What I Don't Know About Parenting

A few things to consider. This article was recently forwarded to me, as was this quote therefrom:

In [Dr. Richard Ferber's] best-selling 1985 book, "Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems," he advised parents to let babies cry for intervals of up to 45 minutes without responding, to train them to sleep on their own. Should the child cry so hard that he throws up, parents are to clean up and leave again. "If you reward him for throwing up by staying with him, he will only learn that this is a good way for him to get what he wants," Dr. Ferber wrote.

The party responsible for bringing this to my attention commented thusly:

My first question is - what is a person really learning when she is crying so hard she's throwing up and nobody is responding? My second question is - how deep is this belief that doing good can only be done by causing hurt?

I cannot help but conclude that the belief runs deep indeed. From spanking to capital punishment, from war to rapine and outright slaughter, doing good is the casus belli of choice. Those who come before us demanding that so-and-so must be destroyed for the good of mankind, that the decimation of the natural world serves a greater human good, or that punishment is a virtue and pain is a curative (other people's of course), and who thereafter view resistance to such ideas as a product of weakness, incompetence or willful disregard for uncomfortable truths - are simply wrong.

There are choices that we make. Often, these choices are informed by what we know will be, in the future, good for us. Sometimes we do bad or cruel things to achieve this future reward. Sometimes, however, we sacrifice a future gain because we're unwilling to be shitty, rotten, and despicable people. It's called character. Unfortunately, if you have character you may not live as long as someone else. You may not get a good job, have a nice car, or even the opportunity to raise a family. God knows you're going to suffer. Which, of course, would make you an idiot in the eyes of a society that is so addicted to pleasure that it literally kills for it.

I know the world can be a vicious and uncomfortable place. I know that mental and physical toughness are needed to get through it. If I choose not to endorse preemptive violence, "tough love", or a fuck-you attitude from time to time, it's not because I’m idealistic or naïve – it's simply because I choose not to debase my character. Or because I love someone or something. Which brings me back to the whole crying-so-hard-you-vomit business.

I believe that if a parent chooses to train their child to "self soothe", the child may very well be less fussy. If you respond to crying with love and affection, the child will eventually learn to manipulate that love – to use it against you. That's what happens when you love someone. You get burned. No doubt about it. It makes no difference who or what you love, it'll eventually result in horrible betrayal and unimaginable agony. Why? Because people are shit.

Eventually, the child will grow up and become a selfish adult. It's nature's way. But the child is only able to do that – we've only been able to become that – because somewhere along the way someone loved us enough to allow themselves to be rankly abused by our incessant demands for affection. Call it weakness if you will, it's nonetheless our only truly meaningful strength.

Compassion

I'm at a loss for words.

How Decisions Are Made

Excuse me for a moment while I ponder this:

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

Earlier this month Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times "a shameful act." He said he presumed a Justice Department leak investigation into who disclosed the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation would get under way.

Justice Department officials would give no details of who requested the probe or how it would be conducted.

I know I'm not very smart. I know this. So when a simplistic question pops into my mind, I'm not surprised when I discover that nobody else is asking it; I simply assume that the answer is glaringly obvious, obliterating all motivation for the question. And yet, since I'm not smart, I ask the question anyway. I ask because I genuinely want to know the answer. Because I'm stupid.

So I'm just asking.

It was over a year ago that the President asked the editors of The New York Times to quash the NSA story. It was, therefore, over a year ago that the President knew that the Times knew about the "classified materials". When the President said that he "presumed" an investigation would get under way, what the hell was he talking about? If something was fishy, wouldn't the government have initiated an investigation as soon as they discovered that there was, well, something fishy? I mean, if there's a crime you feel needs investigating, you'd better get on it right away. Right? One of the authors of the original NYT article had already given his book on the subject to his publisher. People knew about this. People without security clearance. So, my question is simple: what the fuck?

Our government would never launch an investigation – with sacrosanct tax dollars no less – because of mere politics. Never. Right?

