Eras, Ages and the Fear of the Future

At the End of an Age @ Amazon.com
At the End of an Age @ Yale University Press
John Lukacs @ Wikipedia

I bought this book a while ago on a whim and only just now have read it. More historiographical in nature, Lukacs, writing at the end of the millennium, argues that we are witnessing the end of the Modern Age. Just for a point of reference, the Modern Age is said to have begun throughout the 15th century, thus making this age five hundred years old. The purpose behind dividing the Modern Age from the medieval period that preceded it is to highlight the dramatic shift in thinking that occurred during the 15th century. Of course, this terminology of Modern and medieval mark the perspective of the book as a distinctly Western one. Lukacs acknowledges this, but considers his audience a Western one and thus does not make a convoluted attempt to fit the rest of world history into the framework of Western history.
That framework is of particular importance to Lukacs, since it is his contention that our historical consciousness is changing, just as it did at the beginning of the Modern Age. But the change Lukacs focuses on is not the mere fact of having a historical consciousness, which marked the Modern Age, but that our historical consciousness is evolving into a relative one--one that depends on taking the perspective of past historical actors and viewing their future as still undecided.
More importantly, Lukacs argues that the Modern Age is ending as we have slowly realized that the hard sciences too have a relativistic perspective. In other words, that the questions and answers of past scientists depend just as much on their historical context as they do the scientific method. Werner Heisenberg figures prominantly in Lukacs' argument as it was Heisenberg who first formulated a theory that the observer and the observed are inseperable. The Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle was a product of recognizing that observing sub-atomic particles affects how those particles act. To put it simply, we can either know the position of a sub-atomic particle with a great certainty or we can know where the particle is going, but not both.
Leaving the science aside, Lukacs is more concerned with the metaphysical implications of Heisenberg. Lukacs' argument rests on that melding of the mental and material worlds as he believes since we cannot fully separate ourselves from our subjects for observation, we must recognize the limitations of Science to provide us with eternal truths and laws. Moreover, Lukacs argues that we must accept the primacy of the mind over matter, that while the universe may exist without us, the universe as we understand it depends on our historical consciousness and context.
I don't buy most of Lukacs' argument. I think he places too great an emphasis on the mind when arguing that the Universe is a product of our minds. For one, it reminds me too much of the Idealism of Berkeley. For another, I think it places to great a distance between the physical world and the mental world. His attempt to join the two together results more in a metaphysics of science versus a synthesis of the material and the mental. In part, I believe Lukacs' position derives too much from his Catholicism. To Lukacs, we are the center of the universe since our minds are what make up the universe. Strangely, this does avoid an anthropic view of the universe in a way. At the same time, it serves to reinforce the idea in the reader that Lukacs believes more in the Creation than in the idea of a universe springing into existence that just happens to have a planet to develop intelligent life. This idea is reaffirmed in Lukacs' position that history begins with civilization, or rather, that there is no 'pre' history.
Where I think Lukacs goes wrong is in his definition of the 20th century. He marks the beginning of the 20th century at the start of the Great War in 1914 and the end in 1989 as Communism fell. By focusing the majority of this period Lukacs ends up re-fighting the old battles between the Subjectivists and the Objectivists--a battle that I do not think needs another skirmish. But more than fighting old battles, I think Lukacs' narrow demarcation of the 20th century misses a great deal of the ideas and questions that informed the 20th century and only now are being asked again. The period of Western history from 1870 to 1945 is of greater importance to the 20th century than that of 1914-1989. While the 19th century is considered a long one, from 1789 to 1914, there are distinct sections in its intellectual history that had an immense impact on how the 20th century started. The fight between the positivist and the anti-positivists (or romantics if you like) was reaching a conclusion in the 1890s but was placed in a temporary stasis during the Great War, only to re-emerge in a slightly twisted version during the 20s and 30s.
World War II put an end to the questions of the fin-de-siécle and left Europe in a brief intellectual wilderness out of which emerged the Objectivist and Subjectivist veins of literary theory and sociological study. Part of that division in theory was based on politics. The New Left and the rise of the neo-conservative during the 50s and 60s resulted in some ridiculous intellectual battles during the 70s and 80s. It was only after the fall of Communism that the West was able to resume its questioning of what Modernity means and how morality, the mind and existence fit in with this new and rapidly changing way of life.
Unfortunately, Lukacs ignores most of this part of the West's intellectual heritage. I find it even more unfortunate considering the rise of the cyberpunk genre of literature, television and film. I do believe that we are in a transitory period, but whether that is from one age to another or simply part of a larger extension of the Modern Age I cannot say. The concern with how the mind interacts with the material world is a valid concern. Thousands of questions remain, in philosophy alone, over how the mental and the physical interact. And with the integration of the Internet into our lifestyles and the implications that brings with it will only increase the urgency of these questions. It is the existence of cyberpunk that leads me away from the conclusions of Lukacs. There is something new and different on the way, that much I can say. But what it is and how it will shape the mind of the West and the rest of the world is that big unknown, an unknown that Lukacs seems to fear.

Ways to Piss Me Off

Imagine - Ezra Klein @ The American Prospect

Klein has an amazing ability to piss me off about just the wrong kind of things to piss me off about. What makes matters worse is that he pisses me off about things that Matt Yglesias would recognize in a different and generally more correct way. In this instance, Klein attempts to take Yglesias to task in the third paragraph for saying that one could imagine Sen. Obama's ability to persuade as a useful tool to pass legislation. This, coming after a paragraph where Klein once again knocks Sen. Obama for not having a mandated health-care plan. It's the same problem I have with some of Sen. Obama's more fanatical supporters and some of Sen. Clinton's more fanatical supporters. The constant citation of Sen. Obama's oratory skill, either as a way of dismissing what Sen. Obama has to say or to show that he is covering a timid kind of politics, misses the fact that Sen. Obama is still a politician. He's not the Messiah for Christ-sake so stop treating him like one. That he has garnered unheard-of support from the youth of the Democratic party is something that Democrats should shout from the roof-tops, not bash as some sort of bait-and-switch technique. Even so, he is a politician and a pragmatic one at that. What Klein calls timid is more of a sign of Sen. Obama's ability to make the first steps in a good direction without overreaching too early.
One of the main problems I have with a great deal of politician's promises is that they offer too much without talking about how they might get these proposals passed. Presidents have a great deal of power in terms of what the nation talks about but they cannot, unless they act like President Bush has, ramrod policies down the throats of Congress. That Sen. Obama is promoting himself as a different kind of politician doesn't deny him being a politician, just one that's not going to offer you the sky and the moon to get elected. His policy positions are starting points, not end point, which is where I get so infuriated with political promises because when these end-step kind of policies are bandied about no one talks about how the policy will make it through Congress in any form similar to the one originally offered. Sen. Obama instead, has the guts to actually make policy proposals that those of other parties can get behind without making it seem like they are betraying their party. To call it 'timid' is to misunderstand the appeal of Sen. Obama in terms of policy. He gets enough of the legislative process to know how laws are passed and knows not to offer something that has a good chance of crashing and burning on the floors of Congress.

Euthanasia

I had a headache. It was cold, wet, a February day like the one my grandmother was buried on. Kit was waiting in the windows, in her normal spaced-out observation stance. The big cat loves to watch slowly. It felt like a fellow inmate waiting to announce the arrival of the priest. It was another forty minutes until the appointment. Forty minutes of existence. My headache was still there. Some sort of dull throbbing in the front of my skull. Amelia was hungry. She announced it loudly. Would you feed a condemned cat? But I fed her and she ate. I had sat with her for a while the night before. She crouched down and kept her eyes low, or rather, eye. Mishu waited on the bed, interested but amazingly restraining herself from investigating. I went back to my room and sat on the couch.
"Have you said goodbye yet?" Guilt and sadness was in my stomach. I couldn't think, let alone of anything to do, only about the time to come. Finally I went to find Amelia. She had crawled back to her spot on the cable box. My head still hurt. I sat and watched and gently scratched her head. I felt worse when the purr came out in a wheeze. Her eye was low again, her head floating from side to side. I shared ten minutes like this.
The box was full of old dvds meant for sale. No better dignity was available. The cat carrier had gone. It was in the hands of a friend for a cat Amelia was soon to meet. Her body was worn away. "Sweet thing, you've got nothing left." I left an old towel in the box. Nothing but the best for the old and sick. Gently picking her up I placed her in the box. Amelia looked around and then directly at me. That accusatory eye. The headache was there still. I carried the light box to my car and sat it in the front seat. It was raining again.
I sat down, started the engine and tried my best to ignore her looking at me. The yowling wasn't bad. I was used to it. The yowling came with the age. The quiet mews didn't. The quiet mews I wasn't used to. I drove slowly but not slow. Amelia was agitated. I drove part of the way to work, or the way I would have driven. Windshield wipers running, faster cars kicking up spray. I arrived at the appointed time. My head wouldn't stop hurting. I couldn't stop saying goodbye but the words never left my mouth.
Amelia took it well, the cold and the rain. A helpful woman opened the door for me. Her sad aw's were not helpful. I stood there, at the counter, Amelia resting beside me in the box, while papers were signed, information produced and recorded and twenty minutes of a cat's life was extended. Finally, I paid my money and signed away a cat I have known longer than any friend. Two women went to lunch. Another complained about the malfunctioning bulb. The woman helping me was too quiet to converse with. And then a woman I hadn't seen before came in and ask if this old lady of a cat was Amelia, information received. In the middle of taking the receipt and papers for records the informed woman asked, "Have you said goodbye yet?"
I did, laid my hand on the back of her head one last time and then walked away. Amelia never looked up, never knew what the signatures were for, or the box and towel, the cold and the rain. She never saw me leave. She's dead now, off to meet the friend's cat who got a more respectful trip to that building and those lands. I took my guilt and headache home, perfectly alive.

