soul-sucking vortex. It is a ubiquitous form of entertainment for stupid people: it caters to the daft, unintellectual, and mediocre types. It allows people to be passive and avoid the effort required for inter-active entertainment and therefore tells people what to think as a convenience so they don't have to think for themselves. I'm always surprised by how many people say they don't watch TV on their Myspace profiles. Either they simply don't have time (or haven't learned how to timeshift) or TV's prominence is beginning to diminish. If its the latter, than either people are really too embarrassed to admit that they watch it, signaling an image problem for television, or new mediums have overtaken it. Nevertheless, I think it is a great medium for somewhat artistic entertainment. I find that when people ask me what movies I've seen recently, I don't have much to answer, but I seem to know more about many recent tv shows. Almost all of my DVD purchases are music or TV, and much of my Netflix queue is similar. Film is artistically superior, and I think one of the greatest art forms, so why is this the case?

First, I think the quality of films has fallen faster than TV, certainly in the mainstream. At least is hasn't increased, where TV has. It seems the great independent film making days of the 90s has lost momentum. Its possible that such films just don't get the publicity like they used to, similar to the music industry, and I should probably research more, or at least get more Henry Rollins reviews. Like music, time is an issue here. I would rather spend the time experiencing the work, than trying to search for it.

One more aspect is the introduction of HD. I'll pretty much watch anything that's in HD, maybe even a few seconds of sports. As for films in HD, it would take a substantial investment in equipment, and I wont even get into the format wars.

It seems the Sopranos set a new standard in TV quality. Premium channels have been putting out some good material such as Entourage, Californication and my new favorite comedy Flight of the Conchords.

So, onto this season. My returning favorites are Numb3rs, Lost, Jericho for the dramas and of course How I Met Your Mother, The Office, and Scrubs for comedies, along with Two and a Half Men and Rules of Engagement. The Big Bang Theory seems to have the most potential for this year's comedy achievement, and I'll give Reaper a try, although I'm not hopeful. In the drama category, the only new candidate for me is Journeyman.

As for the sun shinning on TV, it is symbolic of American optimism, or at least repression, where the darkness stays hidden, but it ever-present. Nothing represented that more than Miami Vice, but more on that later.

Don't Lose Your Head

Since 1991 fans have been trying to undo the damage Highlander II created. The original film was unlike any other film, original (somewhat) and thought-provoking. It was a kind of magic. The sequel took what was an epic-fantasy-noir film and reduced it to pure sci-fi. Even the film makers tried to undo it by unsuccessfully releasing the Director's cut. Like all good stories of immortality, the original worked by showing its unnatural place in a familiar reality. But the apocalyptic sequel was far too unconnected from our reality to make a moving statement. That, said I never thought it was a really bad film, it just wasn't a good Highlander film. Highlander was a movie that was just unsequelable. It portrayed the end of a story. When the series was created, it effectively rebooted the story and presented a worthy counterpart for the film, albeit in watered-down TV fashion. We had hoped that the producers had learned their lesson from the aftermath of the Quickening.

That was until September 15th, 2007. Word about Highlander the Source was not good, but one at least expected a straight to DVD release. Instead we were given a "Sci-fi Original" movie. Even though it was never created by the Sci-Fi Channel, it might has well have been, it was just as bad. The awfulness that The Source achieved was simple unimaginable. It makes the Quickening look like a great film. It took the idea of an apocalyptic world far further than the Quickening did (although I won't even mention the Animated Series), and was far more disconnected. This time they decided to make the characters act unlike their previous incarnations. So we are left with a story that has no point of reference in terms of setting, plot, or characterization, and with a film that has no cinematic feel of the original. The noir elements are long gone, as are any flashbacks, a core part of the Highlander universe. Instead we get really cheesy special effects. I won't dwell on how bad this movie is any further, suffice to say it is simply unwatchable and it probably killed any chances for a continuation of the story. Stay tuned for my reaction to the other "revisioning" of the Highlander universe, Highlander Vengeance.

99 Red Balloons

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we were well aware of what would probably happen if the US and the Soviets went to war. Within a few hours everything would go to Hell (almost literally). What fascinates me is what would have happened if the Cold War had become a hot one using conventional weapons and leaving the nukes hidden away. Many films and books have presented various scenarios, most of which I find highly unlikely. What I'd really like to know is how the government thought this might happen, how they trained for it, and what plans, procedures and such existed for it. Obviously the Powers that be thought a conventional war was at least a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't rationally have spent the hundreds of trillions of dollars on forty years of military build-up. So far the first bit of info I've come across is "Dropshot", the war plan originally conceived in 1949.

