Tres Producers |
||
|
Thoughts on culture, politics, music and stuff by Eric Olsen, Marty Thau and Mike Crooker, who are among other things, producers.
Archives
Related Sites:
Encyclopedia of Record Producers discography database
|
Saturday, June 15, 2002
Judged Stupid I was under the impression that stupid people are not allowed to be judges. I was wrong. U.S. District Judge William Young dropped one of nine charges in the indictment against the alleged shoe bomber Richard Reid - "attempted wrecking of a mass transportation vehicle" - on the grounds that an airplane is not a "vehicle":
The Insanity Offense U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on Thursday
Self-Organizing Liberals Armed Liberal just started blogging in May and he is already rocking harder than just about anyone. He has begun a fascinating series on "Self-Organizing Systems":
‘Wicked’ problems, on the other hand, inherently cannot be modeled in a reductive fashion, and cannot be simplified into models which can be readily analyzed in an isolated environment. In effect, to model a wicked problem, you have to completely reproduce the thing modeled, much like Borges’ famous map. Problems in street traffic analysis, economics, weather prediction are ‘wicked’ problems. Advances in math applications and computer science, however, have enabled us to come up with ways to predictively model wicked systems, and that, I’ll argue, is the foundation of ‘chaos theory’.
Wolfram, in his new book, seems to be making the argument that this isn’t just a representation, but the real underpinning of much of modern math and physical science (note: haven’t read the book yet, would love to hear from someone who has). I’ll argue that it provides a great metaphor for understanding human behavior and social systems, and right now in looking at the appropriate response in the WoT. Lying Like Rugs A new study shows that people lie with amazing frequency, with 60% lying at least once in a ten minute conversation:
...The study also found that lies told by men and women differ in content, though not in quantity. Feldman said the results showed that men do not lie more than women or vice versa, but that men and women lie in different ways. "Women were more likely to lie to make the person they were talking to feel good, while men lied most often to make themselves look better," Feldman said. A group of 121 pairs of undergraduate UMass students were recruited to participate in the study. They were told that the purpose of the study was to examine how people interact when they meet someone new. Participants were told they would have a 10-minute conversation with another person. Some participants were told to try to make themselves appear likable. Others were told to appear competent. A third, control group was not directed to present themselves in any particular way. ...The lies the students told varied considerably, according to Feldman. Some were relatively minor, such as agreeing with the person with whom they were speaking that they liked someone when they really did not. Others were more extreme, such as falsely claiming to be the star of a rock band. "It's so easy to lie," Feldman said. "We teach our children that honesty is the best policy, but we also tell them it's polite to pretend they like a birthday gift they've been given. Kids get a very mixed message regarding the practical aspects of lying, and it has an impact on how they behave as adults." Does this practice being honest make us more honest overall, or do we store up our prevarications and pile them on even more in verbal discourse than most people? I would guess the former applies more often, as habits are hard to break: even the habit of honesty. Perhaps we also become more accustomed to disagreeing with people - and having them disagree with us - in a noncombative manner through blogging, thereby removing some of the psychological need to agree to get along that so many apparently feel. And since blogging is such an impressive thing to do, perhaps we would be less likely to lie to impress others as well. But why do people lie? ScienceNet says:
Children cannot lie when they are born. As they acquire language, they learn to co-operate with others - and learn about deception, in order to survive in society. Sufferers from autism cannot lie or understand deception, and live in a lonely and isolated world. Lying has an irrefutable value in human culture, for the ability to deceive one's peers has evolved into one of the most advanced and powerful of our cerebral functions. It is a power that helps us succeed in love, war and commerce. Paul Ekman, a UCSF psychiatry professor, says avoiding punishment is the most common reason people lie, although personal gain in the form of money, power, or approval are not far behind. But a lot of people lie, sometimes at great personal risk, for little apparent reason at all:
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Jose had his hopes for a promotion sunk after he admitted last year ['97] to making up the story of his brother being shot dead by white racists as he watched. Ekman has looked at both cases. He notes that the lies were devised before Ware and Lawrence became so prominent. People liked the stories, so they stayed in each man's repertoire. "It becomes part of their life," Ekman says. "They almost believe it is true."
...Retired Chief Master Sgt. Spencer Dukes was a celebrated figure at March Air Force Base and a speaker on the plight of prisoners of war. In 1996, however, it was revealed that Dukes had made up his story about being in the infamous Bataan Death March during World War II. In a recent interview, Dukes, 79, of Riverside, said he started telling the bogus story around 1981. "It just snowballed with a few people and it kept going and going," Dukes said. He added, "I probably pushed it a little bit." ...The response of those who are lied to can also seem out of touch with reality. Consider the reaction Burkett gets when he exposes phony war stories. Instead of getting angry at the liar, people often get angry at Burkett, he says. That's because people love a good story. And because exposing the lie calls into question everyone's tales of military exploits. Plus, "we all want to know a hero," Burkett says. "It's like schoolboy adulation." Essentially, these people are facilitating the lies, Burkett says.