Texas Primary Primer, Pt. 2

One thing I forgot to mention when talking about primary elections in Texas. No one in Texas is registered as either a Democrat or a Republican. You are only affiliated with a party when you vote in a primary election and that affiliation only lasts for the rest of that year you voted. In other words, if you vote in the Republican Texas primary in 2008 then you are affiliated with the Republican party for the rest of 2008. That affiliation ends when the calendar year ends. What the affiliation means is that once you have declared your affiliation you cannot vote in another party's primary, run-off election or any other party-affiliated function. If you vote in the Democrat primary then you cannot vote in a Republican run-off contest later that year. In addition, you cannot sign a petition to put someone not of your affiliated party on the ballot.
Now for a general election, like the one this coming November, you can vote for whoever you choose, no matter the party. So what party affiliation means is that you can participate in your affiliated party's actions but not in another party's actions. This also means that even if you are a life-long Republican or Democrat you can decide to vote in another party's primary if you haven't already voted in your party's primary.

A Moment of Zen

Frisbee Fail - the Fail Blog

I need to decompress more often.

The Texas Primary Primer

The Texas Inferno--Why it Helps Obama - Publius @ Obsidian Wings
Everything You Needed to Know About the Texas Delegation Process, Pt. 1 - Philip Martin, Burnt Orange Report
There's No Such Thing as the Texas Primary, Part II: Delegate Projections - MattTX, Texans for Obama
Texas Hold'em - Christopher Orr, The Plank

Here I've collected a series of primers on the Texas primary election this coming March. The pundits have taken to calling it a 'primacaucus': one part primary and one part caucus. At stake are 193 pledged delegates along with another 35 super-delegates. The primary election itself--the normal, ballot casting part of the election--accounts for a 126 delegates. That part is simple enough. But the rest of the pledged delegates are decided by a caucus system that starts right after the primary polls are closed. Candidate loyalists are the ones who will typically stick it out to this point. Precinct caucuses are held and then the fun begins. From the precinct, delegates are sent to the county convention, from county convention to state convention and then finally to the national convention in Denver.
There are 67 of these caucus-decided delegates and that part of the system favors the candidate who has the best ground-game and grassroots organization. So, while there are 193 pledged delegates in total at play in Texas, only the 126 primary-elected delegates are decided on the night of March 4. The final tally doesn't occur until some time in June. So those who simply want to cast their ballot can do so throughout the day of March 4th but those who wish to participate in the caucus as well must cast a ballot in the primary and then wait until the polls close. The common wisdom currently being tossed about, as you can see in some of the sites I've linked to, is that the Texas primary, while thought of as a firewall state by the Clinton campaign, isn't a state one can lock up so easily. Convoluted it may be, but it seems to me that the Texas primary offers one of the better ways of granting a voice to the people in both a popular vote and a more elitist caucus vote.
I hope this helps to of you who are going to vote in the Texas primacaucus next month. I don't know if I will participate in the caucus part of the election but I certainly will cast a ballot in the primary. I have the feeling though that my whole family will be there for the caucus.

Obama Comes to Texas

Ha! Just saw an ad for Sen. Obama running during the commercials for the mid-day news. He's already advertising in this state and the primary is still weeks away.

Texas Primary Primer Coming Soon to a Blog Near You

I'm working on a primer for the Texas primary on March 4th. There have been some good posts up talking about it since the Clinton campaign has seemingly settled on the idea that Texas is a firewall state for them. The whole thing looks a mess but I'll have something up tonight with links for those here in the state who are interested.

Review: Made in the Dark

It's been about a week since Hot Chip dropped their new album Made in the Dark and I've had enough time to absorb the album for a proper review. The money shot on the album is that, while not like their previous effort this album lacks the truly amazing songs Hot Chip is capable of. On the other hand, it also lacks the songs that made it an album you had to occasionally skip tracks on. Instead, Made in the Dark is a solid album, playable from beginning to end. The album is front-loaded with the known songs with Shake a Fist and Ready for the Floor falling in the second and third spots respectively. Yet this is not necessarily a draw-back as you are left with another ten tracks of quality music that fit together like an album. In particular are the trio of tracks set in the middle of the album--Made in the Dark, One Pure Thought, Hold On--show the range of Hot Chips abilities. Even though Pitchfork wasn't enamored with the album for it's lack of distinctive hits and seeming continuation of their genre-splicing style without any forward movement.
Of course, I have to offer my disagreement. I don't believe in bands having some grand scheme in the way they release albums (except for Radiohead, who passed from this realm sometime in 1996 and came back superheroes). But I do believe that some albums are necessary in the career of a band. Where their slew of remixes and brilliant second album brought them hits and fame, this, their third album, shows the limits of their genre-jumping. The album the Pitchfork staff label as flawed but likable is probably the last of its kind for Hot Chip.
It goes without saying their production values are top-notch, but I think they will need in the future a producer who curtails some of their more self-conscious, fourth-wall breaking moments. The risk though, is that some of the fun will fall out of Hot Chip's style, but we won't know that until they ready their next album. I don't want them to become too serious. But considering their style thus far, I don't think that's too great of a risk. Either way, I do get the feeling that their next album will surpass The Warning in brilliance while maintain their album wide listenability.

The Waste Land

Ghostland Observatory @ MySpace

I've forgotten to do this enough so I'm posting about Austin act Ghostland Observatory. I've tried very hard not to like these guys, my natural tendency is to recoil from anything with any kind of hype. But their mix of glitchy electronics and spastic vocals have gotten to me, enough so that I'm actually anxious for their next album Robotique Magistique to drop at the end of the month. But for the moment I have to settle with three tracks from the forthcoming album. Check it.

Monday Roundup - Flailing Campaigns and Driven Individuals

The Big States - Matt Yglesias
Obama and the Details - Matt Yglesias
Quakes in Hillaryland - Marc Ambinder
More News About the Democrats - hilzoy @ Obsidian Wings
Stop the Thief! - Editorial Board, The New Republic

