Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Re: William G.
Suprisingly, I got an actual comment on my William G. post:
Joe wrote:
Actually, Paul, William G. is a nice guy and a talented artist. I think you misread his critique of PvP and Penny Arcade. If he seems resentful now, it's because of the huge number of PvP and Penny Arcade fans who sent him hateful emails after the article.
Everybody has a right to express their opinion, and nobody should be subject to the kind of hazing Bill has gotten for doing so.
Thanks for writing in Joe.
William G. may well be a decent guy in real life, but his Internet persona is one of a hateful creep. I do recall seeing some of his art last spring, and it indeed was rather good.
However, as a critic he's a hack. His critique of PA and PvP was, to put it mildly, crap. If I recall correctly, he was saying that as an artist these comics were poor because they lacked good art. That was a rather weak point...Just because every frame isn't an infinite canvas fit for an HDTV that takes a week to draw doesn't mean the comic can't be a good comic, or a great comic.
For example: The reason Penny Arcade is a great comic is because of the writing and characterization. When you read a PA strip you have an instinctual feeling for who these people are. That's what great comedy is. Gabe and Tycho are like Abbot and Costello...They play established rolls and those rolls are central to what make the gags work. While PA and Garfield are both essentially gag comics, Garfield sucks because the characters are so bland that the gags become unfunny. The point is that the gags are the joke, the characters are the joke. While the art isn't mind blowing, it is crucial to the characterizations. Gabe and Tycho would not work as stick figures.
But none of that is why William G. got the hatemail. Most people can sluff off criticism of their favorite comics. He didn't get the hatemail because of what he said about the comics themselves. He became an asshole when he said this about PvP and Penny-Arcade:
That's not a critique of those comics, it's a critique about their fans. It's one thing to criticize the comic itself, but he was insinuating that these thousands of readers are ignorant...That if they knew any better, they wouldn't be reading these comics. He personally insulted every reader of Penny Arcade and PvP Online.
That's why when he complains about the "fanboys", he's either an idiot or a liar. If he's an idiot, he can't see that there exist types of comics that don't merely exist on art alone. If he's a liar, than he's still insulting these audiences whenever he spews the word "fanboy", and he's insulting them because he loathes the type of person who reads webcomics for anything else than arthouse eliteism.
Personally, I think he's just an idiot. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He must have had a huge readership after the "PA/PvP Incident" and instead of doing anything useful with that, he closed the blog. Then he started showing up everywhere, leaving little bits of trolling wherever he went. The man simply has had nothing of any substance to say since the incident. He also hasn't produced any more art. Had he been smart, he would have made fun of PA and PvP in comic form, but I really think the man has no real sense of humor.
What William G. needs to do is apologize to the readers of PvP and Penny Arcade. Then he needs to drop the curmudgeon persona.
Joe wrote:
Actually, Paul, William G. is a nice guy and a talented artist. I think you misread his critique of PvP and Penny Arcade. If he seems resentful now, it's because of the huge number of PvP and Penny Arcade fans who sent him hateful emails after the article.
Everybody has a right to express their opinion, and nobody should be subject to the kind of hazing Bill has gotten for doing so.
Thanks for writing in Joe.
William G. may well be a decent guy in real life, but his Internet persona is one of a hateful creep. I do recall seeing some of his art last spring, and it indeed was rather good.
However, as a critic he's a hack. His critique of PA and PvP was, to put it mildly, crap. If I recall correctly, he was saying that as an artist these comics were poor because they lacked good art. That was a rather weak point...Just because every frame isn't an infinite canvas fit for an HDTV that takes a week to draw doesn't mean the comic can't be a good comic, or a great comic.
For example: The reason Penny Arcade is a great comic is because of the writing and characterization. When you read a PA strip you have an instinctual feeling for who these people are. That's what great comedy is. Gabe and Tycho are like Abbot and Costello...They play established rolls and those rolls are central to what make the gags work. While PA and Garfield are both essentially gag comics, Garfield sucks because the characters are so bland that the gags become unfunny. The point is that the gags are the joke, the characters are the joke. While the art isn't mind blowing, it is crucial to the characterizations. Gabe and Tycho would not work as stick figures.
But none of that is why William G. got the hatemail. Most people can sluff off criticism of their favorite comics. He didn't get the hatemail because of what he said about the comics themselves. He became an asshole when he said this about PvP and Penny-Arcade:
If they came out today, they wouldn't be as popular as they are.
That's not a critique of those comics, it's a critique about their fans. It's one thing to criticize the comic itself, but he was insinuating that these thousands of readers are ignorant...That if they knew any better, they wouldn't be reading these comics. He personally insulted every reader of Penny Arcade and PvP Online.
That's why when he complains about the "fanboys", he's either an idiot or a liar. If he's an idiot, he can't see that there exist types of comics that don't merely exist on art alone. If he's a liar, than he's still insulting these audiences whenever he spews the word "fanboy", and he's insulting them because he loathes the type of person who reads webcomics for anything else than arthouse eliteism.
Personally, I think he's just an idiot. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He must have had a huge readership after the "PA/PvP Incident" and instead of doing anything useful with that, he closed the blog. Then he started showing up everywhere, leaving little bits of trolling wherever he went. The man simply has had nothing of any substance to say since the incident. He also hasn't produced any more art. Had he been smart, he would have made fun of PA and PvP in comic form, but I really think the man has no real sense of humor.
