Thoughts

A singular moment in historical divergence

2006-07-09T19:31:00.000-03:00

Today in the World Cup Final, we were offered a unique perspective on the divergence of a singular and quintessential historical kernel.

------------------------

Willy Sangol, is dealt the ball to the wing, as his heroic teamate sprints into the box. The passionate French defender squares up infront of an exhausted Italian line. He chips into the box, as the ball spins quietly through the air. Anticipation builds amongst the crowds as number 10 locks his eyes on the ball.

We see an aging warrior, tired and beat down from injury and time. His arm and chest, throbbing, yet he never relents in the face of national glory. He leaps up from muscles that forgot how to spring to such heights. In this leap, he turns back the clock to 1998; the only sign to contradict is the ever growing balding patch on the top of his head. The ball closes in on his shiny head and his legs flutter, as he attempts to inch as high as possible. It is as if he were lifted by the Gods themselves.

The ball is struck beautifully, attacking the net with a rath and fury that cannot be denied. The heroic Buffon makes an acrobatic move to block its impetus, but it is just too much. It cambers off his hand, into the net. For a split nano-second, silence pervades Munich, as the spectators witness something that is beyond storybook; it is seemingly unfathomable. Years later, this heroes finest hour will be emblazened in the minds of the youth, from France and beyond. His aura will never die...

----------
What could have been, all changed.
In one instance of time.
I hope we will remember Zidane for more than what occured today.

Kegerator: A Mathematically Proven, Solid Investment

2005-08-03T13:53:00.000-03:00

Okay, so lately I’ve been getting a lot of shit from some people when I told them I got a kegerator (most notably my brother, who’s reaciton was something like: “look what you’ve become…”). For those who don’t know what a kegerator is, it’s a keg refrigerator, that keeps kegs cool, so you don’t have to buy beer in cans/bottles. The law of economies of scale would tell us that by buying beer in such large quantities (15.5 gallons, aka half-barrels) that we are saving money (hence at large parties, kegs not cans). But let’s see if the economics works out for daily and party use.

Costs:
The kegerator itself is a custom built neaterator from Canada. It’s black exterior (except the Newcastle logo on the front) with a dual chrome tower for double pouring. It came down to 620 dollars. Split through each of us at the apartment, it comes down to:

620
3 = 207 per person

Benefits:
Let’s break this down monthly. With my somewhat laxxed major structure (double majors in the humanities, english and art history), I pretty much go out 4 nights a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday). However, every blue moon I have a “test” to study for (what’s that, right?) or maybe there’s something to watch on tv, a book to read or a night to chill. So for the purposes of moderation, we’ll say I go out 3.5 times a week.

Pregaming costs for going out in terms of beer are as following:
Takes about 6 beers to get me buzzed. Normally, under the pre-civilized days, We’d buy a 18 pack of beast or natty. We’ll also delve into rolling rock or mgd long necks. That runs about, on average 12 dollars. Split 3 ways, that’s approx 4 dollars (including tax, transportation) a night. Multiply that by 3.5 and you get 14 dollars a week for pregamming shitty beer.

Mathematics:
14 x 4 yeilds a monthly charge of 56 dollars a month for pre-gamming with bad beer.
Each beer costs (16/30) aprox 53 cents

Kegerator cost structure:
Now with the kegerator, for daily/pregamming use, we’re pretty much drinking only import. I got a quote for a keg of Lowenbrau for $105. For each of us that’s (105/3) 35 dollars. One keg yeilds 15.5 gallons or 1984 ounces. If we divide that by the 12 ounces for a beer, we yeild 165 and a third beers.

Seeing that we each go through about 21 (6x3.5) beers a week for pregaming (even though zeke is hammered at 2, we’ll add Igor as an externality), this keg should last us aprox 2.6 weeks of heavy pregamming (21x3=66; 165/66=2.6).

Mathematics:
A monthly charge of (4/2.6) 1.54 kegsx (105/3) 35 yeilds 54 dollars
Each Lowenbrau costs (105/165) 63 cents

Bottom Line: Although we are paying marginally more per unit volume, the quality of the beer is so much higher. If we compare specs with the same type of beer in both, we can see the keg saving difference:
Lowenbrau 6 pack=8.99+tax+transportation
10 dollars x 3.5= 35 dollars a week x 4= 140 dollars a month versus 54 dollars a month (86 dollar net profit monthly).

Real Fucking Bottom line:
At 86 dollars a month, I pay off the kegerator in less than 3 months.

Because it’s not economically feasible to go out and buy a 6 pack of German import 4 times a week, we had to drink the shit beer, and so we were getting crushed in the long run, because…

Externalities- The health costs of shitty beer

versus

You ever get that feeling, drinking a beast light or a bottle of zelko, that something’s wrong? That’s your body telling you that you’re a fucking asshole. The ingredients in these beers (beast, beast light, pabst, high life etc etc) do not adhere to any purity laws nor do they use choice hops. Each German beer made has to adhere to the German Beir Purity Law (the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot) dating from 1516, according to which the only allowed ingredients of beer are "Wasser (water), Hopfen (hops) und (Gersten-)Malz (barley-malt)". Do you think I’m getting that from Beast Light? Fuck no, I’m getting some fucked up shit like pesticides and rice and shit in my barley. That barley comes from Phillip Morris fieldsd where shitty tobacco is farmed and all those nicotine chemicals and shit are running off. Fuck that, says my liver.

As stated from Bodenstatz Brewing: “That's right, yeast is arguably the most important ingredient in making beer. Ironically, it is also the one most often over-looked. The vast majority of brewers out there make their beer with dried yeast of essentially unknown origin.”

The yeast used in beast is shit. That’s why the color is donkey balls. Most American beers use shitty yeast and it shows. So this is how I’m quantifying the cost of drinking beast for long periods of time:

Liver Transplant (a la black market or whatever): let’s say 3 million dollars
Chances of need for Liver Transplant from drinking beast/natty/pabst vs newcastle/stella/heffe-weizen: 4 to 1
At a 4 to 1 odds, there is a 2.25 million dollar risk increase with the shitty American beer.
Hence, my kegerator is keeping me and my investments (liver, brain, heart) nice and safe.

Pro Bono shit:
No more deposits on taps means an extra keg at the start of each party. Less gas to drive back and forth, less hassle with shitty taps.

Conclusion:
This is the greatest investment anyone has ever made in the history of mankind.

Cheers

Insanity

2005-03-13T20:20:00.000-04:00

Random thoughts:

*It used to be a common sense, where if you saw someone meandering down the street talking to themselves, you thought them to be crazy. Now, if you're walking down the street without a cell phone or bluetooth headset adapter, you're thought to be insane (how does he walk to class, all alone?

*What's so special about a birthday? Everyone has one. More aptly, yours is shared by millions of other people. Instead of celebrating birthdays, I suggest that we celebrate conception days. Now that's an accomplishment worth celebrating (as long as it wasn't aided by alcohol or poor condoms *ahem lifestyles ahem*, then its just bad luck...)

*What would life be like if you conscientiously decided not to break a law? I'm not talking about bad laws (e.g. killing, stealing, raping), I'm talking about any laws (e.g. jay-walking, speeding, drinking underage, vandalism)? Is part of the mystique of celebration a resentment towards law-enforcement? Ever since I was 15 years old, the weekend has been the time of debauchery in my life. Almost all of our recreational activities involve some form of law being broken. Makes you wonder why they're there, and if they weren't, if our behaviors would be the same.

Temporal Discontinuities: A Shift Portrayed by the Consumate Author

2005-02-20T18:20:00.000-04:00

DISCLAMER: Here's an essay I wrote about temporal discontinuities, as portrayed by the American novelist Don DeLillo. I wrote it last semester and its been sitting on my mind, so I decided to throw it on the blog. The novel presupposes the reading of two of DeLillo's novels (Underworld and Cosmopolis). Enjoy.