Rounding up the Monday morning posts on this past weekend's elections in the Democratic field we have Yglesias talking about Sen. Obama's policy substance and the reaction of the Clinton campaign to Sen. Obama's latest wins, also at the Atlantic is Marc Ambinder writing on the shake up in the Clinton campaign staff while Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings asks a few questions, and finally we have an editorial from the New Republic arguing against the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida without going through a proper primary process.
First, the Yglesias posts. He tackles the anti-Obama meme that he lacks substance head on. Yglesias argues that, if anything, Sen. Obama has more legislative and policy experience than Sen. Clinton due in part to his time as an Illinois state senator and his stint as a professor at the University of Chicago's Law School. Moreover, Sen. Obama has filled his campaign staff with smart people, the kind of people who wouldn't put up with anything less than a great candidate. All of this is to say that the meme that somehow, since Sen. Obama is charismatic he must, ergo, lack policy substance while Sen. Clinton's lack of charisma equates to a serious degree of policy substance. Of course, Yglesias does point out that former President Clinton had both.
Also, Yglesias notes the habit of the Clinton campaign of dismissing any wins by Sen. Obama, finding fault with each of his wins thus claiming that Sen. Clinton has faced unfavorable odds in the states Sen. Obama won. Hilzoy echoes this idea in the first part of her post on the Democrats by pointing to the absurdly high turnout for a state that generally doesn't turn out. The point is that Democrats are turning out in unexpected numbers in unexpected states, or not so unexpected by the Obama campaign as both Hilzoy and Ambinder go on to discuss.
What both Ambinder and Hilzoy look at is the sudden fracturing of the Clinton campaign under the stress of a nomination of attrition. The self-loan of five million dollars to her campaign along with the sudden replacement of her campaign manager has people wondering what exactly is going on with Sen. Clinton. Hilzoy suspects that the campaign expected to have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday and were left scrambling when Super Tuesday ended the same way it started. Ambinder comes to the same conclusion that the Clinton campaign did not expect to have a continuing fight after Super Tuesday and credits that to the "superior effort" by the Obama campaign. Going through the points, Ambinder lists the failure of the Clinton campaign to meet its financing goals, its expected lead in the popular vote and its lack of substantial victories have exhausted the entire campaign staff.
What I think this points to is an inability of the Clinton campaign to adapt and adapt quickly to changing events on the groups. The more Sen. Obama speaks to more crowds, the better his numbers look, even if they don't push him past Sen. Clinton. Along with this is Sen. Obama's ground game of crafting motivated and knowledgeable campaigners in the states he needs votes. By working from the idea that he does not have a 'base' to rely on, Sen. Obama has repeatedly built grassroots state campaign staffs drawn from a wide range of voters and supporters. In assuming that he does not have a core base, Sen. Obama recognizes the need for such intensive and exhaustive grassroots efforts. While this may show in his speeches (particularly the Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech where he looked very tired) it creates that base he can rely on again when the general election comes.
Essentially, as Ambinder and Hilzoy have concluded, Sen. Obama planned for a long game while Sen. Clinton did not. That basic difference in campaign strategies shows in the delegate numbers and the voter turnouts. It also shows in campaign contributions and the strengths of their respective staffs. Sen. Obama has planned this to run all the way to the convention while Sen. Clinton must reorganize in the middle of her campaign to shift to a long game strategy. This will mean further losses for her for the next month and a potential big loss on March 4th when Ohio and Texas come up on the primary calendar. Hence the reason why Sen. Clinton is urging the DNC to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, something the staff at the New Republic view as an attempt to steal the campaign away from Sen. Obama through a very underhanded tactic. The TNR staff is right though in saying that the DNC needs to resolve this issue as soon as possible, either by restating their original position of not seating these delegates or holding new primaries that Sen. Obama can actually participate in.

Political Flame Wars

Hillary Top Staff Being Reshuffled - TPM

It's not the article itself that I'm directing you to so much as the comments section. It is but a mere drop in the bucket of the bickering going on between the Obama crowd and the Clinton crowd. What I find so interesting about these near-flame wars is that they are, on average, started by the Clinton supporters. For this comment thread in particular it's terribly amusing that some Clinton supporters have accused TPM of acting as a surrogate Obama campaign site when Josh Marshall has already stated his preference for Sen. Clinton. It's a strange that these supporters seem to strike their loyalty more for Sen. Clinton than for their party. They even have subsumed a phrase from the right-wing blogs, turning 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' into 'Hillary Derangement Syndrome.' So for those who show even a sign of support for Sen. Obama they are labeled as having HDS or some kind of misogynistic attitude toward Sen. Clinton. Even Sen. Obama himself has noted this resistance in his latest speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday, noting that he was labeled as nothing more than a 'hopemonger'. While I do support Sen. Obama I have struggled to maintain a proper level of rationality about the campaign, particularly when he speaks. His rhetoric is excellent but at the same time I have to remember that not all of his policies I agree with, or at the very least the way he would go about enacting them. Even so, I still believe he has a better chance at changing things that any other candidate in the field. But all that aside, the sentiments of Sen. Clinton's supporters as represented by their online voice is actually a little frightening. I find it similar to the way many Bush supporters have acted to any criticism of him. That's what I find frightening.

Yelling "Fire!" in a Crowded Chat Room

First Amendment Ruling Protects Internet Trolls - Slashdot
Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia - Slashdot
Spies' Battleground Turns Virtual - Robert O'Harrow Jr., Washington Post

I've long held the belief that one should use their real name, or at least a consistent online name, when leaving comments on message boards or comment pages. I think if you are going to say something on the interwebs then you should stand behind it with the reputation of your name. At the same time though, I don't think forcing everyone to use a consistent name or their real name is right. Anonymity is a good thing, even if it is sometimes more of a necessary evil than a help in online discussions. So naturally I support the court ruling in favor of allowing comment trolls to maintain their anonymity. Message boards and comment threads need such openness. It allows the poster to speak their mind, or derail a thread, without fear or reprisal. More importantly, allowing anonymity as a general rule for message boards and comments allows the moderators of various boards to maintain their own set of rules for what is objectionable content. Some can use a scorched earth policy of no foul language or troll-like behavior, others can require that you use your real name or some can leave it open and intervene only when a certain thread becomes too heated.
The free-speech issue is important to online discussions. It's also important for sites like the Wikipedia as it prevents the exclusion of ideas or images that some may find objectionable. While the Wikipedia is prone to hit jobs by politicians, interest groups and corporations among others, it does a fairly decent job of maintaining a sense of neutrality in its articles and allows for discussion of what is acceptable in an article or not. The Muslim groups criticizing the Wikipedia for refusing to pull images of Muhammad do have a point from their perspective but the purpose of the Wikipedia is not to cater to anything but those in search of information and knowledge. It would not do well for Wikipedia's reputation to pull information due to one groups' complaints.
At the same time (and this is where the necessary evil part truly lives up to its name) the anonymity of the interwebs can aide criminals and terrorists in conducting their business. While the idea of terrorist groups using online sites likes Second Life as a means of planning and plotting seems far-fetched, it isn't inconceivable. But I continue to hold to the idea that anonymity and the use of online names or avatars is right and proper for any web site. Now of course, just as one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded room, there are instances where speech is not protected. Criminals who use online anonymity to further their interests are obviously cases where breaching that anonymity is necessary. Even so, judicial oversight in those cases is necessary as well. We should all have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our online identities. Free speech isn't free without that benefit. Thus, while law enforcement groups may contact web admins, board moderators and ISPs for information, these groups must have the recourse of the courts to preserve the rights of their users.
So, for a brief recap: online speech is free speech; I will use my real name when making comments; I will allow anonymous comments on my blog (although I will call you an Anonymous Coward, ala Slashdot); and, while a potential threat, admins and ISPs must maintain their customers' anonymity as much as possible.

Everything is a Story

Which Book Should Neil Gaiman Put Online for Free? - Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing
The Birthday Thing - Neil Gaiman

I love ideas like this, particularly when they come from excellent authors. Neil Gaiman (of The Sandman fame if you didn't know, you heathen) has gotten permission to put one of his novels online in its entirety. My preference is for American Gods but that might come off as a little too intense for some so I'm voting for Neverwhere, one of his early novels with all of the elements of a typical Gaiman story but nothing too overwhelming. If you haven't read anything by Gaiman yet then that's an excellent place to start. With American Gods one should really read The Sandman series first, but it's not an absolute necessity. Also, if you want a taste of Gaiman but are too lazy to read, then go rent Mirrormask. The movie was directed by Gaiman's friend and incredible artist Dave McKean and Gaiman provided the script. It has a kid's movie feel to it but enough adult themes and intelligence that you won't feel insulted by it. Besides, it's a great movie anyway.

Wittgenstein at His Best

Ultra-minimalist political flyer, Los Angeles - Xeni Jardin @ BoingBoing

This is probably one of the most perfect examples of how Wittgenstein's language-game works. We know who she is and which war we are talking about because of sheer context alone. It's a thing of beauty.

Let the Tears Begin

Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut - The Swamp

Oh for the love of God. If Sen. Obama teared up at an event the press would be all over him for showing weakness. But God forbid anyone criticize a woman for crying during a political campaign. I want a president who shows their emotions by doing something, not just standing there and crying. This is pathetic.

Depressed Soldier Better Fighters?

Will We Drug Soldier to Make Them Depressed? - Annalee Newitz @ io9

Some of you might remember this photograph from early in the Iraq war of a soldier taking a break after a long night of fighting. I remember reading an article (note: this is not the original article I read, but you'll get the gist of it) nearly a year later about this soldier, Blake Miller, who suffers from severe PTSD. It's soldiers like this that make me proud of our armed forces, but at the same time make me wonder about the stresses we as a country put them through without serious thought or care. Miller became a poster-boy for the Iraq war and now he sees Iraqis he killed walking down the street and can't seem to get over the edginess his time in the war has ingrained in him. The toll that it has taken, his wife divorced him in 2006, is something I never want to hear about from returning soldiers. My cousin-in-law, Marine of nearly fifteen years, came back from Iraq with a Purple Heart he doesn't talk about and even now he knows he will have to return to Iraq at some point in the future.
So now, via the folks at io9, I hear that depressing soldier might have beneficial effects on their ability to take on highly dangerous situations. A report Newitz has found claims that giving soldiers serotonin inhibitors would produce soldiers more likely to take risks that otherwise non-depressed soldiers wouldn't. For those of you fortunate enough not to have needed anti-depressants let me explain what serotoin and serotoin-related drugs do. Your standard SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) is a common anti-depressant that improves your mood by keeping more serotonin in the body. It's loosely similar to the effects of MDMA, or ecstacy, in that the more serotonin you have in the body the better you feel. By introducing a drug that inhibits the release of serotonin you are intentionally producing a depressing effect.
This kind of thinking sickens me. At a time when we have seen twice the number of Iraq veterans take their own lives than were killed in combat we have government reports suggesting that we should depress our soldiers even further? What unholy insanity is this?