What William G. needs to do is apologize to the readers of PvP and Penny Arcade. Then he needs to drop the curmudgeon persona.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
David Brin is the Man
Sci-Fi author David Brin has a not-so-well-known blog where he posts basically what are huge essays broken up into blog-post sized posts. He started with a three-month-long series on Modernism and it's enemies that was breathtaking and recently followed it up with a series on gerrymandering.
Yesterday's post though, mirrors a lot of the thoughts that have been going through my own mind recently about wealth and liberalism. Sometimes, I feel like Brin spends too much time trying to be a "centrist", but this post is a spectacular takedown of the economics of the Right...
That's it. Right there. Look at the current Republican party. Look at the current Administration. They are the new arristocrats. Rich, white, male, wealthy. They have spent the last several decades making America safe for serfdom. The rich lower taxes on themselves and ensure that the cost of living increases for everyone else. They make more money while we pay more for education, housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. They squeeze the middle class and squash the poor. They make debt easy to aquire and hard to pay off. These guys are neo-Randian followers of a sort of revived version of Social Darwinism. Now the poor don't deserve help because they don't deserve it...They don't have the "determination" and they don't do the "hard work".
The new Social Darwinists have done a very effective job of propagandizing their vision so that the middle class will accept it. Welfare and Affirmative Action become "socialism". They demonize the Europeans and they push nationalism.
Back to Brin:
Heh...I've spoken to people like that. Thank You, David Brin, for telling it like it is.
Yesterday's post though, mirrors a lot of the thoughts that have been going through my own mind recently about wealth and liberalism. Sometimes, I feel like Brin spends too much time trying to be a "centrist", but this post is a spectacular takedown of the economics of the Right...
We have been told all our lives that socialism is the chief enemy of markets. Hm, well, that was true for a little while, I guess. Indeed, Ronald Reagan was right to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." But for how long? From 1917 to 1989?
Big deal!
For most of the rest of human history -- 99% of urban cultures -- the great enemy of accountability and market systems consisted of conspiratorial aristocratism. The deliberate collusion of those with power, money and influence to take over the organs of the state and use the state's power to enforce their family privileges. Their right to cheat and own other people. And then to ensure those privileges would be inherited. This happened so consistently, across all cultures, that it must be one of the core human traits that modern civilization is challenged to overcome.
Seriously, conservative friends, look over the paragraph above and try your best to evade it.
That's it. Right there. Look at the current Republican party. Look at the current Administration. They are the new arristocrats. Rich, white, male, wealthy. They have spent the last several decades making America safe for serfdom. The rich lower taxes on themselves and ensure that the cost of living increases for everyone else. They make more money while we pay more for education, housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. They squeeze the middle class and squash the poor. They make debt easy to aquire and hard to pay off. These guys are neo-Randian followers of a sort of revived version of Social Darwinism. Now the poor don't deserve help because they don't deserve it...They don't have the "determination" and they don't do the "hard work".
The new Social Darwinists have done a very effective job of propagandizing their vision so that the middle class will accept it. Welfare and Affirmative Action become "socialism". They demonize the Europeans and they push nationalism.
Back to Brin:
Go ahead. Ask some of today's "insatiable-style" aristos and propertarian mystics how they can support tax cuts for the rich in good times and in hard times...
...tax cuts for the rich during peace and during war. Tax cuts during huge deficits and tax cuts during surplus...
...tax cuts to "supply side" us into prosperity through investment in research and factories...
... and then -- when the aristocracy demonstrably does not invest their tax gifts in capital -- they switch to "demand side" justifications, calling for yet more tax cuts, so that the aristocracy can spend it all on employment-generating toys.
(Hint, the last thirty years have shown that direct tax cuts to the rich are just about the LEAST effective economic stimulation of any kind. Proportionate to any other social class, they do not spend. (Hence their support of consumption taxes.) And they do not invest in risky factories or startups. (Venture capital languished even as the Bush cuts sent torrents into wealthy pockets.) They most certainly do no research! In fact, they mostly use any fresh infusion of money simply to be richer.)
When you probe through all the contradicting justifications for this universal rationalization of tax cuts for the rich - especially refusing to pay when your country is at war - the surface reasons all unravel and you'll easily get to the reductio answer.
"It's not the government's money. It's my money."
Try it and see. These old-fashioned aristocrats (and their apologist ideologues) are generally pretty honest about it, after a good push, readily admitting that "supply side" and all the other flummeries were just window dressing. To them, "it's our money" is a deeply-felt and indignantly moral position. A platonic essence, grounded on a purely self-referential axiom. And, like all axioms, it is not subject to question or doubt.
Also (like so many fellow hypocrites on the left) they refuse to ever consider how wonderfully convenient it all is. That their principled, moral stand just happens to support their own, personal self interest.
What a coincidence.
Heh...I've spoken to people like that. Thank You, David Brin, for telling it like it is.
A Troll Explodes
The world of web comics is filled with tons of interesting and diverse personalities. In any diverse population, you'll find some scum-sucking pigs who are utterly full of themselves.
99% of the time, these people are an utter annoyance to society. That last 1% of the time, they throw a supernova-like hissy fit and for one brief moment outshine every other talentless hack in a giant explosion of diahrea-like whining.
Tonight, webcomic asshat William G. is shining in the night's sky.