Temporal Discontinuities: A Shift Portrayed By the Consummate Author
Faryan Amir-Ghassemi

When dealing with historical epistemologies relevant to our society’s evolution, an avid observer of change must denote the sticky switch from modernity to post-modernity. One of the first rules of post-modernism (unspoken, yet resonant) is that post-modernism isn’t the linear progression that follows modernism. It exists, almost fleetingly, in a deviant timeline. The historian Michel Foucault denotes transitions between generations or time periods as discontinuities, the “stigma of temporal dislocation that it was the historian’s task to remove from history” (Foucault, 8). The “anthropological themes” (methodologiess of differentiating epochs and eras) that we dictate upon our history seem to fall short in deducing this latest, and greatest transition into the post.
However, from a societal standpoint, shifts in aggregate behavior patterns shed light into this troubling discontinuity, for society often does not fully catch up with the metanarratives that guide it.
Through the course of the semester, our analysis of post-modern literature has exhibited a wide range of perspectives, from different timepoints. Our most prevalent and notorious author, Don DeLillo, created two literary works that dwell within opossing time periods (1960s-1990, and 21st century, respectively). Underworld, his unofficial masterpiece, dealt with cold war structures within the collapse of modernity, while neoliberal thematics were analyzed through truly postmodern light in Cosmopolis. The hyper-acceleration of the societal upheval, as portrayed by one author, through two novels, speaks of the transitory shift that our society has seemingly disregarded. The Foucaultian discontinuity can be exemplefied through the subtleties and differences of the two texts.

Before we can analyze the differences in the texts, we must understand the shift that guides the transition. At the end of the Second World War, the prevelant theorems regarding philosophy and humanity seemed to have been obliterated by the carnage that ensued during those disasterous years. The inception of post-modernism was creeping close, and much of the “civilized” world struggled with the absurdist nature of their decimated existence. Modernism, which rejected romanticism and realism, through its development of impressionism, futurism and suprematism (among other cultural movements) was dealing with an abundance of nihilistic and absurdist post war philosophy (e.g. Beckett, Camus). Some argue (most notably Robert Hughes) that this global shift could bear the creation of postmodernism as the successor of antiquated modernity (Wikipedia, 2004). However, this linear progression doesn’t hold valid to our Foucaultian perspective. Modernism did not simply vanish after the Nuremberg Trials; it still exists in our society today. The bleeding of the antiquated philosophies is as prevalent as the citing of obsolete technologies in the eyes of Eric Packer.

The analogy of “bleeding” begins to explain the cultural mixture that we are dealing with. However, the economic term stagflation seems to be much more apt in describing the situation. Stagflation was an economic condition that occurred during the OPEC pricing years in the 70s, when inflation increases while growth does not. If you use that analogy within a cultural context, the cultural progression continues to inflate (creating new philosophies such as post-modernism), while the antiquated or regressive culture (modernism) equilibrates in the less avant-garde areas of the society. For example, in the United States, we find the most burgeoning cultural regions in the heavily urbanite and consumerist sectors, such as New York City and Los Angeles (highly post-modern), while the culture of the more rural and suburban areas stagnates behind the urban thrust. So we find ourselves, today, in a post-modern, modernist stew. Albeit, due to the proliferation of mass media, the more regressive sectors catch up quicker towards the progressive; nevertheless, stagflation prevails.

Even so, we must be careful when trying to deduce the cultural and philosophical changes of such an entropic period of time, to a simple economic phenomenon. Our historical perspective still skews towards congruent and linear progression. We have learned all our life about the transition of epochs (from the Dark Ages to the Renaiscance to the Scientific Revolution etc…), and there is some truth in their demarcative bearings. We simply can not discount progressive discontinuity, for the sake of stagflating culture. There must be some sort of shift from modernist thought to postmodernist thought. This gap reminds me of the author Jorge Luis Borges. David Foster Wallace writes, “Borges is arguably the great bridge between modernism and post-modernism in world literature. He is modernist in that his fiction shows a first-rate human mind stripped of all foundations in religious or ideological certainty -- a mind turned thus wholly in on itself.” On the other hand, he exudes postmodernism because, “he knows that there's finally no difference -- that murderer and victim, detective and fugitive, performer and audience are the same” (Wallace, 2004). If Borges can act as a paradigm, or our literary “bridge,” we must understand the characteristics of such a transitory author. It is in Borges’ works, which detail the problems between individualistic romanticism and mass culture that we can find this.

If modernism harkens on isolation and absurdism, while post-modernism attempts to explain collectivism and meta-narrative consumer culture, there can be an “absolute point” where the transition reveals itself. Francis Fukuyama, among others, would denote the end of the cold war (symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall) as the turn into neoliberal hegemony. From neoliberalism, we find a new metanarrative to govern our existence, one that propels postmodernism to its highest degree.
The overarching thematic element of Underworld was, undeniably, the Cold War. It begins to develop with the “shot heard around the world,” as the paradigm for the ball applies towards the Russian nuclear testing. It was a historical epiphany, in that the traditional (Claueswitzian) war paradigm was no longer valid, as two enemies both yeilded the keys to Armageddon:

The ascending spiral of violence in which Clausewitzian war, driven by its own “logical” need to run to extremes, drew the newborn Promethean energies of the modern age, one after another, into its mighty orbit—leading, in a paradoxical culmination, to the terrorized calm of the nuclear stalemate (Schell, 63).

Relatively speaking, the historical precedent set by every major geopolitical conflict was now obsolete. DeLillo develops this idea through the characters which he portrays. The alienation of each individual—whether it be Nick, or his wife Marian, or Bronzini, or even Marvin—speaks towards the modern struggle with the realization of nuclear annihilation. Beginning with Nick, we see a despondant and maligned individual, struggling with the actualities of married, suburban life and the realization of a lack of fulfilling purpose. Repetition is a key theme that DeLillo utilizes in Nick’s monologoues due to the repetitive nature of his existence. His despondance towards those around him and his fixation on the Branca ball all speak of the travails of a generation lost.

We begin to see more of this with Marvin, who almost acts as an obsolete and distantly representative structure of Nick (albeit with different quirks and characteristics). His struggle with knowledge, heredity and epistemology shows the absurdity of realism, in that the lineage of such an object can only go so far (“Reality doesn't happen until you analyze the dots,” he says). Their link, the baseball, is the culmination of memerobilia and collectivism; the ultimate fetish, actualized and passed on to the singular person who accepts it for its true value.
Marian also counter-acts Nick, in her traditional role as wife and mother. Their relationship, flagged with tribulation and isolation, acts as an emphasis on habituated love. This habituated love, which entails adultery and despondance, acts like a paralell to the hedonism exuded through their generation (1980s consumer culture). She lives her life through the eyes of others, finding charisma, danger and charm to be the most intriguing of qualities.

All of these characters serve to facilitate DeLillo’s insistance on the isolation that was so symptomatic to the American persona during that time in history. They all are detached and jagged characters, but the forces of hyper-reality, the post-modern revivalism, nip at their heels, through the metanarratives that bind them.
Fast forward ten years into the future and DeLillo paints a far different world. Although Cosmopolis is meant to take place during one day, in one area of the world, with one techno-genius character (as opposed to Underworld which is more wholistic and thorough), the acceleration of modernity into post-modernity is undeniably present.

Borrowing, one more time from Borges, Wallace describes Borges understanding of post-modernity as “know[ing] that there's finally no difference -- that murderer and victim…are the same” (Wallace, 2004). This is one of the central thematic structures of Cosmopolis. We see it in the relationship between Eric Packer and Richard Sheets. They act as paralell characters, within such different situations. One is the derelict sociopath, while the other is the esoteric sociopath (can you figure out which one is which?). The only thing that separates them is success in a world where dollars are as fleeting as air (“Everybody’s ten seconds from being rich” says Eric (DeLillo, Cosmopolis, 196)). The Schumpterian forces that drive Eric Packer’s existence are symptomatic of a neoliberal geo-political system where effeciency and marketability are all that matter. A world where the forces that drive its progression are often accelerated to where they cannot be rationalized. The individual is marginalized to where his or her output and effect on the market is denoted. Consumption and savings functions rule supreme. Human beings are accordingly categorized into values. Eric reaps his vast fortunes off of his brilliant ability to rationalize the irrational behaviors of market patterns and consumer demands (e.g. page 200).

And so, through the novel, we see a collection of static and machinistic characters that lack the depth and individual quirks of the characters we saw in Underworld. It’s arguable that this is because Cosmopolis is a shorter novel, but I believe that DeLillo is showing us something with these “Pulp Fiction” characters. The individual is marginalized into its role, regardless of personality and individuality. Around Eric, we see his security guard Torvald, his driver Ibrahim, his financial advisor Jane Melman, his spiritual advisor Vija Kinski, even his newly acquired wife, Elise. They are all described through the purpose they serve, rather than the people they are. The only trace of humanistic quality we see is within the carnal nature of his lust for women (or even more deductively, for sex from these women). It seems that humanity has been reduced to this primal instinct, and the rest has been marginalized.