Step 4: Profit!

Eureka! It Really Takes Years of Hard Work - Janet Rae-Dupree @ NYT
Image Courtesy of Margaret Riegel

I came across this NYT article through Slashdot and was immediately intrigued by its subject. In philosophy there's always the issue of the 'black box' in a theory, a phrase pulled from the engineering fields I believe (a black box is a section in a theory or schematic where input goes in and out comes the desired result, but no explanation is given for what occurs within the box. Typically a black box in a theory or blueprint is its the deathknell). So Janet Rae-Dupree's article on modern inventors debunking the idea that a 'eureka' moment is what propells innovation has a certain attraction for me. Not that I believe all innovation is simply hard work, I just believe that innovation does not always require a leap in logic from nascent idea to finished product. Nikola Tesla is a rather good example of someone who could take those leaps of logic consistantly, but then again he also hallucinated a lot.
Where I do think that a eureka moment happens is when someone takes a problem or an existing product and sees clear potentials or solutions. The problem with the eureka moment isn't that it's so rare but that going from point A to eureka point Q takes a lot more than inspiration. History is filled with happenstance and chance--Napoleon falling ill before Waterloo, the failure to wake Hitler on the morning of D-Day, the WTC towers falling instead of just burning--and through those chance moments history is driven in a slightly different direction. So one must always remain open to lucky chances, to the eureka moments. Even then, the eureka moment does not instantly produce a solution or a radical new invention. The eureka moment is merely the starting point for the hard labor it takes to reach the eureka solution.
What many people forget is all the hard work that it takes to reach the eureka solution. There's a running joke on the Slashdot message boards where you have: a) a great idea; b) some money and support; c)???; and then d) profit! It's step c, those question marks, that separate those who make a successful product or a radical new theory versus those who merely have ideas that never come to fruition. No matter how good the idea or the potentially radical changes said idea might bring about, it will only happen through hard work. So don't dismiss the eureka moment, but realize what you are getting into. You still have to explain what is in that black box that separates the idea from reality.

Tesla the Mad Scientist

Nikola Tesla @ Wikipedia

Now here's something that I didn't know about Tesla. Apparently he had a photographic memory, but along with such an extraordinary ability came flashes of light, hallucinations, and detailed images of ideas or inventions sparked by certain words or images. In other words, he was a sufferer of synesthesia, or rather the mixing of sensory experiences. Makes perfect sense to me.

Travels in Hyperrealism

Jacques Bodin
Jacques Bodin @ Wikipedia
Hyperrealism @ Wikipedia
Jean Baudrillard @ Wikipedia

The photo you see here is not a photo. The subject is not real in the sense of a photographed subject. Instead, both the photo and the girl are subjects of a painting by hyperrealist artist Jacques Bodin. An offshoot of the Photorealist movement from the 60s and 70s, hyperrealism differs in both narrative structure and the use of technology to paint or sculpt subject at a level of detail that goes beyond what a 35mm camera could accomplish. The hyper in hyperrealism is taken literally as most works of hyperrealism are produced to a level of detail far beyond that of real life. The dimensions of the finished product go far beyond reality as well. Most paintings and sculptures are done at an almost absurd scale. Thus by paradoxically enlarging then magnifying the detail of their subjects, hyperrealists artists amplify reality to a point of non-reality.
The original photorealists were influenced by semiotician and cultural critic Jean Baudrillard. Basing his ideas on language and semiotics around the idea that an object's meaning is determined by its prestige in relation to other mundane objects. While not as simple as Wittgenstein's formulation it does share traits such as the need for context and relation to other elements in the world. Where Baudrillard breaks with such older theories and joins with his contemporaries Foucault, Lyotard and Lacan in his postmodernist thinking about how reality is perceived and treated in the larger-scale social structure. It is on this point that Baudrillard intersects with the photorealists and hyperrealists. As the relation between object and subject becomes magnified to the point of absolute minutia as the subject (people, you and I), in attempt to gain a total understanding of all reality, becomes lost. Once lost, the subject ends up creating a simulation of reality in their mind. Reality, in this sense, becomes non-reality and to the subject the simulation is more real.
I don't buy most of it, since I never bought into Berkeley's idealism or the theory that perception is so fallible that we never have a truly unmediated experience of reality. Then again, I think Baudrillard did have an understanding of how technology like virtual reality and social networks create a simulated reality that, for some people, becomes more real than the real world itself. The acronym IRL (in real life) is a pretty convincing point of evidence for Baudrillard. Even so, to say that an unmediated experience of the real is, for all intents and purposes, impossible goes beyond what I'm willing to accept as a sentient creature whose grey matter is based on a lizard brain. If you can prove to me that lions chasing down gazelle are also seeing a simulation of reality versus an unmediated reality then perhaps I'll buy into Baudrillard.
But despite my criticism of Baudrillard, his influence on the artistic movement of hyperrealism does expose some of the flaws in the human experience. There are grey areas of experience where we have difficulty telling between the real and and non-real. Our perceptions and beliefs are prone to trickery but this has long been known. It's our ability to winnow out the real and non-real that make the human mind an amazing organism.

Come In and Enjoy the Show

My new favorite blog: The FAIL blog

Yes We Can

My sister has raved about this all day. I haven't figured out all the faces in it, but most of them I have. Watch and realize why electing Sen. Obama is more important that electing the first black man or the first woman as president.

Update: So according to Truemors this ad was commissioned by MoveOn.org after they endorsed Sen. Obama on the 1st of February. The vote to endorse was an overwhelming 7:3 ratio of Obama to Clinton. So I don't think MoveOn is doing anything beyond giving their chosen candidate the best support they can give.

Fear of a Black President

Pro-Clinton Push Poll Erupts in CA - LA Times

Via TPM, who themselves have spent a lot of time examining the push polling of Republicans in the last two election cycles, comes this tidbit of information on the Clinton campaign push-polling undecideds and independents in California days before the primary election. For those of you who don't know what a push-poll is, think of a telemarketer calling you to convince you to buy their product, except they present themselves as your typical survey taker. The questions asked are designed to place the preferred candidate in the most positive light while slamming every other candidate. Now during the last election cycle, push-polling and robo-calls were the bread and butter of Republican campaign tactics. That the Clinton campaign has resorted to such Rovian tactics is telling of how much the Clintons fear a black man and to what lengths they will go to win an election.

Never Let Me Down

U.S. Pulls Plug on Low-CO2 Powerplant Project - Slashdot

Wait, let me get this straight. The U.S. government is withdrawing its support for a FutureGen coal-fired powerplant that had a way of trapping CO2 emissions all because the projected costs went 800 million over what was an expected billion dollars? The same U.S. government that has for years pumped billions into Iraq? Into 'advanced' aircraft design? Into the Future Warrior system that doesn't work? The same U.S. government that has given billions in subsidies to the coal and oil industry? But a simple plan that might have kept coal as a viable power source for another decade that runs 800 million over budget get axed? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, can this administration do anything right? My fucking God, it does not take a genius to figure out what a boon U.S. involvement in the FutureGen project is and now this? I'm going to go burn some tires and beat up babies now.

The Spherical Cow of Language

Language as a Spherical Cow - Science Blog

And once against Chomsky gets it wrong on what language is and does. This is what happens when to attempt to take the context out of language. Wittgenstein still has the best explanation, in my opinion, and I have yet to come across a better theory of language that explains as much as Wittgenstein's 'meaning as use' and the language-game theorems.

Magnetic Reconnection = Cosmic Bombs

New Discovery On Magnetic Reconnection To Impact Future Space Missions - Science Daily

I really don't get the theory or the tech speak behind this article. All I know is there's a possibility of giant random explosions in space. That's enough for me.