You may remember William G. from the time, several months ago, he wrote an epic blog post that claimed that PvP and Penny Arcade were subpar for various spurious reasons...It seemed like the center-piece of his post was that he disliked PvP and Penny Arcade because they were popular, not because of anything in the strips. His measure for webcomic quality was, it seemed , his own work that no one has ever read. He was then burried under a pile of furious emails from PvP and PA readers (ha!). This was followed by a period of intense whining about "fanboys" and finally he simply depublished the post, thus commiting the ultimate act of online cowardice.
Since that time he has become the sewer rat of the webcomic world, showing up in various forums and blog post comments to make postings that have obvious troll-like and attention-whore tendancies which a high degree of whine-osity.
Which brings us to this week. In a recent Blank Label podcast, Scott Kurtz was asked about the Webcomics Examiner article series that did a review of his work, one that William G. was involved in and basically said nothing of substance.
First, Kurtz said a few negative things about Webcomics Examiner. Personlly, I disagree with him, and Eric "Websnark" Burns does a far better job of explaining that. But then, Kurtz tears William G apart. It's a beautiful and heartfult moment when a troll gets torn a new one. I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
Inevitably, William G. heard about this, and had the oh-so-predictable reaction of undergoing silicon fusion and having his rotten iron troll core implode...
Here's William G. going supernova:
This is an intensely beautiful moment. This scum-eater is a classic example of trollism/tin-foil syndrome.
Exhibit 1: Accusing people of harrasment, when in fact they;re just reacting to his own acidic personality.
Exhibit 2: Calling people fanboys. This is classic..You're not the problem, the "fanboys" are.
Exhibit 3: The "I'll be back" BS. You never "left", you just became a troll in other places than your own blog.
Exhibit 4: Accusing other, more successful and much funnier webcomic arists of lying.
William G. has just become the Richard Hogland of webcomics.
99% of the time, these people are an utter annoyance to society. That last 1% of the time, they throw a supernova-like hissy fit and for one brief moment outshine every other talentless hack in a giant explosion of diahrea-like whining.
Tonight, webcomic asshat William G. is shining in the night's sky.
You may remember William G. from the time, several months ago, he wrote an epic blog post that claimed that PvP and Penny Arcade were subpar for various spurious reasons...It seemed like the center-piece of his post was that he disliked PvP and Penny Arcade because they were popular, not because of anything in the strips. His measure for webcomic quality was, it seemed , his own work that no one has ever read. He was then burried under a pile of furious emails from PvP and PA readers (ha!). This was followed by a period of intense whining about "fanboys" and finally he simply depublished the post, thus commiting the ultimate act of online cowardice.
Since that time he has become the sewer rat of the webcomic world, showing up in various forums and blog post comments to make postings that have obvious troll-like and attention-whore tendancies which a high degree of whine-osity.
Which brings us to this week. In a recent Blank Label podcast, Scott Kurtz was asked about the Webcomics Examiner article series that did a review of his work, one that William G. was involved in and basically said nothing of substance.
First, Kurtz said a few negative things about Webcomics Examiner. Personlly, I disagree with him, and Eric "Websnark" Burns does a far better job of explaining that. But then, Kurtz tears William G apart. It's a beautiful and heartfult moment when a troll gets torn a new one. I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
Inevitably, William G. heard about this, and had the oh-so-predictable reaction of undergoing silicon fusion and having his rotten iron troll core implode...
Here's William G. going supernova:
Okay, I put the reviewing behind me. The people had spoken, and they didnt want to know what I thought of certain webcomics, they just wanted me to cheer them along in their tastes. I heard it, got sick of the harassment from some corners, and tried to move on.
Then I got a transcript from a podcast where Straub and Kurtz go off on the Webcomics Examiner and myself in particular.
Well, fuck both you over-bloated, self-serving fanboys. You've just made me determined to get back into webcomic commentary. And if you (incorrectly) thought I was just being mean the last time, you aint seen me when I actually am angry
Eric Myers has the transcript here. One of the things that bugs me about it, not just that Kristopher Straub told a pretty blatant lie about Modern Humour Authority... he's been habitually lying about it for a few years now, I figure he can't help himself... it's that Scott Kurtz all but claims that he's not very smart.
This is an intensely beautiful moment. This scum-eater is a classic example of trollism/tin-foil syndrome.
Exhibit 1: Accusing people of harrasment, when in fact they;re just reacting to his own acidic personality.
Exhibit 2: Calling people fanboys. This is classic..You're not the problem, the "fanboys" are.
Exhibit 3: The "I'll be back" BS. You never "left", you just became a troll in other places than your own blog.
Exhibit 4: Accusing other, more successful and much funnier webcomic arists of lying.
William G. has just become the Richard Hogland of webcomics.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Jack Shafer is the Man
Jack Shafer, editor-at-large and media critic at Slate captures one moment of perfect beauty:
YES. Oh how I covet this paragraph and wish I had wrote it. This is like that moment when you finally see the arrow in the FedEx logo; the moment of clarity and understanding. "Deep odium" perfectly describes what I feel. It's as if a haze has lifted and I can finally describe what I see. Thank you Mr. Shafer, for this moment of clarity.
I don't hate Apple. I don't even hate Apple-lovers. I do, however, possess deep odium for the legions of Apple polishers in the press corps who salute every shiny gadget the company parades through downtown Cupertino as if they were members of the Supreme Soviet viewing the latest ICBMs at the May Day parade.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Underwhelming
What's my reaction to today's announcements by Apple concerning a video iPod and video in the iTunes Music Store?