We see a lot of the post-modern congruence within Eric’s talks with Vija. Her general philosophical statements act almost as DeLillo the essayist describing the malaise of our post-modern condition:

Because time is a corporate asset now. It belongs to the free market system. The present is harder to find. It is being sucked out of the world to make way for the future of uncontrolled markets and huge investment potential. The future becomes insistent. This is why something will happen soon (DeLillo, Cosmopolis, 79).

The jetztzeit quandry we see displayed in Cosmopolis (as well as books such as Pattern Recognition) play an integral part of the understanding of temporal discontinuities (Moser, 2004). Jetztzeit is a german word meaning “nowtime,” where our conception of time and progression becomes obsolete. There is no future because it does not allow for the worries of futurism. It revitalizes Foucault and galvanizes post-modernism. It plays into the economic and temporal shift that our post-modern society has taken. This is the neoliberal world that Eric Packer lives in and it is the representaiton of our future (dystopic or not). It is a far cry from the world portrayed in Underworld, a place existing just ten years in the past.

DeLillo utilizes more than just thematic narrations to create this difference. The tonality and description of these two worlds are key elements of difference. We see changes in language, description and emphasis of language (e.g. the signification of the signified) in each of the works. In Underworld, the hidden and decadent trash scenes were countered by the suburban lifestyles of Nick and his family. Through this, the refuse piles are mirrored by the cleanliness of the suburban lifestyle (and then furthered into the afterlife). The novel attempts to create a homeostasis, or equilibrium, through the surroundings. It still professes that we are equilibrated within our surroundings, having to deal with the problems of trash and garbage. We see some of this by the descriptions he utilizes when talking about the vast trash mounds that escape the attention of the masses:

The mountain was here, unconcealed, but no one saw it or thought about it, no one knew it existed except the engineers and teamsters and local residents, a unique cultural deposit, fifty million tons by the time they top it off, carved and modeled, and no one talked about it but the men and women who tried to manage it, and he saw himself for the first time as a member of an esoteric order, they were adepts and seers, crafting the future, the city planners, the waste managers, the compost technicians, the landscapers who would build hanging gardens here, make a park one day out of every kind of used and lost and eroded object of desire (DeLillo, Underworld, 185).

Cognizance acts as a rare and “esoteric” gift that Brian has. He is the puppetmaster, controling the marionette i.e. public perception. There is a sense that idealism needs to be checked and valued, in order for society to stay ordered.
DeLillo also breathes life within the characters he projects in Underworld. He acclimates each character with idiosyncracies and traits. They are flesh, not just “meat space.” The characters are developed, not just as products of their environment. The surly descriptions of Marvin, and Klara and Bronzini, in their weathered age give them meaning, regardless of purpose.

In Cosmopolis, we do not have this feel at all. The pulp characters are static and redundant. Their beings are predicated on their purpose. Many critics slandered the book for its flat and machinized dialouge. Michiko Kakutani, who is an avid fan of Underworld describes the interaction in Cosmopolis as, “devoid of the electric detail and dead-on dialogue hat have been the hallmarks of so much of Mr. DeLillo's earlier works” (Nytimes.com, 2004). However, if we give DeLillo the benefit of the doubt (through his regiment of works acrued), we should ask, why is the dialouge and interaction is so static and banal. Perhaps it is because of the condition which he tries to portray. The characters which interact speak in dialects or codes more than they do in language. Language, in a sense, is minimalized into the basic and most efficient form of communication, that needs no reason, only methodolgy (“Computer power eliminates doubt” (DeLillo, Cosmopolis, 86). Effeciency is the world of Eric Packer, nothing more. This is what he tries to denote through the dialouge.
He furthers this in all of his descriptive techniques. The depiction of landscape and area is minimalized in a formulaic sense (through the tunneled environment of the limo). The obsequious members of Eric’s entourage are almost as two dimensional as the city itself. One should observe the morose nature of the area’s description.

The city only catches Eric’s eye in the most minimal of senses. Several times in the book, DeLillo points out how Eric never looks at many people he interacts with on a daily basis (“He felt a trace of the old stale pleasure, dropping an offhand remark that makes a person feel worthless” (DeLillo, Cosmopolis, 192)). Their faces are like patterns, lying unchecked, where he does not have time (or reimbursement) for decyphering. The most stirring example was of the driver Ibrahim, whom he looks at for the first time in years of service, while going to Anthony’s. Eric analytically deduces much about Ibrahim based upon the scars on his face.

Even more bizare is his reaction towards the violent protests that occur around his limo. In front of the carnage, the clash and the self-immoliation, a sense of belonging is reasoned through DeLillo’s understanding of the riot. The fact that miscreant behavior is a part of the culture (i.e. the counter-culture is a byproduct of the culture itself) really speaks towards the acceleration into full post-modernity. Eric is only struck minimally by the breathtaking carnage that he watches.

So what is DeLillo trying to say, other than our culture and society has shifted rapidly since the early 1990s (anyone who has been alive in this period of time could easily agree with the statement)? I believe the key to this question is within Cosmopolis, in that the novel was the “dud,” the “failure,” the mistaken exposé into the realm of Paul Auster’s fantasy (Updike, 2004). Cosmopolis was, actually, an exploration into what people don’t want to see, hear or feel. It is the world that will creep into reality, which no one wants to believe. It reminds us of the desert of the real, not in the sense that our utopia has crashed, but that it has corrupted and rotted into such a mess. The daily actions of neoliberal market fluctuations shift hundreds of billions of dollars, based on whimsy and supposition. Our global economy has turned into a house of cards, which relies on a total rejection of morality. And so, as we grapple with the forces that evolve before we can understand them; our Jetztzeit culture lies confused and devoid of purpose, much in the same way as was Eric Packer on his last day.

DeLillo only hints at a cogent solution. He recognizes the Schumpterian force that devours Eric Packer, when his ability is no longer up to date, but speaks of the remnance, or stagflation of morality. We see the touch of morality in the French humility artist Andre Petrescu. His attacks on the famous figures of hegemonic power, whether it be consumerist (Michael Jordan) or political (Fidel Castro), hints towards the deconstruction of our abysmal heirarchy. He says, “Today you were creamed by the master. This is my mission worldwide. To sabotage wealth and power” (DeLillo, Cosmopolis, 142). We see the glances of morality in the funeral progression of Brutha Fez, with the lines of mourners, celebrating the spirituality of the artisian. We see the hints of morality and spirituality in the reference to the Rothko Chapel (albeit, Eric wishes to consume it in his capitalist endeavors). There are still elements in the hyper-real society of Cosmopolis that give glimmer towards hope, but they all are fringed on the corners of society. In order for them to prosper, they require the resuscitation of morality in a society that glorifies effeciency.
And so, I revert to the crux of the argument that our Foucaultian discontinuity does exist (as DeLillo exemplifies in the novels). To give one last insight on the situation, one might view Bernard Newman’s “Broken Obelisk” (cover page photo, shown at the Rothko Chapel) as an excellent representation between the transitional dislocation between modernity and postmodernity. If the bottom pyramid is the structured ascent of modernity, then the top structure of the broken obelisk is post-modernism, which juts through, in a broken and assymetrical manner. Its transition period (the connection between the two structures) is a point that is not meant to exist, if only for the structural support that reality imposes upon it.

Works Cited

DeLillo, Don. Cosmopolis
Scribner. New York, NY. 2003

DeLillo, Don. Underworld
Scribner. New York, NY. 1997

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge.
Tavistock Publications. New York, NY. 1969
Kakutani, Michiko. “Books of The Times; Headed Toward a Crash, Of Sorts, in a Stretch Limo” New York Times. 24 Mar 2003. < http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=940CE7D61730F937A15750C0A9659C8B63>
Moser, W. “Canada Research Chair In Literary And Cultural Transfers” 15 Jul 2003. < http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/transferts/eng/prog-sensib.asp>
Rapley, John. Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism’s Downward Spiral Rienner Press. London. 2004
Schell, Johnathan. The Unconquerable World Metropolitan. New York. 2003
Updike, John. “One Way Street” The New Yorker. 24 Mar 2003
Wallace, Foster David. “Borges on The Couch” New York Times. 7 Nov 2004 < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E3D6123DF934A35752C1A9629C8B63>
Wikipedia. “Modernism” 4 Dec 2004. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism>
Wikipedia. “Postmodernism” 1 Dec 2004 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism>

Random notes

2005-02-06T18:16:00.000-04:00

...Super Bowl:
Let's see how Super this bowl will be. I've decided, in the spirit of "buy nothing day" on "black thursday" to not watch any of the commercials.