Mission Accomplished Okay, this is on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS ONLY, but I am back from my mission. Likely, it is understood that I can't reveal details of this clandestine operation, but I am at liberty to pass on the fact that I am a REGIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY. Austin Powers is an INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, and today I received CRUCIAL CREDITS on my way up the ladder. If I keep this up, I will have enough credits to take my NATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY test in the near future. Again, no questions please about the details of my operation, but per the Freedom of Information Act, I am obliged to reveal that an artichoke, puce nail polish, a State Senator from North Dakota, chop sticks, and an ice core from the Pleistocene were involved. Enough said. Issues, Issues, Issues I'm on a mission for the State Department this morning and thus will reluctantly be away from the computer for a few hours. There are three topics under open discussion that still haven't received their full due. Ross has brought up another element of unwanted pregnancy of which I was unaware. We still seek your personal stories regarding experiences with unwanted pregnancy, as the debate typically centers on generalities and generalities don't get pregnant. Dawn has given her own experience, and many have shared theirs on her site. I am still disappointed that more bloggers have not picked up on this issue - perhaps it is too painful - but these kinds of personal issues are what blogging - personal journalism - may address best. The debate over guns rages on, though we are mostly in agreement that the term "loophole" is too charged to be of much use at this point. The real issue is do we want greater governmental control over the exchange of private guns, or do we not. Another issue came up almost of its own accord. I linked a feminist critique of a Jonah Goldberg column on same that got reader Brian Wachs all fired up and he wrote an essay's worth of refutation in the comment section. Is the job of feminism 99% completed in this country? Jonah and Brian think so. I think it's more like 75% with some crucial attitudinal issues yet to be resolved. What do you think? Friday, June 14, 2002
Reflections I can be a bit hypocritical. I admit it. I tend to shy away from diarist-type bloggers because it's so ... subjective and all, yet I write about myself plenty and expect people to be pretty damned fascinated and edified. But other people's lives....well.... One of the good things about Dawn blogging is that she has introduced me to an entire universe of bloggers I might not have been exposed to otherwise, and this is all to the good because we all need to be broadened and stretched and told we are full of shit sometimes. Dawn tells me this often. So anyway, I got to know Matt Moore through Dawn, and they both like Sweat Flavored Gummi Rebecca, who actually scares me to a certain extent, especially after that interview if you know what I mean. BUT, her post today about a dying favorite aunt is touching, funny, brave, honest, and a lasting tribute: all in three paragraphs. I am humbled. Another Perspective Ross at Health Welfare Warfare contributes to the teen pregnancy/abortion discussion:
Is this a widespread problem that the legislation seeks to address? Probably not. But it is a very public issue. And, as Dawn & others have already discussed, the whole issue of what to do when a teen gets pregnant is traumatic enough without having to end in a situation with a mom killing her newborn and being thrown in prison. Hacker's Punctuation A very interesting conversation has developed regarding punctuation in the comment section of this post below. I come to blogging from a writing background. My use of computers is limited to the Internet, word processing, and some fairly low-end database work. So I was surprised to get this info from Michael:
Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if "Jim is going" is a phrase, and so are "Bill runs" and "Spock groks", then hackers generally prefer to write: "Jim is going", "Bill runs", and "Spock groks". This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them. Given the sorts of examples that can come up in discussions of programming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading. When communicating command lines or small pieces of code, extra characters can be a real pain in the neck. I have a suggestion: bloggers can use whichever style they prefer if they make a STATEMENT OF STYLE on their site like some have "terms of use" and the like. Then hackers can follow their logic wherever they may go. Rand Simberg and LakeFXDan contributed valuable thoughts on the subject as well. Back In the Saddle Gary Farber is back after a blog break - it's that time of year. He is describing himself in this post:
Gun Game Theory Rand Simberg - at home here on the ground as well as in space - offers some interesting evidence in response to my statement that "the seemingly obvious fact that the more guns there are, and the more people who have them, the more likely it is that someone will get shot." I KNEW someone would say something about that:
For instance, if only criminals have guns (which is, unfortunately, the end result, if unintended, of many measures urged by gun-control proponents), then the number of gunshot victims might be high, or low, depending on whether the intent of the criminals is to cause mayhem, or to simply extort the citizenry. If the latter, it would be possible for them to get what they want by simply brandishing the weapons, against which the law abiding would have no defenses. If the goal is to prevent felons and terrorists (sorry to use the term, but I would rather deal with a terrorist armed with a box cutter or a knife or a bludgeon than a gun - the effectiveness of the box cutters was due to the fact that we were caught off guard) from getting guns, why not check everyone every time? More Traffic Mac Frazier has an interesting follow up to his discussion of blog traffic:
Not as obviously, quantity of posts also has an influence—those that are steady and frequent posters get more, whereas people like me that post in surges and then get quiet for a week retain fewer visitors; Not all referrers are created equal—the more frequently a major referrering blog updates, the shorter the duration of the traffic wave (e.g., InstaLinks are powerful, but short-lived compared to the once-a-day Best of the Web links which generate "wider" traffic bulges); Most blogs are very dependent on referred traffic, with the smallest and largest blogs being the ones whose "core", non-referred traffic is largest for them, percentage-wise; Nearly all but the absolute top-tier (e.g., InstaPundit and USS Clueless) who responded in one way or another readily admitted that traffic is important to them, though for various reasons; Feminism's Work Done? While we're on flashpoint topics, Justin Sodano's fiancee Lindsey "Weighs In" with some thoughts on feminism:
First, some definitions to get us all on the same page. There are really two different kinds of feminism—activism and theory. Activism is when groups of feminists get together to change policy or laws in the real world. Activism got women the right to vote, hold their own property, and go to college. Theory is for thinkers; it examines why things are the way they are, often with great depth and sophistication that people like Jonah Goldberg haven’t bothered to understand. Feminist activists include Gloria Steinem and Susan B. Anthony. Feminist theorists include Luce Irigary and Teresa de Lauretis. In his article Goldberg deals only with activism and ignores theory altogether. Clearly all the theories that will ever be thought in the past, present, and future of humanity [sic] haven’t already been published, so that knocks out Goldberg’s 99% number right there. Now let’s drill down into activism—have 99% of feminist activist goals been accomplished? If so, that would mean that 99% of women throughout the world have qualities of life equal to those of the men in their countries. I can pretty much guarantee you that wherever in the world there is a man crapping in the street, there is a woman sleeping in crap. A Gun Through the Eye of a "Loophole" The comments on the gun show loophole post below are good enough and interesting enough to put up here. Remember they are in reverse chronological order. Read from #1 up if you want to follow the debate in its original order.
I think you've missed a couple of points here. 1) The "Gun Show Loophole" is a phrase being used to get the public to favor changes to the law that McCain and Lieberman (et al) want to make. The "Gun Show Loophole Closure Act", of course, will actually be a "Notify the Feds Every Time a Gun Changes Hands Act", but proponents don't want to call it that. In other words, it's not the gun control opponents who keep bringing up the non-existent loophole, but the gun control advocates. 2) Once we stop chasing the red herring of gun shows, we might wonder if the Constitution allows the Federal government to require every sale to be checked. There's that interstate commerce clause, y'know. Not every desirable goal is allowed under the Constitution, which is why we can add amendments. I don't think this problem is serious enough to require an amendment, but I expect Nick Kristoff and Sarah Brady do. So why aren't they proposing one? I suggest it is because an amendment would have to be clear and to the point, and would be much harder to bend after the fact than a simple law would be. We saw that recently when the NY Times and others complained that Ashcroft wasn't taking the opportunity to turn the "instant" background check system into a national gun registry. As Brian says, we are already on the slippery slope. PJ/Maryland --- #8. Sandra: This whole thread began with Reynolds and Goldstein bashing Kristof in The NY Times for a piece that was based on the idea of terrorists using gun shows to supply themselves with weapons. There may not be statistics to wave around yet, but one incident of terrorism on US soil with arms obtained at a gun show would have a devastating impact on the argument that there is no problem here. In all other areas we seem to be preoccupied with the government's responsibility to preempt terrorism. Why not preempt the possibility in this area? You are right, though, about the all or nothing. If my scenario were to occur, we'd likely not see another gun show AT ALL for a very long time. Brian Linse --- #7. Ah yes, gun shows are dangerous because terrorists can buy their guns there. Excellent point. Except... allowing