Underwhelming.
Buying videos in the iTunes Music Store makes very little sense right now. $2 music videos...whoop-dee-do...Fairly low res TV episodes that are oh-so-easy to Tivo (and aquire by other means)...whoop-dee-do.
Video in iTunes kinda makes sense (as a video organizing app), but the execution sucks. Open a movie and it starts playing in the album art area which is located in a tiny box in the corner of the screen. If you set it to play video in its own window the video keeps playing audio in iTunes after you close the window...That makes no sense whatsoever. I think MS figured this stuff out in 1996 or so...iTunes should play videos the same way music videos work in the music store: Put them in the main pane.
Even more disturbing is the fact that iTunes does not recognize AVIs in any way. That's like not supporting MP3s. 99% of the content I'd like to organize is in the form of AVIs rather than Quicktime. I know Apple likes to imagine that QT is the last video format on Earth, but not at least providing transcoding fascilities for AVIs seriously limits the usefulness of iTunes as a video organizer...Of course, the probably reason the left transcoding out is that it's is deadly slow (compared to simply converting a song from one format to another) and AVI transcoding facilities would allow pirated content to be easily put on the video iPod.
The video iPod unit itself is also underwhelming. Next to the PSP's breathtaking 4.3 inch widescreen LCD, the iPod video's 4:3, 2.5 inch display is old hat. The aspect ratio tells me that Apple is not too serious about portable video right now...Rather, I think this is a panic move by Apple to get something into the portable video market before it's too late.
I can't accept the explanation that Apple is doing this simply because everyone expected a video-capable iPod...No, they have far more urgent reasons for getting into portable video.
First, the cellular providers are all ready to start streaming full-frame video content to phones. Portable, on demand video is a scary prospect for Apple because compared to streaming, the online music store model sucks. There's no need for people to be stuck with giant DRMed music files sucking up space on their hard drives when it gets streamed right to their phone.
The second reason is the Sony PSP and it's UMD video format. As a competitor to today's video iPod, the PSP is an above average hobbyist's toy...If you invest in a large memory card, you can fill it with videos you transcode on your PC and transfer over. But that's not what concerns Apple...The UMD movie format must scare them half to death.
Think about it...What was the last portable video format you saw? Unlike music, we've never had a real portable video medium until UMD. Not only do UMD movies look good, and work well, but the MPAA didn't flinch at approving it because it's the natural portable extention of DVD...No Hollywood content sitting on hard drives waiting to be cracked open.
Sure, carrying around discs does lack the slickness of the iTunes Music Store, but how slick would the store be when you're downloading 400MB+ video files? Consider that UMDs store the video at full DVD resolution, which undoubtely means that a future device will allow them to be played back at full res...How will Apple compete when Sony's format already has 1GB+ movies?
The other thing that bugs me is how we went from iTunes 5 to iTunes 6 in a handful of weeks. Something tells me that all the iTunes work was done for some time, but something (perhaps legal, perhaps iPod design related) delayed the release of the version of iTunes with the video support. It makes sense considering how barren iTunes 5 was in the new features department.
Underwhelming.
Buying videos in the iTunes Music Store makes very little sense right now. $2 music videos...whoop-dee-do...Fairly low res TV episodes that are oh-so-easy to Tivo (and aquire by other means)...whoop-dee-do.
Video in iTunes kinda makes sense (as a video organizing app), but the execution sucks. Open a movie and it starts playing in the album art area which is located in a tiny box in the corner of the screen. If you set it to play video in its own window the video keeps playing audio in iTunes after you close the window...That makes no sense whatsoever. I think MS figured this stuff out in 1996 or so...iTunes should play videos the same way music videos work in the music store: Put them in the main pane.
Even more disturbing is the fact that iTunes does not recognize AVIs in any way. That's like not supporting MP3s. 99% of the content I'd like to organize is in the form of AVIs rather than Quicktime. I know Apple likes to imagine that QT is the last video format on Earth, but not at least providing transcoding fascilities for AVIs seriously limits the usefulness of iTunes as a video organizer...Of course, the probably reason the left transcoding out is that it's is deadly slow (compared to simply converting a song from one format to another) and AVI transcoding facilities would allow pirated content to be easily put on the video iPod.
The video iPod unit itself is also underwhelming. Next to the PSP's breathtaking 4.3 inch widescreen LCD, the iPod video's 4:3, 2.5 inch display is old hat. The aspect ratio tells me that Apple is not too serious about portable video right now...Rather, I think this is a panic move by Apple to get something into the portable video market before it's too late.
I can't accept the explanation that Apple is doing this simply because everyone expected a video-capable iPod...No, they have far more urgent reasons for getting into portable video.
First, the cellular providers are all ready to start streaming full-frame video content to phones. Portable, on demand video is a scary prospect for Apple because compared to streaming, the online music store model sucks. There's no need for people to be stuck with giant DRMed music files sucking up space on their hard drives when it gets streamed right to their phone.
The second reason is the Sony PSP and it's UMD video format. As a competitor to today's video iPod, the PSP is an above average hobbyist's toy...If you invest in a large memory card, you can fill it with videos you transcode on your PC and transfer over. But that's not what concerns Apple...The UMD movie format must scare them half to death.