Music: I'm trying to go to Coachella. It will be done.

Movies: I saw Million Dollar Baby. It was quite good, I'll write a review of it, maybe. I'm trying to see Nobody Knows, The Sea Inside and who knows what else.

Reading: I've been reading a philosophy anthology called "Philosophy: End or Transformation?" It argues about the direction of contemporary philosophy with a transformational (Habermas) versus deceased (Lyotard, Foucault) perspective, while centering that Rorty's wishy-washy "both" side is the correct one. The editors love him, which is meh, but it's still Very interesting.

On the side, I'm reading Baudrillard, Heidgger, DeLillo, school literature (Ford, Hemmingway etc...) and D.F. Wallace.

Writing: My novella is progressing increasingly slow because I'm a pitiful writer. Good career ambitions though huh?

That's about it...

A House of Cards: Social Security Reforms Paradigm to Schumpterian Capitalism

2005-01-19T16:33:00.000-04:00

As the dust settled from the November election, the Bush administration arose with a new found sense of conviction. Garnering a four percent populous victory, Rove and Co felt that the country had given George Bush, and his administration, a positive approval towards his ideological direction. Taking this new found confidence, the Bush administration has decided to tackle the domestic issues that were overshadowed by the prominence of foreign policy and terrorism in his first term. The domestic issue that has risen to prominence the quickest has been social security reform. Social security has been an issue of heated debate and little demarcating direction. The issue is slippery due to the fact that its solvency is based upon economic projections; always a sticky matter. However, from an ideological standpoint, the social security debacle can act as a paradigm towards our increasingly polarized Scumpterian Capitalist economic perspective, in that our gross economic solvency is like a house of cards that builds upon an inherently prognosticator growth structure.

Michael Turner of the CATO Institute (a non-profit thinktank that has been tackling social security reform) believes that privitization of the system is necessary to create a modicum of fiscal solvency for future generations. He states, in an interview with washingtonpost online subscribers that, Private accounts won't completely solve the funding shortfall, but it will reduce the unfunded costs by as much as half. How does this achieve such fiscal prudence? The idea is based upon prognostications that estimate the increase in GDP, annually, while being privately invested, to return rates at 4% (albeit, these rates can be disputed due to fluctuations in growth patterns and a theory that states that the stock markets growth from the 80s-90s was historically aberrant.yada yada yada). Through this, younger workers can divert portions of their savings into private accounts, allowing them the opportunities to amass private savings; a luxury that was never afforded to poorer people.

The necessity of private investment for social security (which is inherently paradoxical to the concept of social security) is symptomatic of an economic ruse that forces its solvency to be dependent upon its system. Social security is a system based upon socialist ideology (like a lesser version of the system seen in many post-industrial European nations). In its conception, post-depression, its ideal value began to develop a problem. The baby-boomer generation that created the surplus values in social security, has now become the inherent problem for it (paradoxical, again). The retirement of our greatest generation of workers will create fiscal insolvency that must be pushed back to further and further generations. Ironic how a system of socialist sharing creates such accredited debt.

The house of cards analogy that I referred to earlier is in reference to the economic systems that force privitization and wealth accumulation, from the elite perspective of our country. It is an alarming direction. What is more alarming is that I agree with Turner and the Bush philosophy, that the only prudent way to manage this fiscal insolvency is through privitization. The system devolves its own externalities, naturally. There is no way that egalitarian ideals, ideally can survive in this economy.

Monthly Movie Madness (Jan)

2005-01-10T23:44:00.000-04:00

I Heart Huckabees, starring Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore, Slackers), Jude Law (just about everything out right now) and a slew of powerful actors (Hoffman, Watts, Walberg, Tomlin) is an existensial exploration into the philosophical humor of writer/director David Russel. Being a fan of philosophical banter, I was amused at the confusing dialogoue and circular plot line. In essence, Huckabees tackles concepts that are best suited for the written form, but excels and bringing out cinematic enjoyment.

The story goes (or so I believe): Albert Markovski, an activist and founder of a local anti suburban sprawl organization, goes to a pair of existensial reporters (Hoffman, Tomlin) to help him explain a set of coincidences. As a result of this, the detectives begin to unravel at Albert’s own philosophical quandries (Why do I exist? What is my purpose? Why should I care?).

It’s very Camus. The reporters emplore philosophical concepts of universality and ubiquity (a Bohmian sort of derivation…not quite quantum mechanics, but more of a spiritual interconnectivity, so to speak) to help Albert cope with his organizations struggles with an ongoing corporate takeover by the Huckabees Corporation, spearheaded by employee exemplaratis Brad Strand (Jude Law). So within Albert’s own personal intelectual quaries, a paralell character structure is developed between Brad and Albert. They act as foil characters, with Brad the beautiful, career intensive corporate weasel, with the spoksemodel girlfriend (Naomi Watts) and Albert, the reclusive nerdy loner who cant seem to find a woman interested in him.

Without revealing too much, a connection between the two is developed and the story seems to connect on the universality of personal experiences, regardless of demeanors and personal apperances. It attempts to peel the facades of societal congruences and question what behavior and desires boil down to.

In order to accomplish this, a philosophical foil is undertook through the existensial reporters’ ex-student Caterine Vauban (Isabella Huppert). She balances their happy-go-connective Camusian theory with a more nihilistic ideology. They act as polar opposites in philosophy and both camps attempt to swing Albert’s views. Caterine’s #1 subscriber is Tommy Corn (Mark Wahlberg), who has just lost his wife and kids due to his inability to reason with reality.

In essence, Huckabees is a social and philosophical inquiry powered by differing viewpoints of existensialism and societal vantages. It succeeds in garnering many a chuckle and scratching a few heads. I recommend it to those who want to focus on a movie and try to delve into the undertones that the writer/director Brian Russel has masterfully crafted.

Detached

2004-11-29T01:41:00.000-04:00

crisply, I can reach back.
Stubmling within our behaviors, paterns devoid of reality

coldly it hits that remanance falter in the obsequity of it all.

fills without remorse. without justice or bearing

Engross me until I exist no more.
Eradicate my fibers of ration and cleanse with

Monthy Movie Madness

2004-11-15T19:54:00.000-04:00

Sideways-

Directed by Alex Payne (Election, About Schmidt), Sideways is the story of two friends going on a bachelor's weekend before one of them has to get married. The husband to be, Jack (Thomas Hayden Church) is accompanied by his friend, the esoteric wine affecianado Miles (played exquisitely by Paul Giamatti). The two are an interesting couple, a classical foil. Miles is an introverted aspiring author who wishes nothing more than to be washed up in the luxuries of wine and word. Jack is your ex-actor turned playboy, trying to find equilibrium in a life that has been a rush of success, failure and fun (hardly the stability that will be assumed upon him).

The travils of the two on their wine tasting is bemusing and docile, until Jack tells Miles that his ex-wife Victoria will be attending Jack's wedding. Miles tailspins into emotional dsitraught, as the memory of the woman he still loves 2 years later is resuscitated. It is here that we begin to absorb Miles' character; he is an alcholic, poor romancer and most of all, a derelict. His refined culture is only complimented by his slobbish apperance.

The plot evolves into a question of morality, as Jack lusts after women before he gets married, worried that his marriage will ruin his individualism. The two rendevous on a double-date where Miles is accompanied by a fellow wine enthusiast, Maya, who he knows through his trips to wine country. Jack, lusting after the exotic Stephanie, again represents the opposite of Miles: extroverted, charming and flirtatious. Miles struggles through the dinner, as his conversation is centered around wine and nothing much more.