I'm just asking.

OPEN THREAD THURSDAY

Talk about Bruce Springsteen. (I do like "Nebraska.") Or talk about whatever else you want.

Rules for Achievement, Wealth and Status

It is my intention to begin 2006 by making a substantial resolution: to get my shit together and not be such a knob. Fortunately, there are people willing to assist in this effort. The following list of rules was composed and forwarded to me earlier today. The author referred to the rules thusly: “Like the commandments, these rules are of supernatural origin and contain inviolable truths”. Just so.

> Keep your hands out of your pockets.

> Never, never, never answer questions. You drive the content of the conversation, you ask the questions.

> Conversations are for communicating your desires, nothing else.

> Others will want to talk. It had better be important because you really don't have time for this.

> Always know ahead of time what you want to express in a conversation. Prepare, discharge, terminate and move on.

> Don't ever take notes. If notes must be taken, somebody else better do it.

> Your opportunities for relationships of integrity are with family, old friends and pets. Everybody else is an adversary with whom you have simulated relationships.

> Bestow as many awards, medals, honors and trophies as you can. Make them look like tough, painstaking decisions.

> In a public conversation, neuter your praise of others by expressing far, far too much respect and adoration.

> Use your private conversations to criticize ruthlessly. The fear your audience feels will function like compliance.

> Always present yourself as a successful person: dress well, smile, say positive things.

> Always present yourself as a lucky person. Express wonderment that good things just seem to happen to you.

> Pretend that everything is exactly as you would wish it to be, that the only problems are those people who are not cooperating.

> Sell your ass off.

> If you don't ask, you don't get anything.

> The world responds to action, not ideas. People can think whatever they want.

> Excepting those with whom you are very familiar, make every effort to avoid using a person's name when you are speaking with them.

> Have a ready opinion about everything and express all opinions forcefully. You are sure of yourself.

> Frame every opinion as being in the service of a deeply important principle or value. You are never self-serving.

> Leaders are bold and emphatic and nothing else. Great leaders are extremely bold and extremely emphatic. Which do you want to be?

> Never do anything. If something needs to be done, tell somebody else to do it. This goes for everything.

> Broadcast your inability to do anything. Your talent, your gift, is to know what needs to be done.

> People will not know what to do unless you tell them.

> Only tell others what results you want. How they get those results is their job. Failure is absolutely unacceptable.

> Opportunity is incompatible with loyalty. Know this yourself, but confuse the issue for others.

> When you are talking, stare at the listener in the eye. When you are listening, look somewhere else entirely.

> Be as unavailable as possible.

> Is somebody else having a problem? They can figure it out themselves.

> There is no right and wrong, only power. Those who have it and those who don't.

> Remember that you were meant to be here, alive and thriving on Earth, and nobody else was.

> Gossip is more real than money. Money is more important than life.

> Broadcast your agenda, but not what you are actually planning or doing. Secrecy is power.

> You must tell people what they want to hear. This means you must lie about everything to everybody all the time.

Quote From The Boss

…We forget that every adult was brought up on fairy tales so it's natural to go on and, politically for example, want to believe that your President is a nice, honest man. The inability to turn to an adult perspective once you get to the age where you have some political weight is a great tragedy, and this is a period of history when it seems the most obvious type of disguise is on display to the entire world and yet those are the people who are still in power.

This quote was brought to your attention via AMERICAblog via Plutonium Page via MOJO via Bruce Springsteen.

Favorite Album of 2005

Normally, I end my year-in-review post with my favorite album. This year, my post (in progress) is taking a different turn. Plus, since I'm so fond of stealing Kelly's ideas, I've decided to relegate my choice to a separate post.

But first thing's first... my blatherings on Pitchfork's Top 10 for 2005:

10. Wolf Parade "Apologies to the Queen Mary"

Haven't heard it.

9. Cam'ron "Purple Haze"

Haven't heard it.