Think about it...What was the last portable video format you saw? Unlike music, we've never had a real portable video medium until UMD. Not only do UMD movies look good, and work well, but the MPAA didn't flinch at approving it because it's the natural portable extention of DVD...No Hollywood content sitting on hard drives waiting to be cracked open.
Sure, carrying around discs does lack the slickness of the iTunes Music Store, but how slick would the store be when you're downloading 400MB+ video files? Consider that UMDs store the video at full DVD resolution, which undoubtely means that a future device will allow them to be played back at full res...How will Apple compete when Sony's format already has 1GB+ movies?
The other thing that bugs me is how we went from iTunes 5 to iTunes 6 in a handful of weeks. Something tells me that all the iTunes work was done for some time, but something (perhaps legal, perhaps iPod design related) delayed the release of the version of iTunes with the video support. It makes sense considering how barren iTunes 5 was in the new features department.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Mitch Albom May Be The Perfect Punchline
Seen on Metafilter...The most interesting pieces of pop music trivia (that you know are 100% false.)
Starship's "We Built This City" was actually written by future sports columnist and "Tuesdays With Morrie" author Mitch Albom.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Hypothesis
Hypothesis: The Flaming Lips can heal all wounds.
NOTE TO SELF: Do not seriously test this hypothesis.
PS: Parapa pa pap...Parapa pa pa pa pa pa...
NOTE TO SELF: Do not seriously test this hypothesis.
PS: Parapa pa pap...Parapa pa pa pa pa pa...
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Quote of the Day
As seen on the Gaming-Age Forum...
Santo: "I don't understand girls. They make absolutely no sense and are impossible to read."
Fix: "That's because you're supposed to read them like they're written in braile."
Santo: "I don't understand girls. They make absolutely no sense and are impossible to read."
Fix: "That's because you're supposed to read them like they're written in braile."
Monday, September 26, 2005
Richard Dawkins is the Man
Occasionally I read "The Shape of Days", a blog by a Battlestar Galactica fan who is also a right-wing/social darwinist asshat. Not suprisingly, he's from Texas. Today, he flings his warm poo of seething rage at this excellent satire piece by Richard Dawkins. I think Dawkins just moved from "awesome" to "hero" status in my book.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Quote of the Day
From a commenter at The Old New Thing:
Meh, what are you on, man? Raymond is a lvl 900 ninja coder. He could cast a 1200 damage VC++ spell as an afterthought. Also, he knows Itanium assembly. Pour out your Haterade.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Quote of the Day
Matthew Yglasias, guest blogging at Talking Points Memo:
Social Security now, Social Security tomorrow, Social Security forever!
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Quote(s) of the Day
QotD #1: Fark Headline:
QotD #2: Sci-Fi author David Brin:
Cream reunites in concert. For those of you under 40: Cream was Eric Clapton's old band. Under 30: Clapton was once a big rock star. And for you under 20: Rock was a kind of music they used to play on the radio
QotD #2: Sci-Fi author David Brin:
Remember the basic philosophy here, folks. Most of you would have been burned at the stake 400 years ago. I know I would have. Nowadays, that is a compliment. Let's KEEP this a civilization in which that's a compliment.
Stay burnable.
Jackass(es) of the Day
Jackass #1: Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card
Jackass #2: Webcomic artist/reviewer William G
The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few exceptions, bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be bad. Nimoy was the only charismatic actor in the cast and, ironically, he played the only character not allowed to register emotion.
Jackass #2: Webcomic artist/reviewer William G
I saw a link for the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards again. I know everyone always complains about it every year because all of the Megatokyo and Penny Arcade fanboys supposidly register and "stuff the ballot boxes". Where unsung heroes like Ghastly go un-noted.
But I think one of the best ways to prevent this possibility from happening is for everyone who actually likes webcomics as a medium, and not just the comics that pander to your pet obsessions, should register and try to influence the voting towards what you think is a good webcomic.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Well Isn't This Cool...
I was going to make a post about how much the websites of most commercial AM stations suck, but then I stumbled upon this. It's a lengthy, detailed document on WLS's website about how to get the best reception, written by their chief engineer. Rather cool. Wow, they even have a coverage map. Every radio station website needs one of those. It just kinda makes sense.
Monday, April 25, 2005
The Weather Sucks
So, remember back on March 30th when I was tingling with joy at the prospect of Spring arriving with 70+ degree weather? Well, that didn't last. Now, it's 35 outside and today I had to walk through tons of fluffy, cold slush falling from the sky to get lunch. Great big gobs of slush. In late April. That's a crime. Daylight Savings Time + Snow is like one those thought puzzles that makes your brain hurt.
In other news, I'm totally ready for Summer Break (which is 1/3rd in Spring, ever notice that?...Schools bend reality to fit their needs). I can't wait to get home and blast my tunes in my own room on my nice hifi stuff.
In other news, I'm totally ready for Summer Break (which is 1/3rd in Spring, ever notice that?...Schools bend reality to fit their needs). I can't wait to get home and blast my tunes in my own room on my nice hifi stuff.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Alas, Megatokyo
I love webcomics. They're practically the reason I get out of bed in the morning. I've never really gotten into comic books (aside from some Star Trek comics years ago) and newspaper "funnies" are not a big part of my existance, but web comics bring me such joy. Penny Arcade, PvP, Real Life, the hillariously awesome Questionable Content, Queen of Wands, Todd and Penguin, Mac Hall, Diesel Sweeties, Perry Bible Fellowship, Wigu/Overcompensating, and others make it clear to me that we have witnessed the birth of something special here.