Jack's relationship with Stephanie accelerates (physically) quickly, while Miles struggles to accept intimacy with Maya. In a superb scene, we see his complacency with the concept of intimacy as Miles sits out on the porch with Maya. She is confused about her feelings towards Miles, finding him intellectually captivating, but emotionally distant and fragile.

The success of the movie stems from Giamatti's acting brilliance. He plays the role of the esoteric intellectual to perfection (as well as in American Splendor). Beyond the intellectual repartee, we find a confused man, who's livelihood has not been the same since he has been divorced. Alcholism, confusion and depression have set in, yet he clings to intellectualism for solace. It takes Maya's intervention to develop the romanticism within the humanity of Miles, that he keeps repressed through fear and sadness.

What the movie attempts to tell us is that we find our personal narratives differing in perspective and ascription, yet just like a bottle of wine, when we open up, we fall victim to the fruits of life, which have been developed with such care and love. Throughout the film, Miles expresses his love for the Pinot Noir, because it is so delecate, and can only be cultured in the most remote areas of the world. Conversely, he hates the commonality of the stubborn Merlot. It begs the question: What's your wine?

Update 11/8, through the pearly gates

2004-11-08T23:57:00.000-04:00

Musics we's been listenin' to:

Muse- Showbiz
Nas- Illmatic
Jimmy Eat World- Bleed American, Futures
Oasis- Definitely Maybe
Dizzie Rascal- various works
Madvillain- Madvillany

-A scientific proof of who is the "greatest" hip-hop MC of all time is in the works. This will be the end all be all, mark my words!

-Political reactionary shit will be comming, wait oh ye faithful

-Thoughts on media machinations

In what order we will see them? We do not know......

Political Ideology and Socialization: Apathy towards our Meta-Culture

2004-11-01T19:06:00.000-04:00

I recently took a political orientation test. It was quite the pleaser, asking me if I was pro choice, pro life, pro tax cuts, pro fiscal prudence. It wasn’t anything enlightening, the test called “idealog” was more of a joke than anything. Personally, my socio-political position on many issues is far-leftist; we’re talking Nader leftist. In a way, idealog can be a paradigm for American politics, which doesn’t really offer feasible political representation for many of my views. So, I tend to act more as an outsider looking in; parsay, a French socialist, gaffing at our corrupt capitalistic endeavors. Condescending? Perhaps. Rooted behind cogent ideologies? I would like to think so.

To begin, I’m anti-capitalist. Delving into my sociological beliefs, I find that the root of free-enterprise is a system based upon opression and inequality. Having thought about the ideals of capitalism, specifically in the context of American culture, I have deduced (or came to a conclusion) that capitalism is a base system of relativity. It is natural to have relativity, and by relativity I mean a scale of values that we use to measure value. We also use it to covet. If we deconstruct the fundamentals of capitalism, it is haves versus have nots. The “joy” of being wealthy or upper-class is only meaningful in context, or relativity. You are only rich if someone is poor. For every extra promotion or extra wealth you accumulate, someone else must loose that wealth, because our system is based upon sheer absolutes, discounting inflation and absorbing technological advancements. There isn’t infinite wealth, no matter what a politican tells you.

Fair enough, you may say, because that is the nature of existence. We live in a world with a fixed amount of material goods, and this materialism predicates the scales of relativity. You might also argue that capitalism is the bull which propels technological and sociological advancement. It is through capitalism, one might say, that private endeavors are created and driven to success, creating the ammenities in our society. It’s a fair and pretty reasonable assesment, because, afterall, where would we be without some form of extrinsic motivation to propel us towards success.

The question is where do we want to be propeled towards. What are our goals and ambitions? I think this is the root of our political ideology, because politics, in essence, is the reflection of the layman’s endeavors. For me, personally, I really have lost the extrinsic motivations of our baby-boomer and post-boom generations. I’ve seen what that does to one’s spirit. I see it in my parents who slave tirelessly for my comfort and it sickens me. I don’t have aspirations for middle-class comfort, in a management position. I don’t have the desire to accumulate wealth so I can live a posh and exquisite upper-class life. My best-friend is one of the wealthiest people in the world and I don’t envy what he has. In fact, if I were in his position, I would be conscerned about my well-being and mental health. So what do I have to look forward to? Well, accumulation of knowledge and understanding. Breaking down the walls of deciet and misconception that greed and lust drive us towards. Self-conceptualization and an understanding of purpose. I search for these things in politics, society and philosophy.

At the penultimate stages of the cold war, the post-modern philosopher Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history” with the decay of socio-global conflicts. The ascension of our liberal-democratic capitalist ideology and the destruction of communism in its most lethal state, led to an assymetry in global power. Fukuyama says:

Both Hegel and Marx believed that evolution of human socieites was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. Both thinkers thus posited the “end of history:” for Hegel, this was the liberal state, for Marx it was a communist society

His words resonate towards our society’s political aspirations and ideaoligies. In the aftermath of the cold-war (pre 9/11), we found ourselves squabbeling over health-care, abortion, the defecit and unemployment, because we no longer feared nuclear incineration at the hands of a red army. This is all fine and dandy, but it reveals something about our society. As we transgress through our Christian Eurocentric history, that shapes how we define social welfare, within our political ideologies, we have been pushed into directions that I don’t find satistfying.

To cite an example, the corporate tax law passed a few days ago can be utilized to show the meta-narrative structure and the layers that unfold in political ideology. They are subtle and hidden. On the first layer of subtlty, we see that the tax cuts are meant to assuage outsourcing, creating more job revenue for our GDP and thus our social welfare. On a basic level, you can call it an “economic boost” in a republican sort of way. On the second layer, the more intricate lines of the bill show a 10 billion dollar buyout to tobacco companies, dating back to events occuring in the Great Depression. To cite a more liberal stance, Chris Edwards, Cato director of tax policy studies, calls the bill "the worst show of special interest tax lobbying in years” (Cato.org, 2004). Edwards says, “Hundreds of narrow provisions litter the bill, illustrating congressional sausage-making at its most complex” (Edwards, 2004). He details the breaks towards manufacturing, coal and oil energy plants, that would cause shifts in the basic structure of tax lobbyists. Cato is one of those organizations which create the political ideologies which fuel our government. It is a thinktank. Thinktanks are the organizations that hire politically sided ecnomists and politically astute people to create the plans which create policies. For example, in the late 70s, right-wing thinktanks created supply-side economics which were enacted when Ronald Regan assumed the presidency. Thinktanks created Neo-conservative ideologies during the Clinton administration, only to see them enacted in Bush Jr’s candidacy. They are the political undercurrents which have no faces and no backfall. They are the backbone of policial policy. Subtle and potent stuff, but nevertheless, it lacks the true conceptualization of the underlying motif.

If we peel one more layer of this onion of knowledge, to something few people can stomach or reason with, we find the bill is a cog in a wheel of socio-political opression on an American “meta-narrative,” so to speak. We protect our companies from going out to the uncivilized parts of the world (by definition, anywhere not here, Canada or Western Europe) where tax laws and labor laws aren’t restrictive of our free-market endeavors. Keep the wealth here, forget about everyone else. Well, anyone will argue that it’s pretty natural to protect one’s own interest; when was the last time you cared about some Sri-Lankan sweatshop worker? Only when the price of your Nike shoes goes up from $100 to $150.

So I find myself in a political apathy of sorts. It’s not the usual teenage apathy which ignores the political landscape due to its inability to connect with his or her interests (sex, drugs and money; address me you politicans!). It is a form of apathy that is analytically aware of the changes and systems, yet finds the results of either side, based upon historical socio-political ideologies as the same in the end. So our corporate tax cut is a microcosmic depiction of my futility with American politics.