8. LCD Soundsystem "LCD Soundsystem"

Freaking awesome. The second disc of previously released material is better than the first disc of new tracks, but yeah – freaking awesome.

7. Animal Collective "Feels"

Haven't heard it.

6. Deerhoof "The Runners Four"

I should absolutely love this band. I can't figure out why they annoy the bejeezus out of me.

5. Antony & the Johnsons "I Am a Bird Now"

I would imagine that if Tiny Tim had tried to make a serious album, it would have sounded like this. Critics would have shit on it. Overrated.

4. M.I.A. "Arular"

The thing I love about this album is how raw and unrefined it is. It receives a justified "melting pot" description, but the fondue is still a bit chunky. It gets a little repetitive, but the message never gets lost. One of my favorites this year.

3. Art Brut "Bang Bang Rock & Roll"

It's about time someone used punk to comment on how punk has lost its power. At once pretentious and self-aware, Art Brut also writes some seriously fun music. Thank God for Art Brut.

2. Kanye West "Late Registration"

I still haven't gotten into Kanye. Just haven't given it a chance. I plan to make a concerted effort. After calling out the President, he deserves a shot.

1. Sufjan Stevens "Illinois"

My tastes lean towards rock and electronihousesampletech, but I've never objected to quality balladeers (Elliot Smith is a fave). However, the post-modern folk movement just leaves me yawning. Folk in its heyday was the equivalent of saying to either your family, your friends, or the government, "Sit down, we need to talk." The novelty of Stevens' gimmick wears thin.

My favorite

For my money, nothing touched my need for fascinating arrangements, kick-ass rhythms, passionate political sentiments, and guitars that rock more than Bloc Party's "Silent Alarm." If you like rock and you don't like this album, seriously, what's wrong with you?

(Favorite song: "Just Let Go" by Fischerspooner. Album version, not the truncated single.)

On The Eve Of Four Days Paid Vacation

Answering two sets of questions has become a special Christmas tradition in my home: (a) what video game should I buy and when should I start playing it; and (b) what type of whiskey should I buy and when should I start drinking it? Since the salad days of early adolescence (when it becomes the fancy of every young man to resent his family), Christmas day has been little more than a flatulent blast of stale boredom for me. The stores are closed. The streets are dead. The programs on television are unbearably saccharine and out-of-date. Without fail, I spend the entire day in an ptotic stupor.

Apart from watching the Bears beat the Packers, this Christmas will doubtless be a repeat of the last. For some people, lying around all day doing nothing is a highly sought-after prize; a just reward for engaging in productive activities. For people like myself however, who are strangers to a meaningful life, an entire day lost is too much of a good thing. Thank the Lord for movies, XBox and booze.

Merry Christmas all you fools! And, in a holiday departure from political rants, here's a special Christmas message from First Lady Laura Bush:

You may take some small comfort in the knowledge that in the private White House family quarters, we will be reenacting the birth of our Savior with the help of a pregnant Jewish thirteen year-old in the grips of a chemically-induced labor, calculated to extrude the baby Jesus surrogate into a punchbowl of eggnog at precisely midnight on Christmas eve. To heck with that "Separation of Church & State" flapdoodle – it's an old Bush family tradition we just can't part with!

Ho ho ho.

Do Not Consult My Opinion

I've decided to take a whole 3 minutes to blather about Ebert's Best 10 Movies of 2005:

1: Crash
This movie provides a commonplace glimpse into how people who live in and among Hollywood filmmakers view issues of race, class and power: simplistically. The characters talk in ways entirely unfamiliar to damn near any human person you're ever likely to run across (or over). The most patronizing film of the year. It reminded me of the "diversity seminar" I was forced to attend at work. The Afternoon Special has made the leap to the silver screen, and it stuck to it like a big ol' glop of snot.