A few years ago, Megatokyo would have been on that list. Megatokyo, after Penny Arcade, was one of the first webcomics I really got into. PA, demonstrated the potential of the medium. Megatokyo introduced the potential for plot. Back then, I loved it. It was constantly funny, basking in gamer and anime culture while simultaenously mocking both of them. The first two years were brilliant. And then, as they say, everything changed.
Honestly, the last time I enjoyed a Megatokyo strip was October 24th, 2004. I know because I blogged about it. That's kinda sad. Not only has it sucked since then, but the reason I blogged about it is because for one brief, shining moment, it stopped the streak of sucking that it had been on for such a long time. What a loss. A few years ago, I was a huge MT fan. I still have, and often sleep under, the MT Sad Kimiko blanket.
It's pretty clear that this descent from greatness started with the departure of Rodney "Largo" Caston (which, like all things is detailed at Wikipedia). In the beginning, MT was funny, it moved fast (they got drunk and mistakenly get stuck in Tokyo in the space of what, two, three strips?), and it had an energy and a vibrance to it. Then Caston left. Today, the strip is a shell of what it was in 2002. Basically, in the 2.5 to 3 years since that time, nothing has happened plot wise in the strip. It's become this long meandering narrative that goes nowhere. Whoop-de-do Kimiko's finally on the radio. Didn't Piro show a sketch of that somewhere like, years ago? Something (I'm not sure what) finally happened with Largo and Erika. This took years.
Let me put this into perspective: Babylon 5, which has an immensly complicated plot, took five years. Megatokyo has been around five years. If B5 moved at the speed that MT did, the pilot episode would still be going. How do you go five years with so little plot development!?!?!? Truly, this astounds me. How far has Piro and Kimiko's relationship come since she spilled coffee on him in October, 2000. Almost nothing. A date perhaps? Nah. Some sort of relationship? Nah. We finally found out that Miho had met Piro and Largo in a game online, and was cheating or something. Come to think of it, that's all we know about her. That, and she has some illness. We've basically learned nothing. The whole point of a mysterious character is to remove the mystery. Back when Yuki had Piro's sketchbook, that was cool...She was the only character in the strip, besides Seraphim, that could really see into Piro's head. Now, all we get of her is Piro constantly missing his drawing lesson with her. Seriously how much longer can that stupid plot go on for? Honestly, glaciers move faster than this.
This didn't happen overnight. After Caston left, there was still Great Teacher Largo. There were still the hillarious catoons with Makoto, the server, being kidnapped. The whole disaster squad thing was funny. Ed and Dom were funny. Ping and her various oddities was great. But slowly, all of that faded away. I think Piro, working on his own, lost the point of his own strip. He's caught between the all-consuming urge to have this relationship angle take over the strip, while at the same time he keeps the characters set in ice, never changing or evolving. That does not work in a plot. The author has to let go and let the characters evolve, else things become boring and tedious, as MT has.
Monday's Penny Arcade demonstrates what it would be like if Tycho banished Gabe and turned PA into his own creation. The results are pretty horrendous. What you see there is the author's personality, ever nuance of his subconcious amplified to Disaster Area proportions, and that's why it's funny. I don't know if this was supposed to be a commentary on Megatokyo, but it perfectly explains what Megatokyo has become: A Fred Gallagher ego trip. The heart and soul of that comic are gone. It's no longer remotely interesting. The dialog has become totally incomprhensable. The plot seems totally lost.
The magic is gone.
A few years ago, Megatokyo would have been on that list. Megatokyo, after Penny Arcade, was one of the first webcomics I really got into. PA, demonstrated the potential of the medium. Megatokyo introduced the potential for plot. Back then, I loved it. It was constantly funny, basking in gamer and anime culture while simultaenously mocking both of them. The first two years were brilliant. And then, as they say, everything changed.
Honestly, the last time I enjoyed a Megatokyo strip was October 24th, 2004. I know because I blogged about it. That's kinda sad. Not only has it sucked since then, but the reason I blogged about it is because for one brief, shining moment, it stopped the streak of sucking that it had been on for such a long time. What a loss. A few years ago, I was a huge MT fan. I still have, and often sleep under, the MT Sad Kimiko blanket.
It's pretty clear that this descent from greatness started with the departure of Rodney "Largo" Caston (which, like all things is detailed at Wikipedia). In the beginning, MT was funny, it moved fast (they got drunk and mistakenly get stuck in Tokyo in the space of what, two, three strips?), and it had an energy and a vibrance to it. Then Caston left. Today, the strip is a shell of what it was in 2002. Basically, in the 2.5 to 3 years since that time, nothing has happened plot wise in the strip. It's become this long meandering narrative that goes nowhere. Whoop-de-do Kimiko's finally on the radio. Didn't Piro show a sketch of that somewhere like, years ago? Something (I'm not sure what) finally happened with Largo and Erika. This took years.