potential terrorists (humans, anotherwords) to have friends who can buy guns is dangerous in the same way(moreso, actually). So are garage sales. So are the classifieds. So is allowing any firearms in the country except in the hands of the poilce and military (and even they can be bribed or robbed). So you say that the problem isn't so much that there is or isn't a loophole (verrrry slippery, pal) as the fact that gun shows exist as a place for private citizens to sell their guns, period. Mustn't let those gun nuts congregate. Who knows what damage they might do? Lets move on and examine the point you seem to wish to debate: "the wisdom of laws that allow firearms to change hands without the benefit of a criminal background check." Note that for that above statement to be truthful, it has to be understood that it refers to private citizens exchanging firearms, not liscenced dealers, who always have to do checks. Yet at the time the law requiring background checks was passed, there was a lot of promising going on by proponents of the law that this would never apply to private citizens. The law certainly would never have passed had it targeted every gun owner in America, as you now seem to wish to discuss. The point of debate has shifted from weather we should do these background checks at ALL, to weather we should ban private citizens from selling their property in a manner of their choosing, because they are not required to preform checks. So now, perversely, the freedom from performing checks that private owners retained is now used as a justification for more restrictions like banning gun shows. Slippery slopes are not a logical fallacy, and especially not in gun rights because the historical pattern of gun banners has been a chip-at-a-time approach. 'Reasonable restrictions' is a chameleon-word whose object changes to whatever the next chip is. Once that goal is gained, the next target is the next 'reasonable restriction'. This is progress, but certainly not in the manner that you mean. Brian Wachs --- #6. Everyone seems to have overlooked something: the so-called "loophole" as a source accounts for only 0.7 percent...LESS THAN 1% of guns used in 'criminal activity. 33% are acquired from 'Friends/Family", the next 33% are acquired from "black markets" [non-gunshows], leaving the "loophole" a VERY distant 5th. All this according to Law Enforcement statistics. Where's the "urgency" ?? MommaBear --- #5. JG, "Squarejawed" as in stentorian in the earnest manner of a Roger Ramjet, or something. Just popped into my head actually. Thanks for the follow up link, dude. Eric Olsen --- #4. Strawman, Lynn. Care to delineate who such "idiots who refuse to accept reasonable restrictions" are? And while you're at it, care to define "reasonable restrictions"? I think you'll find that defining what is a "reasonable restriction" is precisely what's being debated in the majority of gun control cases. For instance, many states believe that keeping ammunition in a separate location from the weapon is "reasonable" (and have passed laws to that effect -- so-called "Child Safety" laws) but opponents think that such a restriction hinders their ability to competently defend themselves in the event of a break-in, say. Who's right? Well, opinions differ. But it's hardly cut and dry, I don't think. Jeff G. --- #3. I think people get way waaaay too worked up over this issue. Sure I think law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns but the worst danger to the "right to keep and bear arms" are those idiots who refuse to accept reasonable restrictions. Anyone who takes an all or nothing stance could very well end up with nothing. Lynn --- #2. Eric, I think you're getting off-base by bringing terrorists into the argument. Obviously, the terrorists involved in Sept. 11th didn't need guns at all. Also, when I think about the things I worry about terrorists possibly acquiring, guns are quite far down the list. I don't own a gun, and I have no desire to do so. But if some cretin out there is aware that I can get a gun just as easily (if not more so) than he can, perhaps he might think twice before breaking into my house. All the professional crybabies here in Texas were sure that if our concealed carry law was passed that it would immediately take us back to the days of the shootout at high noon. That has not been the case. I don't have the exact stats, but I think violent crime in Texas has declined since that law was passed. Sandra --- #1. "Surprisingly square-jawed"? What in tarnations...? You may be right: Brian's point may be that the practice of transfering guns without some sort of federal oversight is dangerous. Of course, many people believe the opposite to be the real threat -- that having the government keeping tabs on all privately owned guns is a step toward fully disarming a law-abiding populace. I'm unconvinced by the argument that private sales practices allow unsavory types to can get guns they might otherwise have been unable to acquire. Could a terrorist get a gun at a gun show without having to submit to a background check? Sure, theoretically. But there are a number of other ways a terrorist could get a gun -- and he being a terrorist, he likely won't be deterred until he gets one. Jeff G. What to Do About Mistakes? First, allow me to restate that I have nothing but respect for Alex Whitlock: he is gracious and intelligent, and his response to my experience is all the harder for me personally to bear as a result. I cannot, and do not dismiss him as a fanatic or a nut: he is simply someone who has a very well-delivered opinion that happens to differ from mine:
If the baby had been kept and Eric would have stuck with her, it's very possible they would have had a happy ending. Or not. Maybe they would have gotten a divorce and ended up meeting Dawn and marrying her anyway. It's impossible to say. What is possible to say, by taking the path that he did, the potential child never actualized. Whether his or her parents would have been happy or divorced; whether he'd been attractive and charismatic or overweight and shy; whether she'd been queen of the prom or a bookworm who liked the read poetry surrounded by incense, life is invariably better to me than never having lived it. He won't be any of those things. She will never be whatever she was created to become and would have become without termination. That, to me, is impossible to ignore and nearly impossible to rectify. Ultimately Alex's judgment is that the life of the fetus has to overwhelm all other considerations. I understand this opinion and can easily see how it is morally supportable: we ARE talking about a life, or at least a potential life. But for me, in such matters the actual life of the parents outweighs the potential life of the fetus. I searched to my deepest being in an effort to determine if I could make the decision to marry this young woman. I could not. It would not have been fair to my two existing children, to her, to me. Is this "selfish"? Ultimately, I imagine it is, but a selfishness that refuses to be a martyr and make life miserable for all concerned. I made a mistake; I regret that mistake; I do not believe I made a second mistake in - coldly and with calculation, I freely admit - eliminating the results of the first mistake. Alex and I will simply have to agree to disagree in, I hope, a friendly manner. McLuhan Blog Marc Weisblott will be blogging his course in McLuhan:
Daily Back From Weekly Quick Bill is back from NY and not a moment too soon, buddy. Go see what he has to say. A Woman's Burden Dawn has her own wrenching story regarding an unwanted pregnancy:
Stormy Just got back from radio. I had to drive through a rainstorm of Biblical proportions the last few miles; saw a very large boat that seemed to be filled with animals - in pairs oddly enough - go floating by. I wonder what that means. In the Meantime Hey - how're they hanging? Late start today and I have to go take care of the radio show. Be back later with lot's of goodies. In the meantime, I think the gun issue and teenage pregnancy are very important. Check them out please. Thursday, June 13, 2002
Cabal Jen Raj. is having no end of parking ticket problems of her own as she relates in the comments of this post. So I checked her site out and found that she is a member of a secret cabal carrying on clandestine activities within the very shadow of our nation's most revered monuments. Jen assures us she looks better in person. That's what they all say, babe. UJC Approves Funding Over Green Line I have been extremely remiss lately in not mentioning the "fourth producer," Jerry Balsam, who every day except Saturday forwards a vast amount of well-chosen material for our use on the site. He just sent this story on with a note:
I don't know how big a story this will be, but I think it represents a terrible mistake by the United Jewish Communities. I know it makes me less likely to send a contribution. Jerry
Historic move signals communal shift rightward, effort to 'help Jews everywhere.' Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher After 35 years of confining its Israel-designated funds to within the Green Line, the primary fund-raising arm for the American Jewish community has changed its policy. In an historic move, the board of trustees of the United Jewish Communities, meeting Monday in Chicago, unanimously "adopted a broad interpretation of the UJC charter to permit the organization to provide assistance to Jews around the world, irrespective of where they live," according to an official statement. "We are changing the process," said UJC president and CEO Steve Hoffman in an interview Tuesday, though the group is not changing the wording of its charter, which dates back to 1960. Acknowledging "the environment has changed" since the outbreak of the Palestinian violence in September 2000, with the need for human services growing in the Jewish communities of the West Bank and Gaza, Hoffman said his group felt the need to "re-examine our charter and our practice." He said he consulted with attorneys recently who concluded "it would be within our charter to provide relief and rehabilitative services to Jews anywhere." The board action came in response to increasing criticism from some quarters that UJC was providing social services and humanitarian relief for Jews all over the world - except for those 200,000 or so living in Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 borders in the Holy Land. UPDATE Jerry checks back in:
(2) Because innocent people are suffering, I made a contribution, anyway, but it was somewhat smaller than it otherwise would have been. All the best. Jerry Unusual Programming "What's on the telly, dear?"