2: Syriana
It's "Traffic" in the Gulf ~ no more, no less. A well-crafted conglomeration of scenes with little or no dramatic content presented in such a way as to infer a great deal of depth and complexity. Apparently, the topics dealt with here (religious fanaticism and naked greed) are way too complex to come at directly. Very intimidating stuff... if you're used to getting your news from tabloids.

3: Munich
Spielberg. I haven't seen it, but Ebert calls it "brave" and says, "…it plays like a flowing together of the currents in "Crash" and "Syriana".

4: Junebug
The teasers make it look interesting. Perhaps it is.

5: Brokeback Mountain
I've already said I thought this movie was a winner. It's certainly better than "Crash" or "Syriana", and it has none of their "currents"... thank God.

6: Me and You and Everyone We Know
Again, I've applauded this one too – mostly because I'm sexually fixated on Miranda July and her indelible hotness. Is there a better excuse for enjoying a movie? Nope.

7: Nine Lives
Huh? Some kind of art movie I suppose. If anyone has seen it and thinks it's good – let me know.

8: King Kong
I haven't seen it – yet - but I will. The other day, however, I watched the original 1933 film and half of the 1976 remake (why finish it?). The appeal of this new one is apparently twofold; (a) Kong is one big fancy special effect, and (b) apparently there's some actual emotional manipulation involved in the story of his bedazzlement with the iconographic young blonde chick. Is that enough? Hmm...

9: Yes
It's a movie written entirely in poetic verse. That's right. It's also a movie (written and directed by a woman) about an attractive yet unhappily married middle-aged woman who is swept off her feet by a swarthy foreigner. Admittedly, there are some nice voiceovers. But this movie is complete crap. Seriously. It's crap. I'm not kidding.

10: Millions
Huh? It's a "family" film. I knew there was a reason I haven't seen it.

Commence Spinning

Is this too cynical ~ or is right on the money?

Here are three links to amuse the bored:
Link 1, Link 2, Link 3.

The Portfolio Show

Thanks to everybody who made it out to my portfolio show yesterday. For those of you who couldn't make it, here's a photo of my booth with me looking exhausted after three sleepless nights in a row and a frantic morning hanging that sign:



And I won a prize:



As I expected, the Best Portfolio prize went to exactly who we all expected to win it, but I got the prize for most innovative design, which I consider to be a higher honor.

Tonight at the Long Room on Irving Park at Ashland! 9 pm! Be there!

P.S.: Tom Delay is a douchebag.

Misleader Outright Liar

President Bush lies to the American people on April 20, 2004 (via Atrios):

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Thank god he didn't lie about whether or not someone sucked his dick. He's also got a great defense. The "yeah-I-did-it-and-I'll-do-it-again" defense is impenetrable. Oh, and let's not forget how fortunate Bush is that Republicans have control of the House and Senate! Just imagine what would happen if a President, plagued by some of the lowest job approval ratings in history, were caught red-handed violating federal law during a time when the opposing party dominated both houses of Congress – yikes!

Homorific Buckaroos

I watched Brokeback Mountain. Highly recommend it. It deserves the Golden Globe nominations it has received. Among the surprising (at least to me) aspects of the film is Heath Ledger’s performance. My hat goes off to him – what a goddamn spectacular piece of work.

ITEM: Related article.

Newspaper = Enemy of Freedom

There are some things in this crazy world that you can bet your life on. One such sure thing is that Conservatives will consistently defy expectations. Let's take a second look at the explosive story in the New York Times about Bush's blatant criminality, deceit and subversion of constitutional precedent. First, I've been more than a little flummoxed that it hasn’t already caused a larger and more concussive BANG in the various national media outlets. However, some bloggers are getting some mileage out of it. Mostly the Lefties are standing around pointing at a horrible and bloody pile of excrement, mouths tightened into rictuses and emitting a chorus of silent screams. Predictably, GOP blowhards are taking a more low-key approach. Criminality and executive overreaching are, to put it mildly, no big deal. Some, however, are delivering exactly the kind of mind-bogglingly insane claptrap that we've come to secretly cherish. Assrocket over at Power Line has offered an astonishing response:

The Times believes that it should be the arbiter of what will and will not help the terrorists and thus impair our national security. I don't agree. Under the Plame precedent, this case is a no-brainer. The intelligence officials who leaked to the Times should be identified, criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison. Under the Pentagon Papers case, the reporters and editors at the Times who published the leaked story can't be criminally prosecuted. Perhaps the Supreme Court should revisit that precedent when the opportunity arises.