A Dark Fluid Beating at the Heart of the Universe

Particle Accelerator May Reveal Shape of Alternate Dimensions - Science Blog
New Light on Dark Energy - Science Blog
Dark Fluid: Dark Matter and Dark Energy May Be Two Side of the Same Coin - Science Daily

The search to discover what dark matter and dark energy are have buggered particle physicists and cosmologists for more than a decade. On the other side of this is the role that the extra dimensions string theory require might play in how dark matter/dark energy affect the large-scale structure of galaxies and the universe as a whole. Dr. Hong Sheng Zhao's theory that dark matter and dark energy are simple two elements of a singular dark fluid. If the new LHC that is coming online soon can show similarities between the particles and dimensions produced in particle collisions that match the idea of dark fluid then we might see a leap in understanding of how the expansion of the universe occurs and what the other 96% of the universe is made of. Those extra dimensions, I think, are key to where this dark energy or dark matter reside. It's just a matter of crafting a theory that explains both the effects of dark fluid (dark matter/dark energy) on the large-scale structure of the universe and how, if this dark fluid exists, is hiding within these extra dimensions.

Flash Mobs Mob Grand Central Station

207 Pranksters Stand Still for 5 Mins in Grand Central Stn. - Cory Doctorow @ BoingBoing

Cory Doctorow has posted about a flash mob in Grand Central Station. No, they didn't do anything like open umbrellas or suddenly start singing old Boy George tunes. No, they, simultaneously, froze in place for five minutes. Apparently a crowd gathered around in amazement and when the five minutes was up everyone suddenly started moving again, this time to applause from the gathered crowd. Now this is the power of SMS, IM and other micro-texting applications like Twitter. Flash mobs are one of the coolest developments of Web 2.0 and instantaneous communication. I'd like to see more of the in American culture.

Obama the Giant

Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster - David Pescovitz @ BoingBoing
Obama @ Obey Giant

I love these aesthetic of this poster and of several of the t-shirts I've seen of Sen. Obama lately. It recalls the Che Guerra shirts one tends to see on college campuses. I've actually wanted one like that of Huey from The Boondocks for some time now. What makes the poster interesting, but fitting, is that it was created by the same artist who created the black and white Andre the Giant poster. Unfortunately the print run is sold out and according to the web site no other print runs are planned at this point. Still, I would love to see ad walls covered in posters like this.

Waiting for 2012

There are 200 'Real' Superheroes in the United States - Kevin Kelly @ io9

Damnit, Grant Morrison was right.

Taking to the Streets, Taking to the Blogs

Why I Love the Horse Race - publius @ Obsidian Wings

Publius has posted an interesting view on the horse race that has been this primary election season. He's gone meta with it and examined the aesthetics of this election year, pondering the Political versus the political as candidates of a very diverse range compete against each other in sometimes hostile territory and in combative ways. For me, while I love talk of the Political, I've found another positive benefit from this primary season--that my parents have started to pay attention to the political blogs. More to the point, they're reading the good blogs too, the ones that shirk from the shrill and focus on the factual and intelligent. Whether that lasts I cannot say, but that they are no longer relying on the tv news pundits for opinions says a lot about how this primary season has inspired them to involved themselves, at least on the informational side, in this race. I don't know how many stories there are similar to mine but I'm sure many of my generation have seen their parents take to the blogs as well. Now that's a sea change my friends.

The Hippies Have Obama's Back

Grateful Dead Plan Fundraiser Concert for Obama - Truemors

Looks like Sen. Obama is tying up the aging hippie vote. I just hope it's not ten minutes of Sen. Obama followed by three hours of a guitar solo.

The Electric God of Modernity

Radio Tesla - Zoetica Ebb @ Coilhouse
Tesla vs Edison, fight! - Zoetica Ebb @ Coilhouse

I have such a tech fetish for Tesla, along with a lot of other people. I don't necessarily buy into the conspiracy theories but I do think Tesla had an understanding of one of the fundamental forces of the universe that few have even approached since. His genius still amazes us even today. If only I had the electric gods talking to me like Tesla did.

A Weekend Too Far

Fortunately there are few pictures of me in this set and plenty of my friend enjoying his thirty years of life in style. Well, pictures of him and the pleasantly lovely door girl at one of the dance clubs we landed at. I think I'll let you guess which one's are of me.

Drinkathon 2008

Water Produces the Best Sound

New mixes in the mix of newness. I learned tonight that I do indeed like Ghostland Observatory and MGMT, that Kid Sister has a great sound while rapping about people I'd sooner stab in the throat than shake hands with, that Beat the Devil has one of the best vocalists around at the moment, and that the Carps deserve far more attention than they are getting. These are the fruits of my web-driven head. Enjoy.

Trifecta

Whatever Happened to Weldon Kees? - Meredith Yayanos @ Coilhouse
Early Visual Media Archeology - David Pescovitz @ BoingBoing
Ornamental Typography - David Pescovitz @ BoingBoing


Versus doing three separate posts on these links I decided to combine them all together as they have an overarching theme of lost art and lost people. In particular, both my parents have a deep interest in old typography (my dad for his hand engraving, my mother for her calligraphy). Each of these articles put forth images and ideas long lost to the majority of people. The Coilhouse article on Weldon Kees quite nicely ties this all together as he was a man of many talents, something of a rarity these days. Avant-garde art and photography of the past do not receive the attention they deserve, especially when the beauty of such art reminds one of paths not traveled. How such art influences new artists and inspires their work depends on whether they have an awareness of this art. I think it's part of our duty as bloggers, cultural commentators and purveyors of the strange to put this kind of art on the forefront of the public consciousness. Reminding people that strangeness and beauty are not mutually exclusive and have existed for a long time is a valuable pursuit.

A Stooge for a Stage

Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell - Spencer Ackerman

Foreign policy wonk, Spencer Ackerman, makes a pretty convincing argument that Sen. Obama won tonight's debate based on his position on the Iraq war combined with Sen. Clinton's bumbling response. Money quote: I don't know how a single Democratic voter watches that exchange and thinks, "Yeah, I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton! The war was a tough call and maybe it wasn't a mistake, but it's a mistake now!"

Super Tuesday Debate

Just finished watching the Super Tuesday debate and I have to say Sen. Obama won quite handily for one simple reason: he forced Sen. Clinton to play at his level. Most of Sen. Obama's campaign has focused on change: change in trajectory, change in leadership, change in mindset, change in participation. Part of Sen. Obama's platform has been to force the other candidates to play at a level above that of the typical political games. Sen. Obama, by remaining calm and reposed, was able to tackle even the toughest questions and put forth politically risky answers. What that resulted in was a response by Sen. Clinton to rely more and more on belated answers while Sen. Obama maintained a measured and crisp response. The zingers by both candidates were witty and humorous but, personally, I thought Sen. Obama's quips had more substance. The one remark in particular, that it is better to be right on the first day in office, was a deep wound to Sen. Clinton's argument for her experience. Never bitter, Sen. Obama kept a civil tone while exposing Sen. Clinton's weaknesses. Moreover, Sen. Obama took the bite out of Sen. Clinton's criticisms through that civility.
On some key point, Sen. Obama made policy remarks that I dearly wish he would give some of the backing logic for. Both his plan for voluntary health insurance while tamping down health premiums and his agreement with the issuing of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants have a clever logic behind them that belie Sen. Obama and his staff's intelligence. The issue of universal healthcare is one that Sen. Obama obviously cares about, but he has shown through his plan the realization that he cannot ramrod a huge bill through Congress all at once. By take the tact of bringing down healthcare costs first he makes a better argument for providing affordable universal healthcare, both for individual citizens and for the federal government itself. On the issue of driver's licenses, Sen. Obama again shows a practical first step towards achieving immigration reform. By urging illegals to obtain licenses the state and federal government have the ability to build a database of illegals and who to target once immigration reform is brought to the table.
Sen. Obama did very well tonight, though whether that will significantly improve his chances come Super Tuesday is questionable. I thought he outperformed Sen. Clinton on most issues and displayed a knowledge of policy that's necessary while not descending into the realm of wonkishness. Overall, I think Sen. Obama will come out of this week and next in a far better position. If the idea of a so-called 'dream ticket' becomes a reality, I think it will come in the form of an Obama-Clinton one.