Let me put this into perspective: Babylon 5, which has an immensly complicated plot, took five years. Megatokyo has been around five years. If B5 moved at the speed that MT did, the pilot episode would still be going. How do you go five years with so little plot development!?!?!? Truly, this astounds me. How far has Piro and Kimiko's relationship come since she spilled coffee on him in October, 2000. Almost nothing. A date perhaps? Nah. Some sort of relationship? Nah. We finally found out that Miho had met Piro and Largo in a game online, and was cheating or something. Come to think of it, that's all we know about her. That, and she has some illness. We've basically learned nothing. The whole point of a mysterious character is to remove the mystery. Back when Yuki had Piro's sketchbook, that was cool...She was the only character in the strip, besides Seraphim, that could really see into Piro's head. Now, all we get of her is Piro constantly missing his drawing lesson with her. Seriously how much longer can that stupid plot go on for? Honestly, glaciers move faster than this.
This didn't happen overnight. After Caston left, there was still Great Teacher Largo. There were still the hillarious catoons with Makoto, the server, being kidnapped. The whole disaster squad thing was funny. Ed and Dom were funny. Ping and her various oddities was great. But slowly, all of that faded away. I think Piro, working on his own, lost the point of his own strip. He's caught between the all-consuming urge to have this relationship angle take over the strip, while at the same time he keeps the characters set in ice, never changing or evolving. That does not work in a plot. The author has to let go and let the characters evolve, else things become boring and tedious, as MT has.
Monday's Penny Arcade demonstrates what it would be like if Tycho banished Gabe and turned PA into his own creation. The results are pretty horrendous. What you see there is the author's personality, ever nuance of his subconcious amplified to Disaster Area proportions, and that's why it's funny. I don't know if this was supposed to be a commentary on Megatokyo, but it perfectly explains what Megatokyo has become: A Fred Gallagher ego trip. The heart and soul of that comic are gone. It's no longer remotely interesting. The dialog has become totally incomprhensable. The plot seems totally lost.
The magic is gone.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
Report on the Horowitz Visit
As promised, my thoughts on the David Horowitz visit last night...
I went with a right-leaning friend of mine who was curious what Horowitz had to say. I mainly went just to say I was there, and because I had a hunch there would be a circus. As we walked into Olscamp, we came upon a clown brigade of communists chanting that Horowitz was a "Christian Fascist", handing out information about the writings of "Chairman" Bob Avakian. I brushed off their presence, since they ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow, but it was a taste of things to come.
Once inside Olscamp 101, I sat behind a group of people who seemed to be from the Ethnic Studies department. Daniel Boudreau, of all people was sitting in front of me amongst a group of what I assumed were activist types.
Strictly speaking, Horowitz's speech, taken by itself, was pretty poor. He clearly wasn't prepared, did not know the actual name an affiliation of the University (he thought we were a campus of Ohio State), and on one occasion totally lost his train of thought. In terms of the lecturn banging, fire and brimstone kind of material one expects from a firebrand like Horowitz, it was pretty dissapointing. Only on a few occasions (such as when he proclaimed that "100% of the problems of the inner city are the fault of the Democrats" and when he discussed Howard Zinn) did he really get fired up. Just going by the content of his speech, his case for his "Academic Bill of Rights" was pretty thin.
But what made it all worthwhile for the College Republicans was the stupid heckling from the liberal portion of the crowd, many of whom just showed up just to make noise. I sympathize with these people, really I do. Horowitz, as I have said is undoubtedly a douchebag. We all know this. It's been documented.
But think about it. Horowitz is claiming that there is a liberal bias on campuses and so to try to fight him you show up to his speech and heckle him? Doesn't that support his point? Here is a man that has made a career out of half-truths and apocryphal stories and make his myths come to life for him? Gee, just hand him a story, that'll make things better...Ugh.
The Q&A session at the end was especially bad. While some questioners attempted to keep a bit of respectability up, four or five people lined up to ask a question simply to scream at Horowitz. I think, and I may be wrong here, that the gentleman that got into a shouting match with Horowitz over Howard Zinn, was Denis Mueller, a filmmaker and doctoral student. He appeared to be shaking with anger and appeared to have some words with the campus police officer that was there. That row, and another involving an older woman near the end of the evening, I think was demonstrative of the level of anger, angst, and hate in that room. The vileness on both sides was pretty shocking.
And let's not absolve the College Republicans here. Their "Republican Week" occured during the same week as "Rainbow Dayz". That can't be a coincidence. That, in itself was pretty immature. Even more immature was the "People Eating Tasty Animals" table in the Union handing out jerky. That's beyond lame. it's not remotely funny and only adds to the level of bullshit that whole day saw laid upon it. And heck, maybe if they had more than a handful of their own people at Horowitz's speech it wouldn't have been quite the madhouse it became. Seriously, there were only three rows full of freeper-wannabees and over a dozen rows left for everyone else. If you're going to invite someone to speak, at least have an audience here for him to speak to.
I went with a right-leaning friend of mine who was curious what Horowitz had to say. I mainly went just to say I was there, and because I had a hunch there would be a circus. As we walked into Olscamp, we came upon a clown brigade of communists chanting that Horowitz was a "Christian Fascist", handing out information about the writings of "Chairman" Bob Avakian. I brushed off their presence, since they ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow, but it was a taste of things to come.
Once inside Olscamp 101, I sat behind a group of people who seemed to be from the Ethnic Studies department. Daniel Boudreau, of all people was sitting in front of me amongst a group of what I assumed were activist types.