What the fuck?! If there is any doubt about how degraded Conservatism has become, this should extinguish it. This worthless shitwit criticizes those who bring pertinent facts about governmental malfeasance to the attention of the media, which he, in turn, criticizes for bringing [the malfeasance] to his own personal attention – and yet he has the temerity to expect people to listen to what he has to say? Unbelievable. That's right folks (bang on table) get your news and analysis from those of us who feel it's our patriotic duty to know fuck all about anything and everything! Exposing Conservatives to truth is, oddly, some kind of violation of their personal ethics; a kind of ideological rape. If this kind of attack-the-messenger/ignore-the-message screed gains any traction among the dittoheads and frightened housewives who make up the literal bulk of Red State America, well... we're doomed.

UPDATE: Senate Does Not Renew Patriot Act - which means absolutely nothing. The Patriot Act, renewed or otherwise, is irrelevant. All legislation is irrelevant. I'll say it again: Bush will do whatever he wants to do anyway. He fancies himself above the law. Patriot Act? Who cares. So what. Doesn't matter.

This blog post cost $44,745 (plus supplies)

I wish I could write a more elaborate message right now about the impact that returning to school has had on my life. However, I load in for the portfolio show today, there are still tons of items that require trimming and binding, and I've hardly slept in three weeks. So here's the raw details:

On Tuesday, December 20, I will don a cap and gown and receive a rolled-up piece of blank paper. It represents the diploma for my BFA in Visual Communications that I should receive via UPS in about three months.

On Monday, December 19, I will present at the school's portfolio show. If you can make it, I'd love to see you there. It's open to the public from 3pm to 5pm, and its at the Merchandise Mart on the eighth floor. If you can't make it Tuesday, I'll post photos next week.

And finally, the moment I know you've all been waiting for: Tuesday night, December 20, I'll be at the Long Room on Irving Park west of Ashland at 9 pm. Come celebrate my graduation with me. I can't drink much these days, but you can buy my dad a drink. That'll be funny.

To all of my friends that I've neglected these three-and-a-half years I've been mired in classes and homework, I look forward to hanging out with you again.

Oh, one last thing. Not everything's posted yet, but it will be by Sunday night. Check out the newly re-re-relaunched ARLOdesign.com.

Thanks, everybody. Only five days to go.

(To everyone who received my snail mail graduation announcement, here's an interesting postscript.)

Pull The Plug

As you are probably already aware, now we have this. For the government and other powerful entities in America, this will lead to a flurry of activity. For everyone else, however, the ramifications are a little more depressing. Why have we spent any time at all – in blogs, in conversation, in political action groups – discussing the Patriot Act or civil liberties? Why do we continue to voice our opinions, to worry, and to agitate for change? Bush is going to do whatever he wants anyway. He’s been doing whatever he wants for years.

Expect supporters of the President to argue that Bush felt that the threat to America was so terribly urgent that he was justified in breaking the law. Frankly, the man’s feelings are no justification. As far as my own views on the subject, well... I just crossed the Rubicon. Bush is a criminal. He broke the law and he should be impeached. Period.

Christmas May Be Magical For Children But It Isn't Very Magical When You're An Adult Who Can't "Get Any"

OPEN THREAD THURSDAY

Please enjoy.

Photo Haiku

Ho Ho Ho

Merry Christmas. I got your present right here.