This essay by John Reilly explores the US plan for World War III (Dropshot) circa 1957. In the age before ICBMs became the main strategic weapon, it was still seemingly possible for a U.S./ Soviet war to be fought conventionally. The plan was for an initally defensive war against an aggressive Russia that was actively seeking expansion and eventually some sort of global domination. This alternative history explores how this might have happened under the right conditions. Reilly makes some interesting political and economic points along the way.

"There is a good argument to be made that the United States took as little hurt from the Cold War as it did because the president during the 1950s was that logistics expert, Dwight David Eisenhower. . . Using his own good judgment to gauge just what the Soviets could or would do, he starved the U.S. military during the 1950s to let give the consumer economy room to breathe." Compare this to the 1990s of the Clinton administration, where the military was starved, but the economy did quite well.

Reilly contemplates what would have happened if Eisenhower had been replaced by Adlai Stevenson. His ambition to destroy the communist bloc was similar to Reagan's, although his timing would have been wrong. It wasn't until the 1980s, when the Soviet's finally "exhausted the growth capacity of the command economy," that the opportunity to pressure the Soviets farther finally occurred. In my opinion, Reagan's administration may not have been clever enough to know with certainty that they could break the Soviets by outspending them militarily. Reagan played a dangerous game of brinkmanship, such as the deployment of the Pershing II missiles. If they were confident of economic victory, these aggressive stances seem unnecessary. I think Reagan got lucky. He took a big gamble that could have got us all killed, but was fortunate enough to find success.

Also in Reilly's scenario, Stalin stays in power. If Stalin had lived longer, past 1953, he may have planned to fight a decisive war. If Stevenson backed up his own idealism by sending forces to Europe, Stalin very well could have countered by launching his offensive. Thirty million Americans would be needed for service, and unlike World War II, this one would be devastating for the American economy. The U.S. would have been forced to become a command-economy state.

The plan was for NATO to hold the front, until the American forces could arrive, which could be a year. IT suggest that the Soviets could very well advance past Germany, and the UK would probably not be held.The second phase would be an offensive to occupy Russia. Dropshot notes that invasion from the Far East or the Middle East would be impractical, and only an offensive straight in from Europe would work.

Finally, the aftermath of a successful war would have had terrible effects on the world economy, although it may have been less damaging than World War II. Russia might have been able to transition to a market economy with less resistance. In America, collectivism and Socialism might have become instituted as the command economy which helped win the war would be viewed as superior to the market economy. The social revolution of the 1960s would not occur, and presumably the pessimism of the 40s and 50s would be reinforced, with the continuing view that the world is a dangerous place. Positively, The arms race would never have occured, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone.

But, would the outcome have really been so positive? I certainly don't think a communist victory would be a good thing. However, An American victory might have had its downsides as well. The US would have global domination of the advanced world, and without any opposition would be free to do anything it wishes. This unhindered power may have been too much to contain, and would probably be used on scale far exceeding what we have seen in the 21st Century, where the US has done things that would have previously been unthinkable, both constitutionally and morally, due to the possibility of destroying the integrity of our 200 year history. [1] In the 80s miniseries Amerika, the Soviets achieved global victory, and the conditions under their rule, however intolerable, were unescapable "There was nowhere else to go." A post-World War III Socialist America could have utopian possibilities, [2] but it would also have the potential to become a tyrannical, dystopian police state. Having two equally-matched superpowers during the Cold War meant there was a Yin/Yang balance, and there were possibilities to choose from, depending on what type of system your allegiences might fall.


Geek edits:
[1] example: Star Wars - Palpatine and the fall of the senate
[2] example: Star Trek (although despite the superficial utopian Socialism, ST could be viewed as a communist society , see this article for explanation.

A Legacy

Last read: The Flies - Sartre.

Upon re-reading this, I was struck that I never fully realized before just how Nietzschean this play is. It is full of references to the "spirit of gravity", and to "my way" . This work really needs more exposure. It also has Hamlet connections, Christ imagery and few lines that could be straight out of a Neil Gaiman work, and it may even be a little Star Wars-esque in terms of the Hero's journey. Some one really needs to make a film of this.