Worth More than a Hundred Pundits

Politics - xkcd

I think this statement by web comic xkcd pretty much sums up the sentiments of a lot of Americans when it comes to their support of Barak Obama. Beyond the sentiment that voting for Sen. Obama makes one feel 'proud', xkcd offers two points that I either hadn't known or thought of. One is Sen. Obama's support for the Open Source community and the use of open standards to create greater transparency between the government and the people. Sen. Obama's tapping of Lawrence Lessing's experience in understanding how the open source movement could help the federal government shows a lot about Sen. Obama's approach to government computing and software standards, along with records and document transparency.
The other point sounds a bit silly at first, but for a generation of 20-somethings raised on the cynicism of the Simpsons, the Daily Show and South Park, the desire to see Jon Stewart smile again is a strangely compelling reason to vote for Sen. Obama. The comics of xkcd are funny, witty, intelligent and, on occasion, incredibly sweet. So for it's writer to express such a sentiment is keeping within his character. I too want to see Jon Stewart smile again. He was the rallying point for me after 9/11 and I think for my generation, he can be a rallying point for a new politics. I hope you all give xkcd his due time and listen to his words. Whether you vote for Sen. Obama or not is up to you.

On Comments and the Strange World of Message Boards

I've witnessed some of the strangeness of message-board conversations, the trolls, the yes-men, the intelligent commentators, and the fierceness web debates can take on. The Newsarama message-boards are usually a lively affair, but then again, comic book fan boys are serious about just about everything. Those debates can take on surreal proportions as fan boys slug it out over the merits of an artist, the decisions of a company, the direction of a storyline or the characterization of their favorite characters by a new writer. The key thing commentators have to remember is to remain civil and the ones who garner the greatest respect are the ones who consistently make insightful or intriguing comments. Generally when those commentators weigh in on a subject the rest are ready to accept their wisdom and nibble at the boarders of the argument, seeking perfection.
Yes, message-boards are strange sometimes, but a new level of strangeness seems to have infected the comments section of several left-leaning blogs I read. To wit, I have watched as Clinton supporter after Clinton supporter waylay posts in support of Sen. Obama and those who offer their agreement with the remarks of the blogger. It's not quite troll-like behavior but does verge on it. What I find so strange though is the nature of the attacks on those who, at the very least, voice their agreement with a blogger who writes a post suggesting support for Sen. Obama. Now I don't necessarily know whether these attackers are Clinton supporters but they to display certain traits that mark them as such: a fierceness in their criticism of Sen. Obama, a push to ignore or spin questionable actions on the part of Sen. Clinton, and a tendency to accuse the media or those in the comment section of sheepishly following the Obamania.
Another strange element is the accusation that commentators who agree with pro-Obama sentiments are damaging the Democratic party or otherwise hampering the efforts of the Democratic party from attaining the Presidency. Now as an Obama support myself, I can't say I'm pleased with such sentiments but this has been an interesting primary season and I do think the attacks Sen. Obama has struggled against work to make him a better candidate for the general election. But there's an objective part of me that cringes whenever I see a post accusing Obama supporters of blind faith or levying attacks that rely on anecdotal evidence, the kind that are hard to substantiate with real evidence. It's...troubling to say the least. I believe that Clinton supporters do her a service by defending her in comment sections but I also believe they do her a disservice when they use such tactics to try and win a message-board argument. For one, it's a message-board argument. Only those who generally have a good grasp on the key elements of the issues and candidates post comments so attempting to persuade supporters of one candidate to switch their support is a bit of a lark. In addition, using such tactics as a means of winning these arguments only deepens the opposing supporters' beliefs. So I have a hard time seeing why Sen. Clinton's supporters would go so far out of their way over message-board comments. They display a rabidness that does not engender themselves to supporters of Sen. Obama or those sitting on the fence. I can't quite understand why Sen. Clinton's supporters believe they are doing anything good. The strangeness of message-boards doesn't quite encapsulate how strange these debates have become. It's a new arena I suppose, and a new tone for how message-boards will operate. I just don't get it yet.

Jumper Leads

Brain's on a temporary reboot cycle. Thoughts are gibbering on as gibberish thoughts do. Be back in head sometime soon, we think.

Endorsements

Clinton's Risky Gamble - Robert Novak @ Washington Post
The Second Black President - Andrew Sullivan
Ted Kennedy Matters - Marc Ambinder
The Black-Brown Divide - Gregory Rodriguez @ Time
Evolution - Andrew Sullivan
Why Ted Kennedy Matters - Jonathan Cohn @ The New Republic
Why Teddy Matters - Matt Yglesias
On Endorsements - Ezra Klein

I decided to give a round-up of various commentaries on the Democratic primary race and the endorsements of the past weekend for Sen. Obama (which, for the record, are JFK daughter Caroline Kennedy, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Noble prize-winner Toni Morrison). It was either this or a series of increasingly redundant posts, so you better damn well thank me. The consensus among left-leaning and independent bloggers and pundits (excluding baby-eating Novak) is that these three endorsements are big in a way that has yet to sink in. All three endorsements are seriously bad for Sen. Clinton and seriously good for Sen. Obama. Most of the electric ink has been spilled over Sen. Kennedy's endorsement as, unbeknownst to me, he is apparently the grand-old-man of the Democratic party, a kingmaker of sorts. The Kennedy endorsement throws a lot of weight (that's not meant as a pun) behind Sen. Obama going into the debate on the 31st and Super Tuesday the following week. Most of the pundits agree that Sen. Kennedy's stature in the Senate has given him a close view of how both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama operate, thus his endorsement of Sen. Obama is a serious snub to the Clinton campaign's claim to experience and ability to lead. Moreover, Sen. Kennedy's support among white working-class voters and Latino voters will most likely give Sen. Obama a boost among that much needed electorate.
Now Caroline Kennedy, I think her endorsement is the killer app of the Clinton campaign. Sen. Clinton's courting of the women's vote will take a serious blow among middle-aged women. Watching the response at American University to Caroline's remarks was astounding. How much that will affect the primaries I can't tell. Toni Morrison's endorsement will have the same effect as Caroline Kennedy's I think. To have the woman who called President Clinton the first black president come out in favor of Sen. Obama comes as a hard knock to the Clinton's standing among the black community. Mrs. Kennedy and Ms. Morrison's endorsements also stand as a rebuttal to those women who have criticized Oprah Winfrey for not endorsing Sen. Clinton. This is still a close primary race, but I think Sen. Obama has gained a distinct advantage against Sen. Clinton. What happens between now, the next debate and Super Tuesday is a big unknown, but an exciting one.

Quote of the Day

Via Ezra Klein's grandmother: "it's your generation's turn. We've screwed everything up. Now you get a chance."

This was part of her reasoning for voting for Sen. Obama. He goes on to describe how President Clinton's blundering actions and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement convinced his grandmother that Sen. Obama was worth giving a chance. Klein also notes how Caroline Kennedy's endorsement has had an effect on his mother as well, leaving me to wonder what effect said Kennedy's endorsement will have on middle-aged women in America. Being so young and never really taken by the Kennedy mythos I have a hard time understanding the value of such an endorsement. The Kennedy's have been just another political family for me but it appears that Caroline's endorsement matters a lot more than I would have expected. That Sen. Kennedy is endorsing Sen. Obama holds more value in my mind, but again, I was never caught up in the love of the Kennedys.

Silver Linings Amid Dark Clouds

Weak Dollar Fuels China's Buying Spree of U.S. Firms - Ariana Eunjung Cha @ Washington Post

I'm not an economist so take my opinion here with a grain of salt. Even so, I see the rapid rise in acquisitions of U.S. firms by Chinese ones as something of a positive. While the falling dollar makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to buy into foreign companies, the opposite is that foreign firms feel they have the ability to invest in American companies at bargain prices. Some may see a weak dollar as a sign of falling U.S. financial power in the world but if foreign companies believe that there are good investment opportunities in the states then that's a reassuring sign of the strength of the American economy. As Cha notes, we have experienced the same thing in the 70s and 80s with the Germans and the Japanese respectively. Yes, there is some warranted concern but that has more to do with the politics between China and the U.S. than with the economy. Chinese companies either operating or opening U.S. firms bring in much needed jobs and job security. On an even brighter note, such investments from China are a sign of a lessening militaristic stance against the U.S., if China has had one since the 90s. You don't press too many political hot buttons if you have serious investments in a particular nation. At the same time, yes it is worrisome that China will have greater pull with U.S. lawmakers since more American jobs will depend on China's money. But ultimately, this infusion of cash into the U.S. economy will help it stave off any serious recession. Now if only the price of precious metals like gold and platinum would come down then jewelers like me won't have to raise our prices so much.