Sometimes What Is Practical IS What Is Moral I know I am going WAY out on a limb here. I just found blogger Alex Whitlock of RAW Musings because he left a comment on our site (see, I told you it works), and he is clearly a good and earnest conservative. He is brave enough to take on two of our most contentious issues: teenage pregnancy and abortion:
I've long thought it was a tactical mistake that conservatives pound so hardly on teenage pregnancy. For every single mother, there is a girl who made that admirable choice. 1) shouldn't have sex 2) if they do, they should use every means of birth control available to them 3) if this fails and they get pregnant and don't want to marry the father (and this means they would have chosen to marry this person even if they weren't pregnant) or the father doesn't want to marry them: get the abortion. This is what I would suggest to my 18 year-old daughter. Here is my philosophy on the matter: if you are an unwed teenager, then end it ("it" being the pregnancy, not the fetus) as early as possible, learn the lesson, move on, don't repeat the mistake. No one should be so stupid as to put themselves in a position to require more than one abortion. Everyone gets one do-over. Everyone is entitled to one mistake they can take back. That is how I view abortion under these circumstances. I don't take it lightly; I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, but I don't find teenagers having children out of wedlock "admirable" either. I find it highly disadvantageous to the individual mother and to society as a whole. The #1 indicator of downward social mobility is unwed teenage motherhood. Sometimes what is most practical is what is most moral. Regarding the morality of abortion: the earlier the better, time is of the essence - I am against voluntary abortion past the first trimester and would rather see it no later than the first month. I do not believe a fetus is a person. I believe a fetus is a potential person in a three-way equation: fetus + mother + time=baby. There is no baby without all three. All of this is well and good, but what is hidden in discussions of abstract morality and practicality is real people and their real lives. People should be a lot more open about their experiences and maybe at least those in the middle would feel a little more comfortable with their agonized decisions. The fringes are never going to change their minds. I am responsible for one abortion. It was ten years ago. I was 33, she was 19. The relationship was inappropriate, I was a fool. There was no way we belonged together. It was a friendship with occasional sex. She used birth control. I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway. I liked her and still do, but I didn't LIKE her, and she was way too young. When she said she was pregnant I was utterly floored, as if such a thing weren't possible. Clearly it was. Some will say the responsible thing would have been to marry her anyway. Some will say the responsible thing would have been to offer to support the baby. I thought the responsible thing to do was pay for an abortion, so I did. While I deeply regret my actions in causing the pregnancy, I do not now and never have regretted the abortion. It was right for her and right for me. Many will say, "What about what was right for the baby?" There was no baby, there was a newly-formed fetus. A baby would have also required a willing mother and time. As far as marrying the girl no matter what: if I had, I never would have met Dawn, married her, and had the family I have now that is so right for all involved. Is this heartless, cold, overly practical? Maybe, but I know in my deepest of hearts that it was the right way out of a bad situation. I have prayed many times for forgiveness - I believe I have it. I am very leery of older men in relationship to my daughter. I am very happy her boyfriend is a few months younger than she is. I believe she is very sensible and protective of herself. I also believe she is still a virgin. But if something like this happened to her, I would suggest she do the same thing and not have one mistake alter the course of her entire life. That's my story - what's yours? For Your Ass Although I share Layne's notion that ur-blogger Tony Pierce will soldier on in one bloggy form or another, I do not take his threat lightly to hang up this particular iteration of same on July 9. Tony's goal of 100 "permanent links" - now Tony we discussed this: you are not looking for "permalinks," or "permanent links," you are looking for inclusion in people's "blogrolodex," or their "roloblogdex," or their "list of recommended blogs on the right or left of the site that is part of the template and doesn't change from day to day" - so anyway 100 of these things by July 9 is a noble goal and I hope you make it because EVERYONE should know of the ineffable genius that is TP. But what I think is more important to note is that this is another flapping-in-the-wind-tunnel BRILLIANT-ASS passive-aggressive publicity ploy. And I thought Dawn was good. I would also like to note that Tony's site was THE VERY FIRST BLOG IN OUR TOUR O THE BLOGS way back in February, so we anticipated this movement by four freaking months. If you haven't added TP to your roloblogdex, get on it buster, maybe he's serious. Hypocrite For the record, I want to state here and now that although I think people could make better use of their time than looking at pornography, I do not object to this page because it's arty and stuff. Plus, I think I know that girl in the upper left, although she used to be a bit meatier. Alright Already, Guns I have stated before that I find the issue of guns tedious. This is largely because I have had so little contact with guns. I have never owned a gun, and I believe the last time I held or fired one was at camp around 30 years ago. They simply have no place in my life, but that doesn't mean I can't see that guns are an important issue, from a constitutional and a societal perspective. I am well aware that several of my blogger friends, with whom I am agreement with on many issues, take a strict constructionist point of view regarding guns: citizens have a right to them and that is pretty much that. I can honestly say that I do not know which is more important: a citizen's right to unfettered access, or the seemingly obvious fact that the more guns there are, and the more people who have them, the more likely it is that someone will get shot. One of the reasons I started blogging was to help myself resolve issues within my own head, and I hope that I will eventually be able to resolve this one, but for now it remains open. With all of that buildup, allow me to dip my toe into the torrent that is the running "gun show loophole debate." Brian Linse rather intrepidly takes on the issue here:
Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Goldstein, and Dave Kopel all argue that the loophole that Kristoff (and many others including Sen. John McCain) is referring to does not exist. Referring to warnings about the dangers of the loophole by Senators McCain and Lieberman,... But his central point remains: unlicensed dealers can sell up to "X" number (I don't know what that number is, but it doesn't matter for this discussion) of guns per year privately within their own state without having to do background checks because the federal regulation does't apply to unlicensed dealers who don't engage in interstate commerce in order to sell their guns. Linse (and Senators McCain and Lieberman) believe this is dangerous because terrorists or other unsavory folk can buy their guns this way. As far as I can tell, that's all he is trying to say, and, in fact, I agree with him. This IS dangerous. Linse gets into trouble, though, by calling this state of affairs a "gun show loophole," which allows a surprisingly square-jawed Jeff Goldstein the room he needs to attack the argument, correctly, on technical grounds:
Dirty Little Secret This big old cat is finally out of the bag:
The game is simple: If you're given a traffic ticket in the city, you plead not guilty, hoping the police officer who cited you doesn't show up for trial. If you're lucky, and he doesn't, the judge dismisses the case "for want of prosecution." Donald F. Alexander, 41, of Cleveland, knew the odds were in his favor when he went to trial May 29 for driving 10 mph over the speed limit. The officer who wrote him the ticket didn't show, and Alexander walked out a winner. It was the fourth time since 1997 that Alexander had a traffic case dismissed because a Cleveland police officer failed to appear in court. "You make the officer show, just like you have to show," Alexander said. Cleveland Municipal Court does not keep records on how many people have their cases dismissed because an officer failed to appear in court. But judges and prosecutors estimate that a third to a half of the minor misdemeanor cases going to trial, including not just traffic violations but also other crimes such as marijuana possession and disorderly conduct, are thrown out for that reason. Using the more conservative figure, a rough calculation suggests that at least 4,000 cases each year are dismissed "for want of prosecution." I've known this since the very early '80s when we lived in a broom closet in Hermosa Beach, where there are NO GARAGES or legal STREET PARKING leading to a vast number of parking tickets. You can have all the good will and intentions in the world, AND get up at 4AM to move your car across the street in compliance with the street sweeping ordinance, AND STILL get enough parking tickets to line a dumpster for a homeless person. In the course of three years in Hermosa I had something like $500 worth of tickets (in early '80s dollars), of which I paid none. Finally, when Kristen was about to be born and we were moving inland to get more space and HAVE A PLACE TO PARK, I went to court to plead NOT GUILTY to all of my tickets at the same time. That meant that every one of those freakish, deformed, and rodential meter geeks had to appear with me on a specified day in South Bay Municipal Court and whip some habeas corpus on me or forever hold his/her peace. ONE of the ten or so meter geeks showed up, most of the others had been fired, or quit, or promoted to rousting bums from dumpsters and beneath the pier. I paid about $60 of the $500 INCLUDING court costs, and laughed my ass off all the way home. I am a super careful driver, learned from my years of drunk driving in the '80s, and I got my first speeding ticket in ten years last year for going 77 in a 65. When I was pulled over on the Turnpike near Warren, I took my seatbelt off to reach over and get my wallet out of my backpack, and the freaking idiot gave me another ticket for failure to wear my seatbelt. I complained vociferously and probably would have ended up in jail or shot if the baby hadn't been asleep in the back seat. God, I was pissed. Spurred mostly by the seatbelt ticket, I resolved to fight it. I had to drive twice about 40 miles each way, which was inconvenient and time-consuming, but the seatbelt charge was dropped and the speeding ticket reduced to the lowest possible violation in a plea bargain. I paid $60, including court costs, for two charges that would have run almost $300 had I just paid them. Another reason to fight all of your tickets is that the courts would become hopelessly clogged and they would have to streamline the stupid process and even eliminate some of the stupid traffic laws like in some other sparsely populated Western states where they don't care if you drive naked backwards at 120mph drinking cocktails and snacking on vienna sausages. Back to Cleveland:
"You can't have it both ways," he said. "If you're going to give a ticket, then someone has to be there [in court]." Bob Beck, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said part of the problem was that officers are expected to write large numbers of tickets, and they do - more than 120,000 last year. More tickets mean more subpoenas, which sometimes require officers to appear in more than one courtroom at the same time. Some judges and their clerks accommodate officers who are juggling court appearances, but others do not, Beck said. Besides, he added, officers sometimes don't learn they have been subpoenaed until they return from vacation, when the court date has already passed. "It's not a good system," Beck said. "It never has been." Party In Your Head In what is, without question, the longest post in the history of the blogosphere, Dawn hosts a virtual blogger's bash with A. Beam, Matt Moore, and Marc Weisblott. Well into the next century, students of free association and stream of consciousness will mine this fertile ore. The party even continued when the hostess finally came to freaking bed around 1:30AM or something like that: I don't know, I had finally fallen asleep having grown tired of waiting. At least there was nothing to clean up in the morning. In fact, now that I think of it - ALL parties should be virtual from now on, saving a lot of time, effort, expense, and worry of the part of parents - okay Kristen?? More Stupid Animals: Bunnies Eat Poop You cannot tell me there is no such thing as zeitgeist: I love animals and everything, blah, blah, blah, but I spend as much time thinking about them as I do thinking about vinyl siding. We went to the horsey restaurant Monday night for my brother Kirk's birthday (Happy Birthday, by the way) and visited the stables afterward, and here is Dawn and my mother fawning all over them and talking baby talk and all of that disgusting girl crap, and my main reaction was "these things are really big and smelly and I hope I don't step in any horseshit in my good shoes." I had to keep telling Lily "that may look like what comes out of the lawnmower, but I assure you, that is horse poop, so don't touch it." Damn. I SO don't get the whole horse thing: what the hell is it with women and horses? I have two cousins off in different directions who eat, sleep and drink oats. They live for their freaking horseys and it strikes me as so odd and misdirected. I can see why cowboys got all worked up about horses: they DEPENDED on them for transportation, and were with them all of the time when they weren't off drinking and whoring in the saloon, so of course they would develop a relationship - no problem - but these women do it voluntarily. For fun or something. Damn. Yet back to my original point: animals are the subject of three out of my last four posts. This is very weird. I found this cool new site - well they found me - called "Silflay Hraka", which means "bunnies eating poop" in Watership Down talk. I remember my sister going on and on about Watership Down when she was reading it years ago: "It's really great, and it's about bunnies who talk and think like people and blah, blah, blah," and I said "No thanks, I'll stick with Harvey." So anyway, "Bigwig" (not his real name) at Silflay Hraka put of a really funny list called "How to Know When We've Won the War On Terrorism." Here is #14-9:
13. Frederick's of Hollywood announces the Martha Stewart line of see-thru burkhas. 12. "Dykes to Watch Out For" is the newest addition to the Cairo Times comics section. 11. Debkafiles is reduced to running theatre reviews. 10. Mecca celebrates Mardi Gras, and the Saudi Girls get all the beads. 9. Andrew Sullivan links to Eric Olsen...wait, wrong list, that's from "How to know when the Apocalypse is nigh." UPDATE I've noticed a lot of this lately so I'm not picking on these guys, swear, but in America - land of the free, home of the brave - we put our periods INSIDE our quotation marks, unlike the twee British who put theirs outside. But then, they make pudding out of blood and shit, so make a note of that, please. Failing the IQ Test Since I am merely a conduit - a blank slate - for the events of this world, I must again pass on that there is much strangeness in the air: three times in the last week birds have flown into my windshield, thereby becoming ex-birds. You can go three YEARS driving a delivery truck through a freaking Wild Bird Santuary and not hit three birds. This is fodder for investigative environmentalists and birdy activists everywhere: what is suddenly making the birds so motherhumping stupid?? Here in semi-rural Ohio we have birds out the ass and they are always darting and diving around the vehicles. It seems to be a game for them - like "chicken," although they probably call it "person" - how close can you get to the great metallic moving boxes without getting thumped? Well someone is spiking the suet or contaminating the seed because these little peckers are way off of their games. I mean, sure I feel bad and everything, but as John Hawkins said here, I am more worried about my windshield. It's like a small bomb going off when they make contact and go flapping lamely off into the bushes. Bring back the Head Start project for fledglings or something, this is getting out of control. Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Field of Grumpiness David Hogberg has a suggestion for me: since I am unhappy to be leading Dawn's Grumpiest Blogger poll (although Bennett is sneaking up on the inside lane), I should point the pollers in his direction. He went thataway. Eat Them Nicely I might as well continue my pattern of hippity-hopping from left to right and back again: I love this new article by John Hawkins, "I Practice Speciesism," though I only agree with about half of it. This part rocks:
• I don't believe animals have any rights other than those that man gives to them. If animals want their rights, let them have a revolution, overthrow the humans, and then they can write their own Constitution. • When I hit a deer with my car a few months ago I was more concerned about my car than the deer. However, I did briefly consider sticking the deer in the trunk so I could take it home and eat it. • I don't have any moral qualms about neutering dogs although I'm sure they'd have strident objections to the idea if they could speak. • If I had to choose between saving the life of a human being and the life of an animal, it would be a no-brainer for me to choose the human. That would be the case even if the animal was cute and fuzzy and the human in question was Noam Chomsky...(OK, if the human was Yasser Arafat, you might have me but that's an extreme case!) • I don't think apes, dogs, or dolphins are particularly intelligent. If they're so smart let them write up their own articles to get across their point of view. I think eating animals is fine, although I am less thrilled about killing animals for sport. But that's more of a personal thing than a policy I would defend. I have no objections whatsoever to hunting for food. I am sympathetic to the karmic argument against taking animal life, but I care more about steak, pork roast, chicken, fish, etc. If the Bible says eat them, then eat them I will. I would agree with Hawkins' first point about animals having no rights other than what we give them, but I believe we owe it our Creator and to ourselves to be kind as possible to all living things, even if we decide to kill them and eat them. I remember an old Prairie Home Companion monologue where Keillor told about being present at the slaughter of a farm pig as a child and horsing around just prior to the kill, as children are prone to do. His uncle, or whoever the relative was, sternly reprimanded him that this was a sacred time, a time for seriousness and reflection as another living being was about to give its life for the benefit of ours. That really hit me and I agree with it - we shouldn't take the life of any creature frivolously, or for granted. But I'll tell you what: if some damn creature is bugging me, threatening me, eating my food, or in any way pissing me off, I'll kill it. Then Hawkins and I take divergent paths and I think I know why:
• If I have a choice between letting farmers get water for their crops or having enough water for some endangered salmon, the farmers will win out every time. • The majority of species on the planet were wiped out before man even hit the scene. So if spotted owls go the way of the raptors, I'm sure we'll do just fine without them. • I think the Endangered Species Act should be revoked. The Constitution says you can't be forced to quarter soldiers against your will, so why should private landowners be forced to quarter animals? Similar the ANWR argument: it isn't just the caribou, it's the fact that we have to maintain SOME relatively natural places - with an emphasis on those with special biodiversity - or there won't be any place left for Mother Nature to continue her experiments. We can't/shouldn't save it all, but we have to save some of it, and oil - which is relatively abundant throughout a significant portion of the earth - isn't a good enough reason to debilitate this one. Same argument with the Endangered Species Act: of course there are individual applications of it that appear absurd, but in general we DO want to preserve as many species as possible. This is just common sense besides good karma. There needs to flexibility on both sides of ecological issues: the tree-huggers and the bulldozers need to seek out those of good will from the other side of the divide and find areas of agreement that will result in neither devastation nor the absurdity of hospitals being moved for the benefit of flies. ReBush Last Friday Dave Roberts suggested I do an update of my six month review of Bush. I've been thinking about it and putting it off and all of a sudden it's almost a week later. Fortunately, I have been saved by Oliver Willis, who basically did it for me:
Now there's backpedaling on Iraq, and some of the most strident voices in favor of Israeli self defense have been from Democrats (like Sen. Clinton) while Bush has lamely preached restraint while continuing on his step-n-fetch it show for the Saudis. Usually on the namby-pamby peace and love train, the Democrats have given unprecedented support to the administration, a mandate to smash Al Qaeda and their supporters. But Bush seems to be squandering this. Instead of using Democratic support to be a "war era" preseident and coasting to reelection, the war on terror seems to be screeching and halting, new developments happening only when criticism of the administration heats up. We're supposed to cheer when Afghanistan attempts to rebuild its infrastructure, but the victory over the Taliban isn't and wasn't the goal of the entire conflict in the first place! The Dawn Chronicles Dawn tells the tale of our meeting from her perspective. It's sweet and a little sad, though the ending is "happily ever after" as far as I'm concerned. When we met I was at the end of five very difficult years: five years of dating inappropriately young, appearance-oriented women who were good for my ego but in no particular danger of taking up long-term residence in my life. Then I met Dawn: what I remember the most from our initial radio conversations was her befuddling combination of abuse and flattery. Very peculiar (things aren't all that different now). But as we talked on the phone more and more I became amazed by her perceptivity, her heart, her sense of humor, her sincerity, and her intelligence. I wanted to meet her. There were complications: she hadn't totally cut things off with the D.C. boyfriend, I still talked a fair amount about my previous girlfriends including the last one, the 22 year-old exotic dancer/centerfold. I was 37. I was eager to meet for the same reason she was hesitant: we knew we were falling in love and I wanted the 3-D confirmation that this was happening, and she didn't want the 3-D meet to mess things up. Finally we met at the radio station: remember I had just spent five years looking at nothing other than appearance. She was very beautiful but a little more curvy than the waifs I had been seeing, or my petite first wife for that matter. It took me that evening to recalibrate the thinking of much of a lifetime, but by the end of it, I knew deep down I was there. I was very, very afraid and confused, knowing deep down that this was in all likelihood THE person, but not knowing if I was ready for THE person. After a futile attempt at keeping her at arm's length, I gave up fighting, and after she went on a serious exercise regime, I REALLY gave up fighting. I don't think even Dawn knows how screwed up I was emotionally: how damaged I still was by the failure of my first marriage; how difficult it was to narrow the world of future possibilities, the endless unfolding of the women of the world, down to one woman. I'd like to think I was over it by the time we got married in June, 1998, but I don't think I really, really settled things in my addled brain until our honeymoon a few weeks later. Then I really knew that not only was she the right ONE - which I already knew - but that I wouldn't screw things up because I just couldn't handle it, couldn't handle the pressure of being with the right ONE. In many ways it's a lot easier being with NOT the right one because there is no pressure if things don't work out, WHEN things don't work out. In the four years since our marriage I have fallen more and more deeply in love with Dawn, a bottomless abyss of feeling. We have an incredible 2 year-old girl of our own. She is a tremendous stepmom. She is the love of my life. I am no longer afraid of such a thing. Has It Been Three Months Already? It's back and all I can say is SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP.................................and, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Consiberals Eric Raymond thinks both conservatives and liberals suck stagnant hosewater, calling conservatives "villains" and liberals "fools," a seeming double bind. Howard Owens says phooey:
For example, there are many conservatives who are pro-choice. Why? Because they believe that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. There are also conservatives who oppose the death penalty because they see it as a violation of due process. Meanwhile, there are liberals who oppose abortion as an affront to life itself. And they oppose the legalization of drugs because drug trafficking helps oppress people in third world nations. I could go through the whole laundry list of Raymond's "issues" and for most of them, find plausible conservative AND liberal positions. The notion of conservative or liberal is one of belief and principles, not positions or ideology. In fact, I think one of the major issues in American politics today, a chief reason politics is so screwed up, is that most people don't know what they believe or why. Too many people take positions based on the changing winds (including most politicians), which leads them into all kinds of contradictory, even hypocritical stances. Think of the vegan who supports abortion rights. Or the school prayer advocate who opposes religious use of peyote. I think it's important for people to identify whether their basic nature is either liberal or conservative and then construct their issue-based opinions on that foundation.