Feel Free To Disregard

David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster has been released. There's a particularly interesting review in the Observer (via kottke.org). I, however, will not be buying it; largely because I've already read most of the essays when they first appeared in various periodicals throughout the last decade or so. I don't recommend that you read it either. Not because I don't like it. No. Actually, David Foster Wallace is one of my favorite writers and I've read many of his books (I'm currently reading and enjoying Oblivion immensely). I recommend that you avoid Mr. Wallace's work solely because everyone that I've ever introduced to his writing has found it pretentious, irritating, pointless and generally unpleasant. So steer clear. Cripes, in one of the links in my previous post there is a screed against Wallace and his "hipster" brethren:

[...] But in the 90s the difference was that self-referential writers were young. That's right: young. And since they were young, and since they often wore T-shirts in their promo photos or had zany 90s hairdos or goatees, it was really fresh (in both the wigger and pre-wigger sense of "fresh" [hey, we just made another self-conscious aside! Kewl!]). Quality was not an issue - David Foster Wallace, McSweeney's and Dave Eggers showed that all you had to do was appropriate the rhetoric of hyper-conscious and hyper-aware poetics, dumb it down with modern pop references and slang, and you were, well, bad. Very bad. As in bad-bad, not the 90s good-bad.

See that? Now, apparently, there's even a certain cultural cachet associated with criticizing Wallace. Personally, I don't care. I'm still going to read his books. But, again, I caution you against them. As for Dave Eggers – screw him. I've never read him and I never will. Dirty hipster.

And but so*, this is a rough transcript from an interview with DFW last year on the occasion of his junket for "Oblivion" (he is responding to a caller on a radio program):

The interesting thing for me, this is a very Romantic, capital "R", idea of truth, that as far as I can tell comes from Nietzsche, that all truth is perspectival, that it seems to me one of the ingenious things that, that… particularly the Right in America has been able to do is to inject this kind of skepticism into public debate where if you or I proffer something that seems absolutely true, that, I don’t know, that justice for the homeless might be an imperative, for them to say, "Well, that appears to you to be true only because you've been conditioned by a Liberal conspiracy within academia and the media in order to think that way", and it is very difficult, rhetorically, it is very difficult to come up with an effective, concise rebuttal to that because anything you say can be said to be a further product of the conditioning of your perspective. It is scary, I agree with [the caller], but it's also very exciting; but I don’t know that there's been a rhetoricization of debate in quite this way in America ever before and I thing anytime capital "A" Authority is brought into question it's exciting and also really it seems to me to have a huge capacity for danger.

However much you may detest fiction and the academic eggheads that write it, the disturbing truth of this statement is, itself, hard to refute. Which I find fascinating. Which being that the very cultural institution that has cast itself as the defender of absolute truth against the insidious anomie brought on by post-modernism is, in fact, the most post-modern intellectual movement in American political history. Don't follow me? Go the library and check out a copy of Allan Bloom's craptacular The Closing of the American Mind and then quick run home and watch an hour or so of Fox News.

I find it all very ironic that a writer who has built a reputation on cannibalizing our cultural-of-irony has so adroitly characterized the irony implicit in the Republican capitulation to the subjectivization of reality.

*...nevermind. Just an inside joke. The very reason you should never read David Foster Wallace. If you don't think this is funny, then you're a much more sophisticated and mature human person than I am and are welcome, therefore, to have an obnoxiously derisive and self-righteous sniff and my expense.

A Passing Thought

I want to be someone else.

Weak Words & Strong Medicine

Gadzooks! Pat Robertson is mouthing off about war critics:

...attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.