The Three-Fifthers of the Democratic Party

The Media's Three-Fifth's Compromise - Rikyrah @ Jack and Jill Politics

Spencer Ackerman's blog pointed me to this commentary on the Clinton camp's spin of the South Carolina primary. It really is quite good (despite the grammar nazi in my kicking in from time to time, though I'm no saint myself) and makes several astute points about what the Clinton spin entails, particularly if the Clinton's keep pushing it. That Sen. Clinton not only lost by a 2 to 1 margin but barely made second place herself was a considerable hit to her campaign. She compounded the wound by not giving a concession speech and then claiming that South Carolina didn't matter because of the larger black electorate in the state. As Rikyrah notes, the Clintons are essentially saying that black voters don't matter because of course they would vote for a black man over a white woman. Not only is that insulting to the blacks of South Carolina, it's insulting to blacks all across the U.S. While the Clintons can certainly count on the establishment leaders in the black communities, the more they push this kind of spin the more they will see black voters rally around Sen. Obama. It's not a wise course of action, but how can they back themselves out of a corner of their own making?

The Jerusalem Effect

Alexis Millan - Warren Ellis

I love how Spider Jerusalem has taken on a life-force of its own. He stands for both the counter-culture and for what is ultimately right. I think Ellis has only once produce a better character: Elijah Snow of Planetary. Comics are wonderful.

The Lies and the People who Told Them.

Clinton's Campaign Sees Value in Keeping Former President in Attack Mode - Patrick Healy @ NYT
Black America Feels the Sting of Ex-President's Comments - Darryl Fears @ Washington Post
Lies and Democracy - hilzoy @ Obsidian Wings

Hilzoy makes a rather smart statement when she notes that most Americans simply are not the kind of political junkies who will track down every misleading statement a candidate makes. More to the point, they shouldn't have to resort to that. So the attacks that the Clinton campaign levees against Sen. Obama that are based on factually inaccurate statement, or as we like to call them in Texas, lies, shows how the Clintons are thumbing their noses at the electorate. The Clinton's believe their tactics are working, as the NYT articles shows. Former President Clinton will remain in attack mode on the campaign trail, essentially tag-teaming the Senator from Illinois and making me wonder who we would actually vote for in a national election--Bill or Hillary. Yet it seems that such tactics are taking a toll on the black base of support Sen. Clinton needs to send her over the top. The Washington Post article cited above relates various stories of blacks in South Carolina and in New York who are sickened over President Clinton's comments while black radio hosts are publicly denouncing the former president for turning his back on black voters.
Hilzoy's post, about how lies in a campaign run counter to the idea of citizenship and voting in a democracy, makes the excellent point that by spreading these lies, the Clintons do far more harm than good for the electorate, particularly when those who supported the Clintons uncover the truth of these statements released by the Clinton campaign. The reality is showing itself in South Carolina and across the nation through black radio hosts. And the media has taken to debunking these statements rather quickly and publicly while Sen. Obama has attempted to restrain himself in going on the attack himself.
I can understand the Clinton's frustration with the media on that point, but they have no one to blame but themselves. You cannot state a lie in today's 24/7 media and blogosphere without seeing those lies immediately exposed. And once the media smells blood in the water, they come swimming by to check it out. It's only their nature and the nature of their editors. So by keeping the former president on an active campaign schedule, the Clinton campaign is telling the public that they do not care about the truth, but only about winning the primary. Perhaps, as some like Ezra Klein have said, this is a good thing for when Sen. Clinton goes up against the Republican nominee, but I believe it's disingenuous and dangerous, particularly if the nation truly wishes to move past the politics of Rove and Bush.

Bring On The Noize!

A Place to Bury Strangers @ MySpace
A Place to Bury Strangers Home Page

I like knowing that the Jesus and Mary Chain are alive and well still. A little louder please? K, thx.

Answers to Questions You Really Didn't Want to Ask

Perhaps I shouldn't take such an interest in who views my blog, particularly the search terms used to reach it. The last person to view my blog was searching for, and I quote, "sex positions for above-knee amputees". I'm mildly disturbed now. Thank you very much Interweb.

Photo-Realism on the Cheap

Bic Art - Andrew Sullivan

Sometimes the only reason I read Sullivan's blog is for the random piece of culture that pops up. This is Bic Art; i.e. art created through the use of a Bic pen. That's right, a pen, ball-point, with the annoying little cap that you always lose. The artist is one Juan Francisco Casas, who's web site is in Spanish, but you savvy interweb users should make it through.

Obama as the Reluctant Samurai

Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign - Greg Sargent @ TPM

I think Sargent's analogy of Sen. Obama as a David to the Goliath of Sen. Clinton and President Clinton is remarkably astute when viewing it through the lens of the mainstream media. My take is that Sen. Obama has acted like the kid on the playground who reluctantly must fight against the schoolyard bully despite his best wishes. This kind of narrative, that of Sen. Obama as the reluctant fighter who desires only peace but whose hand has been forced, is a smart one and one likely to stick around so long as the Obama campaign does not come out with too hard of a charge against the Clintons. President Clinton does have a point that the media has paid a great deal of attention to his role in his wife's campaign, but I think that is only proper since he is after all a former president and de facto leader of his party. That Obama's campaign has used this to their advantage shows a subtle kind of ingenuity that might stave off the Clinton machine's attacks while delivering him the nomination. Sen. Obama's hesitancy to make an all-out attack against the Clintons plays both to his message of unity and to his advantage in a fierce primary race. Against a Republican opponent, I think Sen. Obama will prove far more aggressive since he can use his message of unity as a pivot point against the smears of a Republican candidate without worrying about driving a wedge in his own party. It's smart politics for Sen. Obama.

Time Makes Fools of Us All

Al Gore's Journey - James Kirchick @ The New Republic

Now, I understand that James Kirchick is himself gay, but he has traditionally taken a neo-con-tinged view of things, much to my annoyance. Yet, here we have Kirchick noting how Al Gore has quietly changed his views on homosexuality from that of a senator believing homosexuality was unusual and not a normative value he supported during the 1980s to today's position supporting gay marriage. This isn't a hit piece that you'd might expect from someone like Kirchick. Instead, he takes a tactful, nuanced view that perhaps Gore, over a long period of time, has had a change of heart. It's actually a well-written blog post on how a politician's change in stance can come from a genuine change in belief. I hope Kirchick has it in him to continue writing pieces like this.

Strength through Unity

Hey, I'm looking for some incredibly gay pseudo-rave music ten years too late. Oh, and it has to have a faux-masculine singer, preferably Australian.

Oh...

Wait...

Okay, this'll do.

Endless Horizion

Eyeball-Implanted Camera Patent May Bring Electronic Vision, One Day - Kit Eaton @ Gizmodo

This is really a topic for Ann over at femtofrosting but I just love the graphic they included. And after the spat of articles on contact lenses that might some day act as telescopes, I think it is perfectly appropriate to talk about the cultural and technological issues involved. This is cyberpunk of the last decade, but made real. For people who want a leg up on their competition or for possible future web vision directly wired into the brain, it's tech like this that will bring about those advances. I love living in the future.

Mickey Mouse Prices, I think not.

Vivienne Tam's Mickey Mouse Dresses - Tokyo Mango

This is psychotically amusing to me. The fashion sense is great, but the theme causes parts of my brain to shift in uncomfortable ways. Either way, it is cool.

The Golden Mean

Atomic Structures Captured by New, Ultra-Powerful Microscope - Annalee Newitz @ io9

What you are looking at is an image taken by the Department of Energy's National Center for Electron Microscopy. The crystal lattice you see in the center of the image is a bridge between two pieces of gold. While images like this were possible in the past, a new electron microscope the DOE has brought online brings an incredible sharpness that was not previously available. This appeals both to my jewelers' instincts and my geek lobes. I've now witnessed gold crystals. Thank, my friends, is what we like to call happiness.

Universal Expansion of Health Care Costs

Why Universality Matters - Ezra Klein

I'm a little confused by Ezra's argument over universal health care. On the one hand, he fully supports the idea that universal health care is a necessity for the American public. On the other, he notes the great potential for spiraling costs once such a plan is implemented. Now I've seen Sen. Obama take a lot of flak for proposing a system that does not emphasize mandatory health insurance but rather focuses on lowering the cost of health insurance before any plan to promote universal health care is brought forward. It seems that Ezra is implicitly supporting Sen. Obama's health care plan and subtly hinting that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards' plans do not account for the possibility of massive cost increases once universality is achieved. It's possible that I'm misreading this but that's the conclusion I've arrived at.

Propagazi

Rummy Resurfaces, Calls for U.S. Propaganda Agency - Sharon Weinberger @ The Danger Room

It's no surprise that someone like Donny "Let's Get Ready to Rumble" Rumsfeld is promoting a propaganda agency as a response to the war of ideas between the West and Muslim nations. Yet I can't shake the feeling that this is completely the wrong way to go about doing things. Ideological wars are not won through propaganda, or at least through propaganda alone. Where the trouble lies is in the expectation that by promoting pro-Western values in Muslim nation it will lead Muslim youths away from the words of radical imams or jihadists. Moreover, when it's easy enough to see the kind of destruction going on in places like Iraq, suspect news agencies and sources are not effective means of countering the feeling of resentment and rage. Yes, U.S. foreign policy needs to do a better job of promoting its ideas abroad but actions speak louder than words, particularly words that come from a known biased source. Unsurprisingly, Rummy doesn't get this. But at least he's not in any real position of power to enact such misdirected ideas.