I want the government to spend the least it can to accomplish its mandate WELL: not adequately or marginally, but WELL. There are some problems that you CAN throw money at, but rarely is money the only answer. I believe in welfare reform: make the slackers work, break the cycle of indolence, but I don't want children to starve or even be particularly inconvenienced in their critical formative years. I also believe many issues work on the Fram Oil Filter principle of "pay me now or pay me later," and "now" is usually cheaper and more effective than "later." So what am I? I am not particularly confused on given issues, but I certainly am confused as to what the hell I am in the big scheme of things. If I was forced to choose one or the other, I guess I would reluctantly pick "liberal," but none of the following applies to me:
Liberals embrace egalitarianism. For the liberal, anything that makes us unequal, such as success in business, is bad. Conservatives believe we are equal in rights, equal in opportunity, but it is a law of nature that some people will achieve more. I do believe in certain immutable principles as voiced in the U.S. Constitution, but the application of those principles may change over time. And on and on. Hey, that's me. Cool Tunes - The Avalanches Guest columnist Dawn Olsen
This is what listening to the title track of Since I Left You, by Melbourne, Australia's The Avalanches, is like. This ethereal blend of soulful trip/hop conjures images of the Rascal's "Groovin" and Sly and the Family Stone's "Hot Fun in the Summertime," fused with the smoothest of Delfonics' earthy soul. The perfect day begins: hopping into your candy apple red convertible Mustang GT - top down of course - you begin the gorgeous drive to the perfect beach as warm air whips your hair into a frenzy. You are listening to this beautiful music. "Since I Left You" gracefully gives way to "Another Season," then "Radio," as they all blend into a perfect soulful, groovy backdrop. The white-sand beach awaits you. Plopping down your umbrella, you and your sweetheart crack open the frosty cold Coronas. You insert freshly cut limes, slather on the sunscreen and take a large gulp of your intoxicating brew. The local islander's smoke wafts by softly, giving you the perfect contact high. Now you are ready for "Two Hearts in ¾ Time" and "Avalanche Rock." The sun, the libations, and the warm smell of colitas lull you into a dreamy state as you float back and forth to the infectious grooves. This is trip-hop as God would have made it. As if the Avalanches were saying, "Don't sleep too long, my love," you're suddenly jolted back to Earth. It's time to party and "Flight Tonight" is just that. Now you're ready to take your honey on a globetrotting adventure replete with hot spots, paparazzi, and sweaty body moves on the dancefloor with the DJ spinning these nuggets: "Close To You" and "Diners Only." Let's shift things a bit now – the Avalanches don't want you to achieve climax too early. "A Different Feeling" is a hit of Ecstasy. Everything turns to love and good feeling good, "Electricity's" bleeps, bloops, and 70's funk sounds get all your parts moving and swaying. "Tonight" is just the right shot of romance, with alien piano loops reminiscent of a balmy night in Casablanca. Time to run to port to catch the train to "Pablo's Cruise." Hurry, or it may leave without you. Your high is at its peak – you have suddenly been transported into a Hunter S. Thompson novel and everything gets a little weird as you enter "Frontier Psychiatrist." Delirious children run amok; witch doctors probe your cranium; beautiful Arabic women dance around your dream. Is that Clint Eastwood over there with Sergio Leone at the end of the bar? The rush is beginning to die down and you breathe a little easier. It's time to relax and recoup your strength. "Etoh"'s lilting trance is just the shot of opium you need to take the edge off, and your love is whispering "take me home." You know what that means. "Summer Crane's" saccharine coma transforms your mate into a doting kitten purring in your lap, eager to please. Crossing the threshold to your cozy accommodations, "A Little Journey" adds a little spice and everything is oh so nice. "Live at Dominoes" gets everything bumping and grinding into a frenetic, feverish, fervor-filled session of orgasmic lovemaking. Ahhhhhhhh…. now it's time to eclipse into post-coital bliss as "Extra Kings" cradles you into a womb-like sleep. The perfect day is over, but you can always pop in this amazing CD to relive the memories. Thanks to Jim Treacher for kindly sharing this experience - or at least the CD - with me. Cool Tunes Playlist Cool Tunes is a radio show in a magazine format Saturday nights at 10pm (Eastern) on WAPS, "The Summit," in Akron, Ohio. I play new music, reissues, and preview shows coming to town each week. Musically it is among the widest-ranging 2 hours in the country: modern rock, punk, electronica, jazz, reggae and ska, roots rock, Americana, blues, world, funk, hip hop, avant garde, etc. - if it's cool I play it. Cool Tunes has been proudly serving humanity since 1990. 6/8/02 Artist, Song, Album, Label Green Day "Church On Sunday" Warning Reprise; Costello, Elvis "Oliver's Army" The Very Best Of Rhino; Southern Culture on the Skids "Liquored Up and Lacquered Down" Miss Congeniality soundtrack TVT; Edmunds, Dave "I Hear You Knocking" Rocker Parlophone; North Mississippi Allstars "Storm" 51 Phantom Artemis; Social Distortion "Bad Luck" Somewhere Between Heaven Epic; Sixer "Tired of Waiting" Beautiful Trash BYO; Thrice "The Bettsville Crucible" The Illusion of Safety Sub City; Podstar "Never Enough" Lovely32 Noisome; Hatfield, Juliana "Everybody Loves Me But You" Gold Stars 1992-2002 Zoe; Dressy Bessy "There's a Girl" Sound Go Round Kindercore; Ray, Amy "Late Bloom" Stag Daemon; K's Choice "Not An Addict" (live) Almost Happy Epic; Warlocks "Song For Nico" Rise and Fall Bomp; Atticus Fault "She's a Vision" Atticus Fault MCA; Bowie, David "Afraid" Heathen ISO/Columbia; Flaming Lips, The "Ego Tripping At the Gates of Hell" Do You Realize? EP Warner Brothers; R.E.M. "The Lifting" (Knobody) Remix Warner Brothers; Avalanches, The "Frontier Psychiatrist" Since I Left You Modular/Sire; Apes of God, The "Transpositional Landscapes" Transpositional Landscapes Oracular; Prodigy "Baby's Got a Temper" single Maverick; Oakenfold "Ready, Steady, Go" single Maverick; Queers, The "Get a Life and Live It" Pleasant Screams Lookout; Audio Karate "Senior Year" Punk Rock Is Your Friend Kung Fu; Rise Against "Reception Fades" The Unraveling Fat Wreck Chords; Montoya, Coco "Wish I Could Be That Strong" Can't Look Back Alligator; Kaukonen, Jorma "Blue Railroad Train" Blue Country Heart Columbia; Watson, Doc and Richard "Columbus Stockade Blues" Cool Blue Outlaws Sugar Hill; McCoy, Robert "Bye Bye Baby" Bye Bye Baby Delmark; Ferrell, Rachelle "With Every Breath I Take" Live In Montreux 91-97 Blue Note; Baker, Chet "My Funny Valentine" (inst) Deep In a Dream Pacific Jazz; Rypdal, Terje "Orren" Rarum 1-8 ECM No Excuse for Prejudice Before I quit stalling and write up my weekly Cool Tunes playlist, I want to talk a little bit about prejudice - namely mine. I check out blogs all the time and communicate with a lot of bloggers. I like them - really - and almost all of my communication has been positive. Unfortunately the negative stuff - of my own doing I freely admit - gets most of the attention, this being the real world and all. I have at least communicated with most of the obvious people, and if you include the one-degree of separation of my wife, my circle of bloggy familiars is quite broad. When the Bear put up his link ranking system I was pleasantly surprised to find how many "top" bloggers I have become friendly with in my 4 1/2 months on the bloggy highway. But I also noticed one of the very top guys - Sgt Stryker, now revealed as Paul (can't find any name other than "PBR" on his site now, though he is of the "Palubicki" clan) - who I had not communicated with, and whose site I had never even LOOKED at. Hmm. Last week Doc, who is my bud, linked to him in reference to this whole blog philosophy debate going on regarding community vs. individualism. The Sarge was way individualistic and I have come out for a certain amount of responsibility inherent in taking part, but his post was very well written and made a lot of sense. I made a comment on his site, he responded and made even more sense. Then he made another post that was REALLY anti-community:
I don't like communities. Whenever someone mentions community or neighborhood, I think of those neighborhood associations that tell you what you can and can't do with your own house. You have to mow your lawn, no you can't paint your shudders that color, get that flag down, you have too much playground equipment in your backyard, we don't like your drapes, my husband can't see into your bedroom window so would you please move your dresser 4 inches to the right, thank you very much. Fuck that.
I guess it's better if I explain this in a micro/macro fashion. Sullivan's behavior, and other's subsequent reaction, is the micro. It was a single, clear example of the individual vs community thing. When I saw Doc Searls pick it up, and use the "it's a big fuck you" in relation to Sullivan's broken permalinks, it really piqued my interest. As you say, if Sullivan's playing the game, he ought to follow the rules. If he's offering permalinks, then they should work. That was the micro issue. Now Doc picked up the non-working permalinks bit and expanded it into a whole thing over a series of posts about people who don't link to others in the course of their posts (as a reference or source) or don't have some sort of blogroll on their site. That's what got me to thinking about the macro issue. Are people under any obligation to link to anyone else? Why would people have a problem with non-linkage? Does it threaten a sense of community and if so is such a community a good thing? To try to get an answer to these questions, I've spent a lot of my recent online roaming time reading the technoblogs, the warblogs and personal journals to get a feel for where they're coming from, what they advocate and loathe, and what their beliefs are concerning blogs and their place in the world. What I found was that those who are fiercely in favor of maximum linkage and are quite snarky when they see someone not towing the line tend to have a general sense of community and consider those who do not follow their conventions as pariahs that should get with the program. There is also a strong streak of "blog evangelism" among these types. I also found that those who are not big into linking (judging from the scarcity of links on their sites), don't have that same sense of community and are not as concerned whether someone links to them or not. The general feeling I get from these people is that for them, the blog is merely a tool for personal empowerment and ego gratification. It allows them to write and to speak their mind, and that's all they really seem to want. So it seemed to me that linking seems to be the keystone of community. Links help bind a loose community of bloggers together and also help re-inforce ties in the form of a blogroll. Those who have a greater sense of community naturally value links because they realize in some sense that they are important for maintaining and expanding a community. When people start talking about "community", I become worried because of my own personal experiences online. Once people realize they are part of a community, they become protective of it and wish to preserve it. Much navel-gazing ensues wherein the members of the community explore what makes them special, and they want to protect that "specialness" from threats real or imagined. It's pretty much downhill from there. From my experiences, such a thing has always been disasterous. All the creativity and goodwill collapses into little sects of people who are constantly bickering and sniping at each other. Now is there a happy medium between communities and individuals? I don't know. I do know that this blogging business is a good thing, and I don't want it to have a bunch of baggage tied to it. I started thinking about why this surprised me, and why I hadn't bothered to check in on his well-known site in all of this time. Then it hit me: the military. I am all for our military kicking ass and taking names wherever necessary, and I truly grieve whenever one of ours gets killed or injured, and I am very proud of our military AS A WHOLE. But it occurred to me: I am prejudiced against military people. I pride myself on my open-mindedness, but here I was making generalizations about an entire class of people - people who defend my way of life every day of the year - without really being aware of it. The anonymity part was a factor: I am bugged by not knowing who a person "really" is. I figure if I have to take personal responsibility for what I say, everyone should have to; but mostly it was the military part. This sucks on my part. I grew up in San Pedro , CA, home of Fort MacArthur, "a U.S. Army post which guarded the Los Angeles harbor from 1914 to 1974." It wasn't a "real" fort like F-Troop or anything: just a drab, kind-of-scary assemblage of low buildings behind a fence. It was ugly, forbidding, and sometimes you would hear about soldiers getting drunk and beating people up. I knew some kids in school who had military parents and they seemed fine, but the whole military-life thing seemed weird and alien. There are really three military units in my mind: individually, people are basically cool; collectively THE MILITARY is worthy of respect and admiration, even affection; but in small groups these motherfuckers are best avoided. Too much pent-up energy and testosterone and hostility in one place, especially when alcohol is involved. When I was in Japan in the summer of '79 there was some big incident with U.S. military people going apeshit and terrorizing the locals; when we were in Korea for the Olympics in '88 the first thing a Korean cab driver asked when we hopped in was were we military? And if we were, "Get the fuck out of my cab." Obviously, these problems primarily apply to young, hopped up trainees released from bondage and itching for a fight, but prejudice is a broad brush that often colors where it is least appropriate or expected. I am guilty. The current military of professional volunteers is an entirely different animal than that to which I was exposed as a child anyway. Elements of my prejudice have included: dumb, boring, routine, pack-oriented, unimaginative, dangerous, hostile. I am now aware of this and will strive to fight it. Other than perhaps "dangerous" - this is the military after all and they are supposed to be dangerous - Paul, Sgt. Stryker is none of these things. I wonder what other stupid shit is clogging up my brain. |
|