I'm not a huge fan of "shock jocks" or other types of hyperactive media personalities whose raison d'être is ceaseless and provocative word-play. However, I understand and appreciate that they have to make a living like the rest of us and that they – again, like the rest of us – have a unique set of skills and desires which, were they not being practiced professionally, would nonetheless be put to use in some other less-glamorous milieu (like, say, on a barstool somewhere on the outskirts of Fond du Lac). Two seemingly vital characteristics of successful media personalities are (a) an ability to capture the attention and/or fascination of an audience by affecting a "character" or otherwise over-simplified and/or cartoonish persona, and (b) an aptitude for effortlessly spewing inflammatory rhetoric, catchy neologisms, and captious digressions of logic. Pat Robertson is an aficionado of the latter (minus the catchy neologisms) and a stranger to the former. In a desperate attempt to fuel his own cult-of-personality at the expense of honesty and truth, he offers his viewers the following equation: Undermine = Treason. First, let's look at some standard definitions:

Undermine:

1: to excavate the earth beneath : form a mine under
2: to wash away supporting material from under
3: to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
4: to weaken or ruin by degrees

Treason:

1: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Okay. That's pretty clear. What makes this a tricky and, therefore, deliberately provocative statement is that to commit treason is also to undermine. To undermine, however, is not necessarily to commit treason (which is the assertion of Mr. Robertson's hypotropic brain). Furthermore, non-committal and maddeningly vague words like "undermine" are the workhorses of the political lexicon; one need not allow ideas to mature or specific details to quantify or qualify an argument in order to speak with polysyllabic authority on virtually any topic under the sun. Thus we are regularly subjected to phrases like, "chilling effect", "irresponsible", "unhinged", "smear tactics", "misleading", "victory", "undermine" and a variety of other quotidian yet meaningless words; vague enough to allow some room for truth, but even more room for specious interpretation.

The result? Well, aside from comment threads exploding with phlogistive indignation, everyone within earshot hears exactly what they want to hear. Opinions are validated. Egos are assuaged and people feel, on the whole, better about themselves. Ultimately, the soothing balm (or what many have referred to as the echo-chamber effect of a diversified media environment) is nothing more than soft, fluffy, innocuous words like "undermine". Pat Roberston: rhetorical wetnurse for a sub-literate society.

Spammers are Untalented Designers

Another temporary reprieve from my homework (which, I should note, I'm somewhat behind on). This is an actual image that I found in my spam folder. All I did was resize it:



It seems like the third caption should read, "Get a knee in the nuts from a one-armed woman."

So since I'm hastily preparing for my final portfolio review for tonight, I humbly request that you write three new captions and post them in the comments. I could use the comic relief. Thanks.

Richard Pryor 1940–2005

I am certainly not qualified to talk about his lasting importance, especially his use of serious political commentary in his comedy routines. After all, at my age, my first real introduction to him was (unfortunately) Superman III The Wiz. However, I can certainly mourn.

Moment of silence for Richard Pryor.





























(P.S.: Also a moment of silence for Eugene McCarthy, though I am embarassed to admit that I don't know much about him. Kelly is the historian here, and perhaps he can do a better job than me. I have to get back to my homework.)

Attack on the Judiciary Contiues

Always good for a laugh, our old friend Chas Krauthammer has decided to weigh in on the silliness of Saddam Hussein’s trial. As you may know, Saddam’s trial has become a punching bag for the reichwing; daily derided as a ridiculous capitulation to the “secular left”. Their argument is simple: Saddam should be strung up, shot, beaten, or otherwise disposed of as so much garbage because (a) he’s a bad guy, and (b) we beat him. Interestingly, Krauthammer’s typically idiotic article decries the “impression” that the trial is making. This is totally consistent with the Neocon worldview that reality is not something that exists, but rather something that is to be created by force of will and exemplary leadership. To the furious reichwing, today’s impression is everything – reality and history are irrelevant.