Reaching back to Fukuyama and the “end of history,” we all know that his lapsarian utopia crashed in one executed strike, captured vividly one autumn morning on the national media. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 pushed America through the limbo of post-cold war simulacra into Zizek’s “Desert of the Real.” We are the super-power hated in many parts of the world. Terrorism rekindled our American mindstate into the frenzied panics we were so familiar in the 50s and 60s. We found ourselves dumbfounded by the Al-Qaeda terror networks and the hatred embued upon us from the rest of the “uncivilized world.”
Now I find myself grappled in an election, watching Candidate Bush, Candidate Kerry and Candidate NetZero (oops, did I say that?) grapple for who’s the better defender. Bush is adamant about his role as the guardian. Kerry is careful not to let you forget about his record in Vietnam, killing those uncivilized communists. One flip-floped, the other fooled our nation. The rhetoric is negligible as is the end-result. Afterall, 9/11 was not caused by either of these individuals; it was our holistic political ideology, regardless of political orientation, which induced the birth of global and more specifically, Islamic terrorism. How is Al-Qaeda any different from the Black Hand of the early 20th century? Fukuyama was wrong; history has a way of waking up and smelling the coffee. What Fukuyama neglected was the reverberations of our war on Communism, or any other ideology threatening our global hegemony. The CIA operations in Afghanistan, the funding of Sadaam Hussein with biological weapons, military intervention in Iran, Guatemala, the war crimes of Henry Kissinger in Chile, Cambodia, and most awfully, East Timor. The term is “blowback” and it denotes what happens when you destroy the livelihood of billions for the pursuit of geo-political prowess.

Blowback is a harsh way to denote the death of over 3000 innocent citizens, firemen and rescue crews, but that’s what it boils down to. Blowback is what boils down my apathy towards American politics, because we will blow back and we can blow harder than anyone else.
So if you ask me about my political ideologies and what makes me inspired about politics. I could talk to you about economic policies, social welfare, the war or terrorism and such, but I don’t think that really gets us anywhere.

Works Cited

Cato Institute, Cato Daily Dispatch. 2004-10-13
<>
Edwards, Chris. “Corporate Tax Tangle” 2004-10-13
<>
Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and The Last Man
Perenial Press, NY. 1993

Random Thoughts, October

2004-10-19T02:40:00.000-03:00

1.) I saw some commercial on television about how a new HOC group called "Your Credit Card Companies" is watching out for you, the little guy, by checking to make sure that credit card fraud doesn't happen. They check your transactions and if they seem out of wack, they contact you and ask you. So basically, they know what you buy, and if you buy something weird, well, they call you and ask you if that was you. Good shit, huh? A little invasion of personal privacy? Not too shabby.

2.) I saw some commercial about some sort of program that Wal-Mart supports, so that disadvantaged youth can have fun. Nothing like having the world's most evil corporation, Wal-Mart, help out some disadvantaged youth. Hey, guess what? Wal-Mart is screwing 63% of its 1.2 million employees, who average 9.40 dollars an hour, out of unionization and health care. If you were a tenured employee at Wal-Mart, chances are you're being discriminated against for sex, you have no health care, you are peddling inferior made products, streamlined through China and you're under the poverty line! Don't fear though, you have the Wal-Mart smiley thing to cheer you up through all your misery. And don't forget about the disadvantaged youth...

3.) What is with Fox showing all of these fixated individuals during its coverage of the ALCS? It's a bit distrubing. I'm noticing that a good majority of the Boston fans have some sort of occultist mannerisms, whether it is holding up some special jewlery, or wearing some weird suit...I think its a bit scary.

4.)How bad is rap-music right now? There are increasingly less viable artists, presenting decent music. It is becomming more mainstreamed and conformist. Production value is becoming more important than lyricism or meaning. It reminds me of the decline of rock music, just a few years ago, that was revitalized by indie rock...hopefully independent rap will rise above the crap that sifts around on the radio.

5.) Election 2004 is shaping up as another sham. I get a lot of flak from democrats when I tell them I'm thinking about voting for Ralph Nader. I get a lot of, "well that's just like voting for Bush..." The problem I have with that is the way we reduce our democracy to a two-party hegemony that differs minutely. Third parties are essential in flanking these major parties into conceding changes for fringe voters. We saw this during the 90s with Pat Buchannon and we are seeing it regressing again with Ralph Nader. I applaud them for being bold enough to stand tall to their convictions, without having to concede to centrism.

Bands and Musical taste that is good now:

Muse, Anberlin, Deep Dish Live sets, White Town, Radiohead, RJD2

John Stewart

2004-10-19T02:31:00.000-03:00

I found John Stewart's lambasting of the theatrics of "political debate" on Crossfire, as truly refreshing and insightful. Too often, our cable media has turned into a ratings frenzy, where money and theatrics really over-run the true essence of objective media. In case you haven't seen it, here's the link.

http://randomfoo.net/junk/current/crossfire-redirector.php

Watch the media hacks try and "readjust" to the political heat that will be applied to their networks. I'm sure they're rhetoric will change in the short-run, as long as a public-moral outrage can be heard. Don't let up on these assholes, let em know you don't like their bullshit.

23 hours a day of debate about Lacey Peterson...give me a fucking break.

Intersect

2004-09-22T01:52:00.000-03:00

Who's world is this. It's mine it's mine its mine...

Sangria bombs deplete life and all within...

...We grapple to fret the sages that spread. Lillies fret

I'm out for...

...presidents to represent me

Never.

Going Under

2004-08-31T02:05:00.000-03:00

I'm a deep dish pizza filled with junk science.
Popped brash in threat,
lacking intensity seems right.
Err here, and reap the whirlwind.

Nonetheless, we're careful to dismiss
leaving things unnoticed never.
Casually parooze, slip it by-
step into my syphon.

Hang out your self and rue the day
they forgot your name.

Crappiest TV Networks

2004-08-21T05:28:00.000-03:00

Top 6 Crappiest TV Networks

I’ll admit, I watch a good deal of TV, and yet I’m so repulsed by the networks. They fill their lineups with such shit, I can’t believe how some people watch it. Just the other day, I was watching The Olympics on NBC while switching to the Ravens/Eagles game on CBS. In between, on ABC was some generic sitcom family show with a few hot blondes and a stupid storyline. It was the dumbest thing I ever wasted 25 seconds watching (of which I watched, only because Jenny McCarthy was on). One of the castmembers was Jefferson from Married With Children. It’s a travesty that they’d ruin such a classic character on such a crappy show. Well here’s the list.

6.) - Some may interperet the fact that CBS is the least crappiest network on my list as it being a good channel. Don’t be fooled, it’s just less shitty than the others. Why is it less shitty? Well, they have 1 good show (CSI), of which they have coppied (CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, Without A Trace, Missing Link, etc etc etc…) incessantly. The bastard versions of the show aren’t as good, but the original is basically the best on TV. A notch below good are their average shows like Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens. They also do a decent job with sports broadcasts, like the Superbowl and AFC football. Dave Letterman is still funny, even though he’s loosing his material and guest-power, but who gives a shit about guests plugging their movies anyways.

5.) - Back in its heyday, NBC was the cadillac of network crap. They had some solid television, in Seinfeld (great show), Frasier (pretty good), ER (great show) and Friends (filler that teenagers like). Now, all those shows are gone except ER, which is total shit, due in part that all the good characters are gone. ER focuses on the personal issues of the doctors more than the actual trauma unit. I don’t give a shit about the medical student’s graduation problems, okay? Well, due to the drop off, NBC has reloaded its roster with crap, such as Fear Factor. Fear Factor is an abomination to human kind. They have some really desperate people who eat god knows what and connive around to get 25,000 bucks. Just get a job instead. NBC got lucky with The Apprentice, which I’m not personally obsessed about, but people seem to like it. However, with every Apprentice, NBC has churned out shows like “The Restaurant” and “Marry My Father” and “For Love or Money.” Give me a fucking break, these are the worst ideas ever. On a side note, Jay Leno is extremely annoying and should be replaced by Conan.Their new fall lineup, which they incessantly plug on The Olympics (thanks for showing the coverage after everyone tells me who wins, I’ll take it out on you), looks like shit. Hawaii? Medical Investigation? LAX? Give Me A Break. It’s all shit.

P.S. the new Joey show looks like total shit. Fair Warning to those who will watch it.

4.) - close call for ABC. Back in the day, ABC was pretty decent. Monday Night Football, Millionaire, Jeopardy; not bad. However, they have filled their days with shitty ass generic sitcoms. Where do they come up with this shit? I hate how they have the mandatory “ethnic” sitcoms like George Lopez and My Wife And Kids. What is with that shit, why can’t their diversity be natural, instead of absolutely forced. Hope & Faith was that show I was talking about in the intro. Pure shit. The Drew Carey Show shoulda been cancelled about 6 years ago. Extreme Makeover is a fucking joke. I don’t want to see some self-deprecating bitch get a new face just so people can findout that she has an awful personality. I wish they showed the show 6 months after her boyfriend fucks her and leaves her, citing the fact that she is a self-fufilling slut porphecy. For latenight, I think Nightline is good, but not as good as Charlie Rose. Also, Jimmy Kimmel is funny, but his guests and skits are sometimes B- level (tonight’s guest was Tony Danza…this isn’t 1987). Their new fall lineup, which they plugged incessantly during the NBA finals looks like shit. LOST needs to get lost and Wifeswap was trumped by Fox’s version. Wamp wamp.