Random Notes

Here is an article on the current state of processors. It is interesting to see how far we have come since the late 70s.


______________________________________________________________

Here is a quote I found as part of the continuing existential struggle between truth and happiness/beauty:

“Suffering, I was beginning to think, was essential to a good life, and as inextricable from such a life as bliss. It's a great enhancer. It might last a minute, or a month, but eventually it subsides, and when it does, something else takes its place, and maybe that thing is a greater space. For happiness. Each time I encountered suffering, I believe that I grew, and further defined my capacities--not just my physical ones, but my interior ones as well, for contentment, friendship, or any other human experience."

Lance Armstrong

Darkness

I can dream up schemes when I'm sitting in my seat
I don't see any flaws 'til I get to my feet
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

I could make a mark if it weren't so dark
I could be replaced by any bright spark
But darkness makes me fumble
For a key, to a door that's wide open

Instead of worrying about my clothes
I could be someone that nobody knows
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

Once Upon a Daydream (Part II)

So, after a 24 year absence, The Police returned to the Twin Cities last night. What can be said about their performance?

Fucking incredible!

Sorry, but that's the best way to describe it. There has been a lot of criticism about the early part of the tour (including some from Stewart himself.) The main problems seemed to be Andy getting lost and an overall lack of energy. Not so in St Paul. These guys were right on. Not only were they able to get to together and play their songs again, but they did it better than last time! They have obviously matured since 1984, but they've also become much better musicians. Stewart has always been on the top of his game and still is, what is really obvious is how much better of a bass player Sting has become. He adss more fills and there are a lot more nuances and punctuation to the musical phrases. And Andy shredded on his guitar far beyond what I would expect from a 64 year-old mostly-jazz player. There was certainly no lack of energy - these guys burned from the first note. This was not a Fragile/Fields-of-Gold-esque Sting, this was the Rock Star Sting. I can't wait for the DVD of this tour, this one's going to get played real loud!

The new arrangement of Truth Hits Everybody rocked much more than people have claimed. Don't Stand So Close to Me has been the most problematic song. Many people don't like the new arrangement, and Stewart has hinted at dropping it- apparently they can't get the new version to work well, and for some unknown reason they can't do they original arrangement. Nevertheless, it seemed to me this version worked just fine. It may have been the most low-key song out of the 19 song set, it was still well worth performing. The only noticeable mistakes were from Sting, who missed a line or two from King of Pain, and failed to project a few vocal notes. Otherwise, beside a few strange guitar harmonics, the show was flawless.

Personally I was disappointed that they have already dropped Spirits in the Material World, as this is one of the few songs I have not yet heard live. Why does Sting always do this? On both the 88 and 91 tours he started including Spirits but dropped it within a few shows. Technologically speaking I was not on for this show. I forgot the memory card for my camera, and if I hadn't I would have tried to video most of the show to document the stage lighting and image projections. As for my attempt at an audio recording, I am really out of practice (I quit after my failed attempt at Sting's 07.2000 show). Once again I screwed up -twice! Stupid pause button! So, I only ended up with half of the show, on what would have been my best recording ever. I really hope someone else out there distributes one.

Setlist: Message In a Bottle/ Synchronicity II / Walking on the Moon / Voices Inside My Head/ When the World is Running Down / Don't Stand So Close to Me / Driven to Tears / Truth Hits Everybody / The Bed's Too Big Without You / Every Little Thing She Does is Magic / Wrapped Around Your Finger / De Do Do Do De Da Da Da / Invisible Sun / Walking In Your Footsteps / Can't Stand Losing You / Roxanne / King Of Pain / So Lonely / Every Breath You take / Next To You

God Part II

Here's several hundred arguments for the existence of God. I think my favorite is the Velikovsky one.

The Soul Cages

One Little Victory - I finally found the video for The Soul Cages. Thanks to the incompetence of the media (MTV) and the recording industry (A&M - which never released this on home video), it took me over 16 years to finally see Sting's best video. I also found Games Without Frontiers, performed with Peter Gabriel at a charity concert on The Soul Cages tour. While I'm taking the time to "thank God for the internet", here's a link to a video by How We Live, Steve Hogarth's former band, and one I would consider to be the perfection of 80s pop.

Deal with the Dark Lord

Here's an article suggesting that the Star Wars universe is much better expressed in games than on film.