Are they correct? Well, the Nuremberg Trials were likewise derided in their own day (and afterwards). Many folks thought that a more complete (i.e. scorched-earth) approach to residual Nazism would have been appropriate. That such a policy wasn’t instituted is often blamed for the neo-Nazi movement and a kind of perpetual anti-Semitism and/or Holocaust denial. Just so with the end of Reconstruction in America after the civil war; R. B. Hayes and the ascendant rule of Southern Democrats effectively ended black suffrage and a nascent civil rights movement in the antebellum South. But of course Saddam is neither Hitler nor Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis was a kind of non-entity representing a worldview accepted by millions. Hitler was a demagogue whose worldview could not be supported in the absence of his personality. Saddam? A strongman. Deprived of his strength he has ceased to mean anything. Unlike Hitler, his orations hold no power. Unlike Jefferson Davis, his subjects do not support him.

So what of Saddam’s trial? As a universally recognized instrument of justice, his trial serves two additional political purposes: it is (a) a chance to create a legitimate historical record of his reign, and (b) a justification for his overthrow. Only neocons, bless their hearts, would have objections to both of these motives. After all, the Neocons are in charge and therefore they create the historical record. As for a justification of the invasion, well...

OPEN THREAD THURSDAY

This Sigur Ros video (big .MOV) made me cry. Seriously. Thanks, Fock.

X-ucating America

Arlo - Too Busy To Blog

In a maneuver typical for an overburdened and conscienceless soul, Mr. Arlo has farmed out his workload to a lowly and impoverished LYRC intern. He forwarded me a Boing Boing link about a college organization at The University of Texas at San Antonio called Athiest Agenda that held a "Smut for Smut" event: religious scripture was traded in for pornographic magazines. Exactly the kind of tongue-in-cheek take on popular firearm "trade-in" programs guaranteed to send all the Reichwing Bible-Thumpers into paroxysms of Godly rage. What caught my attention, however, was the fine print of their flyer announcing the event:

The quality of the magazine exchanged will be based on the quality of your scripture.

The most obvious question is, "What criteria does an atheist use in assessing the 'quality' of religious scripture?" The second most obvious question is, of course, "What criteria does an atheist use in assessing the 'quality' of pornography?" This is by far the most important question; once the exchanges were made, it's a pretty safe bet that the newly acquired pornography was actually viewed (assuming that the atheists don't have some sexual peccadillo involving the Word of God). There are, especially on college campuses, those who are prone to view any pornography as good pornography. These people are nimrods, unschooled in aesthetics and devoid of imagination.

Fortunately, some campuses are taking steps to enlighten their student populations. Carnegie Mellon University, which shares a home with the Pittsburgh Pirates, recently had a student-financed screening of the pornographic film Pirates. Released earlier this year, Pirates is a sweeping naval yarn complete with high-end digital graphics, luxurious set pieces, fantastic period costumes, and sections of dialogue and action that extend up to 20 minutes without any sexual content whatsoever. The sex in the movie is vigorous and explicit. The acting is some of the best you're likely to see in pornography today. Does all this make it a production of "quality"? According to the judges of such things at Carnegie Mellon, yes it does. I've seen the film… and, making due allowance for the fact that it's a sleazy porn movie we're talking about, I tend to concur.

I have a few religious books on my bookshelf, and there's no goddamn way you'd see me exchanging them for what some Texan considers "quality" porn. In fact, I'd bet cash money that the magazines they're offering would make me puke (pictures of executed criminals, lynchings, saggy-tittied gals with big hair holding Uzis, bestiality, etc.) No. Just like so many other things in this life, when in doubt… always trust the Blue States.

My birthday is October 15.

Now please stop giving my email address to BirthdayAlarm.com. I've talked about these kinds of services before. Sure, it's just an email address, not a credit card number. However, these websites are the small wounds that become virulent infections.

Services like Friendster and MySpace don't require you to enter email addresses of friends (though you can, it's not a requirement to use the service). If you are required to enter the email addresses of friends en masse so that a pyramid of more emails can be deployed—that's sketchy. Don't do it. Please.

I'm honored that I'm important enough to you to want to remember my birthday. I appreciate it. But you and I both get enough ads for porn and Viagra, not to mention virus-infected emails, every day. Let's not contribute to it. Thanks.

OPEN THREAD THURSDAY

C'mon. Say something.