3.) UPN- Under Payed Nobodies, is the most PC way to describe this network. Kudos to it for putting out a lot of ethnically diverse shows, but it still needs to realize that 98% of its programming is pure shit. Girlfriends, All of Us, Half and Half, Eve, The Parkers. Laugh. What more do I need to say? More sadly, their foray into reality television, such as “Amish in the City” and “America’s Top Model” is almost as crappy as “WWE Smackdown.” UPN caters to a lesser intelligent watcher.

2.) - Surprised that it isn’t the shittiest? So am I, especially from a network that has shows like Bewitched and Charmed. Shivers. Although it has its really shitty shows like Reba, 7th Heaven, Steve Harvey’s Big Time and Summertime, it has some decent programing in Smallville and Everwood. I’m just being nice by not calling it the shittiest.

1.) - You guessed it, the Old News Cord company FOX has outdone themselves again. Shit doesn’t begin to describe how bad Fox is. Without The Simpsons, I don’t know why anyone would watch this fucking channel, especially after they axed Family Guy and Futurama. The Simple life is a travesty to man kind. Whoever made this show needs to hang themselves. Also, their soap-opera OC show is just a joke. Fox has no intellectually stimulating material, save The Simpsons and Arrested Development (its two good shows). Bernie Mac and That 70s show are pretty funny, but they’re mired by all the reality bullshit shows that Fox churns out (Celebrity Boxing, Marry A Millionaire, Cops, North Shore, Tru Calling etc etc etc etc). It has no shame, purely awful.
P.S., American Idol is awful. The fact that 65 million people vote for that shit and only 100 million vote for our president is the most disturbing thing that I can think of in my mind.

Relativity and the meanings of causality

2004-08-16T15:35:00.000-03:00

Dr. Armand M. Nicholi Jr. once wrote, “In the wider world, we keep hectically busy and fill every free moment of our day with some form of diversion-- work, computers, television, movies, radio, magazines, newspapers, sports, alcohol, drugs, parties. Perhaps we distract ourselves because looking at our lives confronts us with our lack of meaning, our unhappiness, and our loneliness-- and with the difficulty, the fragility, and the unbelieveable brevity of life.” It really hit me that the activities that we hold dear to ourselves are so lite or ephemeral. After a boring week or a long school week, we like to go party, drink, meet girls, etc… Why? Is it a culture of escapism? Some people describe leisure as a pressure release or relaxation from the rigors of real life. It seems like Camus’ Sisyphus complex. Camus wrote about the dread of Sisyphus, who was (according to Homer) “the wisest and most prudent of mortals.” More importantly, “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing.”

I feel as though the more we learn about life and the more we realize and grasp concepts that overwhelm us, the more we find our existence to be so insignificant. Logic would tell us that this isn’t the case. According to chaos theory, any action that an individual takes can spawn millions of consequences and reprecussions. However, when looked upon in mass, the chaos that fills our world seems to work in some form of harmony.

What is that harmony? Well, if you expand upon Einstein’s universal theory of relativity, in a bemused sort of fashion, you can see the nature of our universe. It is that relativity that binds us, causality, so to speak. For example, how do you judge something to be materially pleasing? The aesthetics of materials are always based upon relativity. The system or construct of that relativity is money. Money is the simplest way to control people and it works as such an overwhelming force in our society. Why are those new shoes the coolest? Because they are from designer X and no one has them. Why are they so scarce? Because they cost X dollars and only Y amount of people can buy them. Why is this girl so hot? Because she has nice tits and an ass. How do you get nice tits and an ass? You go to Rodeo Drive and spend 50,000 dollars on plastic surgery. What does that get you? Lots of people want to fuck you.

Great, people want to fuck me now. Where do you go from there? After you fuck every big name celebrity or model where do you go from there. How do you get that feeling of exhiliration? Well you probably won’t unless you find it in heroin or cocaine.

Well, for those of us who don’t want to bend into such a lifestyle what is there for us? I’m not so intrested in getting a nice house, a housewife and a country club membership. I’m not intrested in playing golf or schmoozing with the local heirarchy. I’m not intrested in middle class suburbia. Fuck that.
That’s not to say that I’m some sort of buddhist materialist who gets no joy from material possesion. I enjoy (just to name a few things) nice electronics, well engineered cars, beautiful art, good wine, and like all things of scarcity, they cost money. So I find myself in a dillema. How much are these things worth to me, to make myself craft my life towards a direction where I contribute to this universal system that seems to trouble me so much? Can I be just a little bit of the problem and still be part of the solution? Who knows, I don’t.

Music

2004-08-11T16:00:00.000-03:00

A lot of people ask me what I listen to, because I listen to weird shit. Here’s a list of music I’ve been tuning into lately (8/11)

In Session: Johan Gielen(prog trance)- It’s a very good live set streamed by Internetdj.com he mixes real well and I like how the site gives a list of the songs so you know what you’re listening to. Some of the tracks are killer, but I couldn’t find them on vinyl.
Favorite track(s): Daren Tate > Deliverance > Mondo

The Prodigy (electronic): Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned- After 7 years on hiatus, Laim Howlett and crew picked up where they left off with The Fat of The Land. I think this cd is excellent. I’d describe it as an electro-dirty pop. It has melodic samples, great guest apperances and excellent dirty bass-lines. I give it two thumbs up.
Favorite track(s): Get Up Get Off (feat. Twista), Girls

PeteRock: Soul Survivor II (Hip-Hop): I was reading an article by Pete in Remix magazine a few months ago and he talked about the state of hip-hop in today’s media as “hip-pop.” I have to agree with him. With all the hip-pop and beat rap out there, I’ve started to branch off of rap/hip-hop music lately. I only find solace in underground. Rock’s album is fat. He rejoins with longtime friend C.L. Smooth and recording engineer Jeremy Staub. His beat’s are true and fat, the artists (like Talib Kweli, Pharoe Monch, Kardinall Offishall, Dead Prez and many more) are real hip-hop.
Favorite Track(s): We Good ft. Kardinall, It’s A Love Thing ft. C.L., Beef Feat. Krumbsnatcha, Head Rush ft. RZA and GZA

Sasha: Involver (Prog Trance)- Excellent mix cd! Sasha, who I haven’t really listened to much, infuses the mix-cd concept by remixing all the tracks himself. Excellent production quality and sound quality. It is definitely one of the top 5 albumbs of the year.
Favorite Track(s): u.n.k.l.e.- what are you to me, petter- these days, spooky- belong, felix da housecat- watching cars go by

Vinyls I’ve bought lately:

Mobb Deep- Got It Twisted (Rap): Excellent bass line, good for parties….not much substance, mixes well with some tracks, 106BPM

Mark Farina- Dream Remixes (House): Soft house, slow beat, real relaxing, doesn’t hit as much as I want it to, but you always want variety

D&D Project- Afterhours EP (Hard House): HOLY JESUS! What a sick vinyl, it packs everything I need. Some killer sounds with fat bass, some sick lyric loops on this packed 2 side vinyl. You’ll hear this a lot when I’m around.

Grandfather Clock

2004-08-09T05:07:00.000-03:00

Calmly, he sat at the head of the table.
Hands interlocked in a Picasso savvy,
gazing upon time, the clock moves.

He grabs the pulp of the morning sheets.
They almost greet him accordingly.
Folded similarly, never rushed.
The pendulum swings again.

Rising, a face of resonance thinks aloud.
You try to absorb the aura, but it cant be
Faked, it must weather the test of time.

Thoughts on geopolitics and the burgeoning role of Media

2004-08-09T04:20:00.000-03:00

Part 1
Through the conception of our nation, as forged by our forefathers, a partnership between government and society is forged through a social contract. This social contract begins by a cogent acceptance of a bedrock foundation, for which we call law. The basics, as stipulated by the Constitution, are fundamentally sound. Since the Code of Hamurabi and basic biblical law, a fundamental set of values or guidelines for any soverign nation’s law has existed. Freedom, liberty and justice are the most resonating principles in our constitution. When deviating from the basics, there are some issues that carry more debate, such as the right to bear arms, but nevertheless, by our residence in such a place, we have a fundamental responsibility to understand and accept these values.