"[T]his epiphany began back in 1998, when Rogue Squadron came out on the Nintendo 64 -- a note-perfect evocation of in-flight combat. I played it nonstop for four months. Then every year or so, another superb Star Wars title came along to get me addicted, from Knights of the Old Republic to Jedi Starfighter to Battlefront. Each time, Lucas did a much better job of recapturing the original spirit of his universe"

Now, while I can see his point and agree with the premise, I don't concur that this is actually the case. The lineage of Star Wars games has not increased in quality. I'm not that familiar with Rogue Squadron, but from what I've seen it doesn't come near 1993's X-wing. X-wing and its sequels Tie Fighter and X-wing Alliance are probably the best space sims ever made, but there has been no advancement to the series since 1998. Imagine what could be done with the current level of processors and GPUs. Jedi Knight, and particularily its sequels Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy are some of the best first-person games I've ever played, but once again the last installment came out in 2003. KOTOR and KOTOR II just bored me, while the universe it created fascinated me, the playability did not. Give me first-person real time action game over a turn-based RPG any day. Both Battlefront and Republic Commando seemed like mindless shooters to me and I tired of them quickly. Galactic Battlegrounds is a good strategy game, for Age of Empires-like conquests in another galaxy, and I have yet to install Empire at War.

Every since the domination of console systems, PC games have seemed to be dumbed-down. All I'm asking for is a fully controllable space sim like X-wing. One set during the clone wars with flyable Eta-2s, Delta 7s, ARC-170s and V-Wings would seem like a worthwhile endeavor. Also, its time for a new saber-wielding Jedi title.

A similar thing has happened to the world of Flight simulators. With the exception of the Allied Force update to Falcon 4, there has been very few modern-jet sims since the 90s. The trend has been to make "simple" sims that are playable on console controllers.

Its time for game makers to utilize the technology thats available to make games that have better playability. Only then do I think the game world will rival that of film.

Consider Me Gone

On the passing of Jerry Falwell, I will only present a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"It's a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to, and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the 'faith-based'"

Somewhere Else

"Love her like you've never fallen
in love before
Fall out of love with her
So you can remember"


EASTER 2007: Somewhere Else is here. What can be said about the latest Marillion offering? While this is recognizably the band that brought us Marbles, it is (as usual) a completely new direction for Marillion. It is experimental and unconventional. This is more of a song-oriented record than a album-based record consisting of a continuing theme. At the same time, the songs don't really stand out as prominent individual pieces. They all blend together quite nicely, creating an atmospheric journey the transitions seamlessly from one track to another. There aren't many hooks, making the album as a whole not as easily accessible as it might be, there are no tracks like "You're Gone" to reach out and grab you. (*see note below). The closest track is "Most Toys". The first time I heard this I thought it was going to be very trite. At less than three minutes, it is an anomaly for Marillion; but more troublesome, the lyrics seem incomplete, as an intro verse should have been added. Nevertheless, the track is a catchy one.

Musically, Somewhere Else contains top notch performances. The bass and drums are solid. There is a lot of outstanding piano work, and perhaps most importantly there is a lot of Rothery's magical electric guitar. The style contains pieces of Anoraknophobia, .com, and musical phrases straight off of Brave and This Strange Engine. There is also a notable Beatles influence, both musically and lyrically, as there was on Marbles ("Don't Hurt Yourself"). What is lacking is the intensity of the "classic" Marillion era of Season's End and Holidays in Eden, where the bass was driving and the guitars screaming.

In terms of lyrics and song structure, this album continues Marillion's journey farther away from conventional structure into more abstract territories. There isn't much of a verse/chorus structure and many songs seem to be two completely separate sections put together, although there could be a thematic purpose for that,(The Other Half), (This is what prog is supposed to be right, so anyone who thinks Marillion is not progressive needs to take a listen to this. It's not Holidays in Eden!). The lyrics are also abstract and seem somewhat stream-of-consciousness. I'm not ready to comment on the lyrics for "Somewhere Else" yet. I thought "Hope for the Future" was esoteric! But H has really gone farther, I'm not sure if he is just getting more obscure, or if I'm just not getting it, or maybe there's nothing to get. I guess that's my homework assignment, and I'm sure like all good art it will become more and more meaningful as I experience it. In the tradition of U2, H's global awareness certainly shines through more than any other Marillion record. "The Wound" is a song about pain and ferns with imagery that reminds me of Sting's "Lazarus Heart":

He looked beneath his shirt today
There was a wound in his flesh so deep and wide
From the wound a lovely flower grew
From somewhere deep inside

While the songs have a high quality to them, it does seem that something is missing from the album as a whole. It reminds me of Peter Gabriel's Up, some good material, but really missing something. One or to really strong songs would really cement the work into a whole that feels finished. The Other Half, See it Like a Baby, Somewhere Else, No Such Thing and The Wound all seem like the core of a great album. Most Toys adds energy and in a more finished form could move to my "better half of the album" list.