The Kiling Joke

He'll Play the Joker - Andrew Sullivan

Oh thank god. I was worried there for a while.

My Robot Friend

Robot High School - Mark Frauenfelder, BoingBoing

Been there, done that, please try to keep up.

Working for a Nuclear Free City

Something to cool the mind after the debate. Going to go read some cyberpunk now.

Syncronicity

I find it very appropriate that the MLK episode of The Boondocks is on tonight. Thank you Adult Swim.

First Impressions

Sen. Clinton got smacked around like a bitch. Sen. Obama's gloves are coming off and she's not going to like it.

President Bill Clinton wasn't there at all. Wonder why?

Sen. Obama gave the best answer to whether MLK would endorse any particular candidate by saying that MLK wouldn't have endorsed any one of them. Sen. Clinton side-stepped it but essentially said that MLK would have endorsed her.

Sen. Clinton was rightly booed when she accused Sen. Obama did not take responsibility for anything.

Sen. Obama had the best quip concerning the Bill/Hillary Clinton tag team when he said he didn't know who he was running against.

Sen. Edwards was a great foil for Sen. Obama, playing Devil's Advocate and challenging Sen. Obama in ways that he needed without the vitriol that would have come from Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Obama seriously hurt his chances with the Latino vote when he explicitly said that his health care plan would not include the 12 million illegal immigrants. It was the right answer though. He was also right to say that lowering health insurance costs first before enacting universal health care mandates was the most important part of fixing the health care system.
Sen. Clinton kept taking this huffy looking stance whenever Sen. Obama made a strong point against her. It was very reminiscent of VP Al Gore's sighs during his presidential debates with President Bush.

I really like that Sen. Obama is fighting back. My fear has been that Sen. Obama would stay too far above the fray and let these allegations fester.

Sen. Edwards would make an excellent running mate for Sen. Obama.

Overall I think Sen. Obama won this debate but only by a slim margin. What I think the most important thing that will come from this debate is that Sen. Obama found his debating voice. But whether this will help him is uncertain.

Idealism with Bite

Hard Truths and Half Truths on Health Care - Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic

Jonathan Cohn has an interesting post up at The Plank on Sen. Obama's Illinois Senate record on health care. The gist of the post is that Sen. Obama made several proposals for state-wide health care that eventually ended up as bill mandating universal healthcare in Illinois. Throughout the process Sen. Obama met with some industry lobbyists and made some changes to the bill that proved fruitful for its eventual passage. Cohn reported on the sense of liberals who fought for such a bill. Quote: "As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked"
Now after watching the latest Democratic debate and the attacks both Sen. Edwards and Sen. Clinton leveraged against Sen. Obama for push smaller steps toward universal healthcare I have to say that I believe Sen. Obama's plan has a far greater chance of actually, you know, getting passed than attempting to push a radical plan for universal coverage. This, my friends, is what we call pragmatic idealism, and it does work.

A Black Sheriff!?

I heard today that Oprah Winfrey is getting some flak for supporting Sen. Obama, a black man, over Sen. Clinton, a white woman. For the rest of the day it reminded me of something from a movie and I figured it out about five minutes ago: Blazing Saddles. And here's the scene I was thinking of.

Hillary Clinton, The Anti-Ann Richards

This is the second part in my free-thought commentary on the 2008 elections, this time concerning Sen. Clinton's campaign. After watching the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucus I have come to see Sen. Clinton as someone who is willing to destroy her own party in her pursuit of power. I must add though, that it is not only Sen. Clinton's doing but the doings of her husband and her campaign staff. The entire Clinton camp is willing to tear their party apart in order to win the presidency and after nearly a decade of slash-and-burn politics I cannot stand idly by and watch it happen again. For a woman in the 21st century to not only run on the coattails of her husband but to denigrate another man who has not directed his entire being toward the gaining of more power is not only sickening, it is exactly what a man like Karl Rove would have done. What we face in the Democratic primary is the choice between the continuation of the Bush presidency, both in underhanded actions and secrecy, and a new kind of president who hearkens back to the great orators who actually did bring about real change to this country. Sen. Hillary Clinton is not the president we as a country need right now for many reasons. Her tendency towards secrecy, her attitude that citizens should not have a voice, and her craven attempts to court minority voters who she will not support or work for are all marks of a bad president. They are the marks of the Bush presidency and they are the marks of President Bill Clinton's social policy (Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act were both signed by the man asking us to vote for his wife). I do not want a president who is all talk and no bite when it comes to policy but is willing to sink her own party when it comes to winning an election. I want a president who is willing to stand on their principles but find ways of compromising with the opposition and I have yet to see such actions from Sen. Clinton. Moreover, I want a president who does not take to smearing and mocking their opponents. It's a sad day when I would consider moving to another country if a president like Hillary Clinton were elected. That should only happen with Republican presidents, not Democratic ones.

Barak Obama - The Jack Ryan of 2008

This is just a bit of free-thought commentary on the primary race as I see it thus far. In my opinion, Barak Obama represents in many important ways, the Jack Ryan of Tom Clancy's books. He is a humble yet driven individual who believes that both words and action are necessary to bring about any real change. In my youth (which wasn't all that long ago) I was an avid reader of Tom Clancy's books. Jack Ryan represented a lot of what I expect from our political and bureaucratic leaders: intelligence, respect, the willingness to work without acknowledgment and, perhaps most importantly, the ability to take one's ideals and find pragmatic ways of applying them. Many commentators and pundits have argued that Sen. Obama's strength lies in his speech-making but his weakness is in his policy substance but that's not what I see at all. So much of what Sen. Obama speaks about comes from his policy positions, from that substance he has built up through his years, but he believes that the only way to enact those policies is to inspire the people to believe that, yes, he can do these things. Perhaps Sen. Obama doesn't have a wonkish answer to every policy question but I don't expect a wonkish answer for every question that is asked. There's a difference between giving wonkery and telling it like it is. Both Sen. Obama and Jack Ryan are the types of people who would rather tell it like it is than obscure things with massive details that, in the end, really don't matter so long as action is taken. We've had wonkish presidents before, in Gerald Ford, in Jimmy Carter, in George H W Bush, but those presidents, I think most can agree, were rather ineffectual in getting things done. It was the presidents who inspired the people who made the real changes. Having a mind for wonkery is all well and good and necessary, but to speak to the people like that, as if they had the years of experience to understand the details of a wonkish answer, is rather condescending and stupid. Giving people answers they can understand, much as doctors do, is a better quality to have than giving them answers that merely have the appearance of knowledge. Again, Sen. Obama tells it like it is without talking down to the people, much as Jack Ryan did. And a president who can tell us that we need to step up because one man can only do so much is what makes me want to vote for him.

Economics and Other Things Pulled From My Ass

For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod - David Leonhardt @ NY Times

I'm going to show some of my less liberal and more libertarian tendencies here by: a) calling Sen. Clinton a dolt; and b) saying that the role of the federal government in the national economy is one of referee, not babysitter. I do admit there are times when the federal government must act more vigorously but those time are rare and rarely does government intervention actually achieve positive results in a meaningful time period. It's the government's charge to keep the economic playing field fair, either through regulation or strict and swift punishment, but beyond taxing the people only enough to sustain the projects and institutions of the federal government, they need to keep their camel nose out. If it is truly the wish of the current administration and Congress to provide a relief package to American citizens then it needs to come in the form of serious tax relief and a reworking of payroll taxes (including excising the cap on Social Security taxes) so that working Americans will have a larger paycheck every month and not just one time.

In the Shadow Library

I've spent the last couple of weeks going over my ever-growing mp3 collection in search of mix albums to pull from the oleo of music. Three weeks and I'm only down to around 220 hours of music left. In the meantime, I'm putting up the last mix I've made along with the artwork of comic artist Chris Bachelo and his rendition of Death from Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. I believe it was in Bachelo's transition period as it is primarily his older, cleaner style with hints of his more scattered and sketched style he currently uses. You can use the cover to the mix if you like. The total running time is just at what will fit on a normal CD-R. Hope you enjoy it.

No, Really?

Sleaze in Nevada? - Andrew Sullivan

Voter fraud? Campaign supporters using strong-arm tactics? The illegal withholding of ballots? In Nevada? Apparently the Clinton campaign hired the guys who ran President Bush's last two campaigns. And this is the first woman president we want?