Within the history of the United States, some of these problems have developed into national issues. For example, in the early to mid 19th century, the analysis of the constitutional allowance of “freedom” was scrutinized by anti-abolitionists who wished to carry on the practice of slavery, while many abolitionists were against unequality. The result was a social and geographical dichotomy. However noble the intentions of the abolitionists, it would be naieve to percieve the issue not as a multi-faceted debate. Economic stability and cultural values were at stake, often convoluting the argument of morality. In the inability to comprimise, which led to the failed sucsession of the confederate states, we found a situation where idealistic differences were insurmountable. The result was purely devestating, leading to a war between countrymen that led to the death of millions of Americans. It is arguable that through the war, we forged a stronger bond. Others say that the cultural dichotomy became even greater.

Within times of great strife, historically, our nation has garnished a reputation that upholds the principles of our constituiton; that others can be afforded the same liberties that we enjoy. In the face of a facist revolution most appropriately within Nazi Germany, the United States reluctantly mobilized halfway through the global conflict and, in effect, turned the tide of war towards freedom. Cynics who claim that we acted far too late, allowing Axis powers to control much of the civilized globe, and only mobilizing after we were attacked, must understand the cultural context behind the political motivations. Of course the United States saw that our soverign allies, such as Britain and France were being overrun, but to call for the service of millions of Americans to fight and die upon foreign soil, for a fight that threatens us theoretically (as percieved at the time), seemed too brash to justify. Sadly, our mobilization did occur, but only after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” This resolve was one of national defense. To fight without this resolve, would seem unfathomable to explain to those troops who you would have to send to battle. In order to defend our country, people and soverignty, we mobilized.

As the war came towards an end, our forces began to spread through the devestation led by totalitarian facism. The world itself came to juxtaposition and more importantly, a realization of the evil in men. Death camps were exposed to the atrocities that we humans carried out; mass executions in China, Eastern Europe and of course, Western Eurpoe: The quintessential example being the Nazi concentration camps that sought effeciency in the face of human life.

The culture shock that spread in Western Europe developed into a sense of absurdism. To paraphrase Samuel Beckett, the conception of God had died in the areas of war-torn Europe. Words such as devestation and carnage do no justice to the horrors done. The absurdist movement seemed to encapsulate the frustration involved within a nihilist framework. The atom bomb seems to act, aptly as a paradigm for this frustration. We as human beings had come to such technological advancements that we were, indeed, able to seemingly destroy the heavens and all beyond. Certainly, that fear drove and motivated us towards a global urgency; The United Nations, a multi-national initiative that seeked to supercede its failed predecessor (The League of Nations) seemed to be a promising solution to an incumbent problem. A pact of nations would idealy create a united globe. All looked well. Peace and accord could be reached. The only problem that arose was a conflict between the remaining superpowers.

The maligned and bi-polar result was a cold war between nations. Their differences were various, ranging from geography to ideology. East versus West, Freedom vs Restriction; ultimately Democracy versus Communism. At first, our nation was determined to fight the evil of the Iron Fist. We enlisted an abiding and spirited army in Korea. We protected Western Germany with resolve. More importantly, a détente between two superpowers began to form. The conception of the cold war was the first time since the Dark Ages where technology became maligned in the face of externalities. Back then, a loss of knowledge facilitated a down time. In this context, a fear of what technology could and would do, led to its hibernation.

Between 1951 and 1957, “The Department of Defense reports that 54,246 Americans service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War” (American Battle Monuments Commision). What may seem to us as a staggering number of dead, it pailed in comparison towards the casulaties caused by World War II. Dubbed “The Forgotten War,” The Korean Conflict showed the hotspots involved in cold war, and the price of détente. Oddly enough, the situation didn’t bode too negatively among the American People. The situation was deemed among a seemingly national consensus to be noble in merit and cause. When confronted with a situation like this, our people often look to our bedrock, our constitution. In their eyes, we were protecting soverignty and democracy against the reach of communism. The fact that we weren’t being attacked on our native soil did not preclude our military intervention. There was no Pearl Harbor for Korea, only an agenda that our nation deemed fitting.

Our fight for soverignty, from the grasps of Communism seemed to hold steady in the eyes of our people. Our government’s ability to stabilize geo-political issues was trusted. To elaborate, we the American people trusted the American government to do what was necessary to solve the problems that we saw around the world. We had fully abandoned isolationism; we were the acting guardians of the free world. The situation was quite chummy, regardless of the spending or death tolls. Everything was stable. Until Vietnam.

In 1954, a colonial Vietnam tried to free itself from the grasps of French imperialism. Imperialism had begun to die in the face of nationalism. Johnathan Schell describes the struggle of imperialism as, inevitabily, futile. Towards the mid 20th century, areas such as India and Africa began to loosen the grip of colonialism. The French hold on Vietnamese rubber began to slip as Vietnam sought soverignty. Not unlike our forefathers, the Vietnamese explored all options of government when they decided to emancipate themselves. With communist activists preaching thoughts of a social utopia, many Vietnamese people began to side with communist thoughts. Meanwhile, in the United States, geo-political theorists, formulated in our thinktanks, devised the “domino theory” which called for immediate intervention in areas of the world that were susceptible to the spread of communism. What seemed like a light incursion became a national crusade. Domestically, the war became a highly contested and debated issue.

In the 60s, we were witness to a social revolution that sought to undermine the antiquated ways of the past. Social movements for equal rights became to grow. The age of the hippie was shown to be a cultural phenomenon, as much as it was a political one. People of our age (born in the 80s or 90s) seem to think that the whole country was in a “hippie” daze. Actually, the majority of Americans and American youth were quite normal, rejecting “hippie” ideals. Only in hotspots such as San Francisco were hippie ideals percieved as common. The power of the hippies was contingent on the growth of media. Pictures, words and most importantly, videos of hippies spread. The shock effect of counter culture create such a media-buzz that what would have been percieved as abnormal behavior among a collective became nationally intent. The “domino effect” seemed to ironically effect our nation. Ideas about equality and egalitarianism spread throughout areas such as universities where young malleable minds were able to pick up the ideals of the hippie. The numbers escalated.

One of the main points that the “hippies” pushed, besides sub-culture in music, drugs and sex, was peace. Opposition to the war or any war was a prevading theme among the movement. Now, the once relaxed and controlling government which had the approval of our nation, in our social contract, had oposition. What made the situation worse was the role of media in the Vietnam War. Pictures of our depraved and injured soldiers plastered the news. Our injured men became the posterchild of the hippie. Although the hippies pounded this point, it was the death toll that pounded the American people. As the number of dead escalated, and ideological disagreement towards the war arose, the Government found itself in a position where it was loosing the War on both sides.

I believe the film Apocalypse Now directed by Francis Ford Coppola exhibits the problems within the war. The film, as adapted by the novella Heart of Darkness shows the depravity and confusion that a war without a cause fills. In a terrain such as Vietnam, where jungle and heat wreak havoc with the psyche, our troops, which were drafted out of their suburban lifestyles, stood no chance. As Major Kurtz, as played by Marlon Brando said, “I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream. That's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight... razor... and surviving.” So was the status of our army, which was backed by a government determined to not see it fail, but filled with a corps of incapable civilians. The American Public became fully aware of it as they gazed on the evening news. The death toll hit at above 50,000 and the national consensus was one that did not trust the government. It is intresting that the death toll in Vietnam paralells that of Korea, and yet Vietnam is seen as the disaster. The reason seems clear; the conception of media which portrayed the horrors of war.

Many people call The Vietnam War one of the great failures of our government. Regardless of whether it was or wasn’t a failure, the United States government gained a tool from this war that it had not used before. The power of the media came to light and the government now made plans to use it to its own mechanics. This revelation marks a point in American history, in my opinion, that has begun to reshape the geo-political landscape. The role of media and its confluence on the American people changed after Vietnam. I call it one of the great tradgedies of our time. I will expand on that in the second part of this post: Media in the Post Cold War.