So while I don't think the album as a whole lives up to the standards set by the Classic period, I also think this will be an essential piece of Marillion history, the music is simply too unique and too well crafted not to be. For myself this is a CD that can be put on repeat and I never feel inclined to hit stop.


*Just to set the record straight on Marbles: I've seen much criticism about "You're Gone", referring to bad pop and often accussing it of a cheese factor. Not only do I think it the best song of 2004 and the best Marillion track since This Strange Engine, I also think it may be one of their best songs ever. The intensity of the lyrics and the multiple guitar solo's are unsurpassed. I remember riding a bus across the UK the month Marbles came out, and leaving this song on constant repeat on my ipod. The emotional intensity in this song seemed to me to reflect the emotional depth that I felt from England as well.


". . .And your life took on a life of it's own. . ."

Once Upon a Daydream

Well, from the icy depths of Hell comes the most significant annoucement in the history of contemporary music: The Police are reforming for a 2007 World Tour after a 23 year absence. So far they have been elusive on the subject of new material.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

OK, so in my last post I made note of the "postmodern 21st century." Imagine my surprise to find out that I was completely wrong. Just when I thought I finally had a grasp on the postmodern age, catching up on my Derrida and Baudrillard (yeah, right), I have now learned that postmodernism is over!

Alan Kirby writes in the latest edition of Philosophy Now that "sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the emergence of new technologies re-structured, violently and forever, the nature of the author, the reader and the text, and the relationship between them." He proposes that we are now in the post-postmodern age, what he calls pseudo-modern. The significance of a work has now shifted from the author to the reader/viewer/listener. Because of technology we can now participate (although not necessarily interact) in the creation of content. Computer games, reality TV and the internet (certainly in the case of WEB 2.0 social networking sites) are all examples of this new type of cultural product. This "democratisation of culture" can be viewed as resulting in an" excruciating banality and vacuity of the cultural products thereby generated (at least so far.)" Because these products require cultural participation and involve electronic forms of communication that are by nature short-lived, they are of a timely nature. These works cannot be reproduced in the future without losing meaning and relevance. " A culture based on these things can have no memory. . . non reproducible and evanescent, pseudo-modernism is thus also amnesiac: these are cultural actions in the present moment with no sense of either past or future." " A triteness, a shallowness dominates all."

Interestingly Kirby traces the beginnings of pseudo-modernism back to the 70s and 80s, with one example being the beginning of pornography. This is an example of the viewer becoming the focus of the work rather than the producer, it creates "illusion of participation." In more recent history, the methods of obtaining music have changed. In the past a music work included a careful consideration of play order to complete an album. Now, we have the choice to purchase individual tracks through digital downloads and construct our own playlist orders on our iPods, imposing our own order and structure on the artists' works.

So, it would seem there was a a paradigm shift at roughly the start of the millenium. As someone who was born "before 1980"(slightly), I agree that the previous era was a "golden age of intelligence, creativity, rebellion, and authenticity." I'm not ready to concede that all cultural products will fall into the pseudo-modern form. I think there is still a need for concrete works found in novels and carefully produced films and music. I can also admire the intensity and creativity of pseudo-modern works, and I don't find them necessarily overly violent or pornographic. Kirby notes a tension between the "sophistication of technological means, and the vapidity or ignorance of the content conveyed on it." This new viewpoint explains to me the emptiness I've noticed in much content since 2000. However, as someone born close to the divide, I can also appreciate this technology and the endless possibility of content that it can provide. We have freedom and choice. DVRs, netcasting, and portable media players,as well as new forms of media distribution such as Youtube, have provided unprecedented access and convenience. (Not to mention the occasional use of torrents to collect missed episodes of programs).


I'll throw in an early vote for best psuedo-modern work and rate The Office number one so far.

You Bet Your Life

Last movie viewed: A Scanner Darkly

This movie gets my vote for best film of 2006. Besides the stunning visual depictions, the story itself was one that deserved to be on film. It is perhaps the best existential tale in recent history and one that is certainly timely in the postmodern 21st Cenutry.

Bob Arctor is not unlike Sartre's Roquentin, who finds contempt in ordinary things and finally reaches a state of pure nausea when he sees the being of existence itself. Arctor, in a moment of clarity, finds himself alienated from his own life, unable to fit into traditional society. But his rejection of its does not alieviate the dread and despair.

"The Pain, so unexpected and undeserved had for some reason cleared away the cobwebs . I realized I didn't hate the cabinet door, I hated my life, my house, my family, my backyard, my power mower. Nothing would ever change, nothing new could ever be expected. It had to end, and it did. Now in the dark world where I dwell ugly things and surprising things and sometimes little wondrous things spill out at me constantly and I can count on nothing."

"What does a scanner see? Into the head? Down into the heart? Does it see into me, into us? Clearly or darkly? I hope it sees clearly, because I can't any longer see into myself. I see only murk. I hope for everyone's sake the scanners do better. Because if the scanner sees only darkly the way I do then I'm cursed and cursed again. And we'll only wind up dead this way, knowing very little and getting that fragment wrong too."

I'm reminded of the discussion of Zen in Robert Pirsig's Lila: "Zen hell is the world right here and now, in which you see life around you but can't participate in it. You're forever a stranger in your own life . . . You split into two people, who they think you are, and who you really are , and that produces the Zen hell." Like the famous people discussed in this Zen truth, Arctor becomes two people, the one being watched and the one watching himself.

Having become an object to himself, he is unable to see the transcendence of his being. Unaware of who he is, Arctor is not able to understand the facticity of his life, and this inability to take responsibility for it only increases the sense of despair.

One of These Days. . .

"This raises the question whether it is better to be loved or feared, or the reverse. The answer is, that one would like to be both; but since it is difficult to combine the two, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to choose. For it can be said of mankind generally, that they are ungrateful, inconstant, pretenderes to virtue and concealers of vice, avoiders of danger and lovers of gain; as long as you help them they are all yours, and will offer you their blood, their property, their lives, and their children. . . provided that the crisis is a long way off; when it comes closer, they soon turn their backs on you. "
- Machiavelli

My new Deep Thought

I finally finished my new machine - one that brings me into the current generation of technology.

Directron Hydraulic case -Intel Motherboard/ DDR 667 MHZ RAM - Pentium D 3.40 GHZ Dual Processor - Geforce 6800GS 512 MB PCI-E Video Card - Soundblaster Audigy 2 Sound Card
Hitachi SATA 3.0 Hard Disk
Lite-On DVD-R
Sunbeam 20-in-1 Card Reader and Fan Control


Now its time to install Vista Rc1 for evaluation as well as Linux - probably Ubuntu.

The point of the journey is not to arrive

Here is a quote I found while reading a review of Marillion's Radiation:

The oblique "Cathedral Wall" visits one of the great romantic dilemmas, that unattainability is essential to sustaining a quest, and yet also the reason the quest can never end successfully (a Grail in hand is not the embodiment of triumph, it's an insurance headache waiting to happen)

I think it nicely sums up life, art, and the continuing epic that is Marillion's music.

Last CD purchase: Marillion - Smoke & Mirrors

Immortal Bunnies

Here's an abridged version of Highlander (30 seconds, and its acted by bunnies). Almost as good as the Fifteen Minute Hamlet.

The Truth is a Moving Target

Things Change. Times Change. It happened in 6th century Britannia when the Pagans and Christians clashed, and its happening now in a new "culture war", and in Bill O'reilly's world "IT'S BAD, REAL BAD". Unlike Letterman, I actually watch Bill and for a long time I've though that he's often misguided, al least when he's not plain wrong. But, now I think he's completely lost it. The world of FOX NEWS is to my best estimation some kind of "parallel universe", as the economy is GREAT, and the war on terror has almost been won by the omnipotent and omni-benevolent President (if only the loons on the left would let us win). The only problem left for America to overcome is apparently much worse than Bin Laden, are the Secular Progressives. Fortunately Bill and his T-warriors are here to restore Traditionalism and save us from ourselves. Bill is convinced the Traditionalist will win. Given that the average age of Factor viewers is 70, obviously his cheerleaders would be resistant to change, preferring traditional views that those of us that actually live in society might not agree with. But that age group isn’t going to be around long, and as a new generation with different ideals continues to grow those members of the previous generation will have to adapt to these new ideals. It is the nature of things. Being a progressive is not a bad thing. It is easy to be a traditionalist when you’re rich and your biggest concern is the redistribution of wealth, which I think is Bill’s real concern.

Currently at the top of his Culture War list are horror movies. Brilliantly, he picked Halloween to attack horror movies and the evils of "the Splat Pack". His guests included someone from Newsmax (an organization less reputable than Fox) and some psychotherapist that believed that everyone that goes to see horror movies has some homicidal maniac seething inside them, ready to come out slashing at any point- a very fair and balanced debate! Now, one of Bills emphasizes is responsibility and coming from an existential viewpoint, I can agree with that. But Bill doesn't think that the movie viewers are the ones who should be responsible- he thinks it’s the movie industry. As the piece pointed out movies like Saw make 100 million dollars, so obviously the public is demanding such films, and fortunately the people that don't like such things don't have to pay $9 to go see it. Apparently it the insulated cloisters of Fox News no one is going to see "Saw 3", which makes me very suspicious of the people who work there. I haven't seen any of the Saw movies and I hadn't really planned to but everywhere I go I know people who have seen it. So isn't this the same old, tiresome, empty, worn-out rhetoric that we've heard for Twenty years. Movies, Rock music, and video games turn people into raving blood-thirsty killers. Left unchecked, there will be hordes of hooligans swarming the streets and abducting every citizen in order to torture them in unspeakable ways. This kind of content must be the cause of an ultra-violent society, it couldn't possibly be a symptom of a society in which people live in poor economic conditions, have a pro-violent government, and are told what to think and what to buy in order to promote the economy that works against them. Please! I've had enough of this! If you don’t want to see it, then don’t. If you’re worried about social well-being, then teach personal responsibility and quit trying to censor content providers that provide the entertainment that many of us want. I’ve had enough of this Judeo-Christian value crap. If Bill’s Traditionalists do win this war, I may have to paint myself blue and storm the Empire’s legions.

Next stop: Netflix. Its time to put Saw I and II into my queue and then I'm off to the ernomo-omni-multiplex to see Saw III. Thanks for the motivation Bill!
Oh, and by the way, if you want to seem respectable and “above personal attacks” quit calling Al Franken “Stuart Smalley”. Everytime you do that I just want walk into the studio and bitch slap you.

Killing an Arab

So, it seems G.W., literary expert that he is , has now read Camus' The Stranger (as well as three Shakespeares!). Of Course, by the time he was interviewed about it, he had already read several more books - presumably Curious George goes Quantity Surveying and its intriguing sequels. I'm glad he has so much time to read, between ranch life and golfing and blaming his problems on the 90s. Hopefully he won't fall into the trap of becoming an existentialist (I'd have to switch to conservative facist), but he may find himself living as an existential anti-hero.

Mighty Wings

The Final F-14 Flight took place today, with the last Tomcat delivery to AMARC. The 9 remaining airframes will all be delived to museums. I think that calls for a viewing of Top Gun tonight in full 6.1 sound. [Cue Cheap Trick]

How to talk to a complete nutball (if you must)

I was going to rant about a certain conservative bitch's latest publicity stunt, but she has already received too much attention as it is . All I can say is that I hope she's the first to die in the next terrorist attack. Oh, was that insensitive and childish? I must be unintentionally learning from her tactics.

Oh Yeah!

People like Laura Ingraham and Tony and Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, they understand what's going on in the real world
-Senator George Allen

Where can I get the flavor of Kool Aid that this guy drinks?

Teen Angst

This weekend is the final performance of Hamlet at the Guthrie theater, which is the final production at the current location. Set in a vaguely 1940's time period,Dowling's vision should lend itself to a rather existential version, after all Hamlet is a "metaphor for the project of human existence." However, this version seemed neither existential nor Freudian. Hamlet is portrayed by the 23 year old Santino Fontana, giving this portrayal a very youthful indecisiveness, perhaps less contemplative and with a bit more genuine madness. Here Hamlet is more motivated by rebellion and misanthrophy, than by a search for authenticity. While I appreciate the efforts of creating a modern Hamlet, and I can even stomach the Ethan Hawke version, I still prefer a classic Medieval approach

21st Century Monsters

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.


Continuing trends in recent events call to mind the quote from Nietzsche. We spent the 20th Century figting monters of Facism through World War II and the Cold War. Hopefully, we have taken care