Strictly speaking, Horowitz's speech, taken by itself, was pretty poor. He clearly wasn't prepared, did not know the actual name an affiliation of the University (he thought we were a campus of Ohio State), and on one occasion totally lost his train of thought. In terms of the lecturn banging, fire and brimstone kind of material one expects from a firebrand like Horowitz, it was pretty dissapointing. Only on a few occasions (such as when he proclaimed that "100% of the problems of the inner city are the fault of the Democrats" and when he discussed Howard Zinn) did he really get fired up. Just going by the content of his speech, his case for his "Academic Bill of Rights" was pretty thin.
But what made it all worthwhile for the College Republicans was the stupid heckling from the liberal portion of the crowd, many of whom just showed up just to make noise. I sympathize with these people, really I do. Horowitz, as I have said is undoubtedly a douchebag. We all know this. It's been documented.
But think about it. Horowitz is claiming that there is a liberal bias on campuses and so to try to fight him you show up to his speech and heckle him? Doesn't that support his point? Here is a man that has made a career out of half-truths and apocryphal stories and make his myths come to life for him? Gee, just hand him a story, that'll make things better...Ugh.
The Q&A session at the end was especially bad. While some questioners attempted to keep a bit of respectability up, four or five people lined up to ask a question simply to scream at Horowitz. I think, and I may be wrong here, that the gentleman that got into a shouting match with Horowitz over Howard Zinn, was Denis Mueller, a filmmaker and doctoral student. He appeared to be shaking with anger and appeared to have some words with the campus police officer that was there. That row, and another involving an older woman near the end of the evening, I think was demonstrative of the level of anger, angst, and hate in that room. The vileness on both sides was pretty shocking.
And let's not absolve the College Republicans here. Their "Republican Week" occured during the same week as "Rainbow Dayz". That can't be a coincidence. That, in itself was pretty immature. Even more immature was the "People Eating Tasty Animals" table in the Union handing out jerky. That's beyond lame. it's not remotely funny and only adds to the level of bullshit that whole day saw laid upon it. And heck, maybe if they had more than a handful of their own people at Horowitz's speech it wouldn't have been quite the madhouse it became. Seriously, there were only three rows full of freeper-wannabees and over a dozen rows left for everyone else. If you're going to invite someone to speak, at least have an audience here for him to speak to.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Horowitz Update
I shall do a full write up on the Horowitz talk soon (presumably tomorrow). Hopefully the BGNews has something too...Let me just say the whole thing was quite a circus and undoubtedly embarressing for all of the conservatives/liberals/communists/unicorns/etc in attendance.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Spring Has Arrived
It's currently an absolutely beautiful 74 degress here in Bowling Green...I have Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring, Section 7 (aka, the part everyone knows) going at full blast...Life is good. Let's hope the weather holds out and we don't get a relapse of winter...The prospect of the upcoming "springing ahead" combining with great weather makes me tingle with joy. Imagine great weather and the sunlight to enjoy it.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Discover the Douchebaggery: Live!
David Motherfucking Horowitz is coming to BGSU tomorrow night, where he will undoubtedly burst forth with vile hatered for liberals, professors, Unicorns, and anything else that might still be right with our society. I am actually planning on attending, since Satan probably won't be touring for awhile and Stalin is all sold out...
In all actuality, this is the first time that I have a chance to see someone speak that is regularly discussed in the parts of the blogosophere that I read, and that's why I want to go. The blogosphere too often has an otherworldly quality to it and I'd like to see something physical of it, even if it is a douchebag.
Not surprisingly, this visit and that of the political diahreha spewer behind "Michael Moore Hates America" to BGSU coincide with "Rainbow Dayz", the week about highlighting the rights of homosexuals...Great to see the College Republicans are a respectful bunch.
In all actuality, this is the first time that I have a chance to see someone speak that is regularly discussed in the parts of the blogosophere that I read, and that's why I want to go. The blogosphere too often has an otherworldly quality to it and I'd like to see something physical of it, even if it is a douchebag.
Not surprisingly, this visit and that of the political diahreha spewer behind "Michael Moore Hates America" to BGSU coincide with "Rainbow Dayz", the week about highlighting the rights of homosexuals...Great to see the College Republicans are a respectful bunch.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Moving More Stuff Over
I decided to mirror my posts from the Election 2004 blog I did with Andy aka Dekerd; Modern Politics and You. Now that Andy seems to have found his groove (and actually has, like, readers), and I have this blog, Modern Politics seems to have died. This place, on the other hand, I want to be a sort of journey through my mind (even if no one else ever really sees it) that I can go back and look at someday. So, it makes sense to make copies of that stuff (some of it I consider rather good, if I do say so myself) fo over here.
So, if you see:
"***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***"
...That's what that's about.
So, if you see:
"***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***"
...That's what that's about.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Pass Stupid Laws, Get Stupid Rulings
As you may or may not know, last November Ohio's esteemed population of bigots passed a poorly written abomination of an ammendment to the state's constitution to ban gay marriage, or anything that looked remotely like it. People with more than one functioning neuron rightly said at the time that this ammendment was so poorly written and thought out that it would create a mess of unintended consequences.
Those consequences are now occuring. In this case, a judge was forced to rule a domestic violence law cannot be applied in instances where the two people involved in the relationship were unmarried. This is because the domestic violence law defined a "family" as two people living in the same place while the new ammendment says that "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." So, gentlemen, it's now only a misdemeanor if you beat your live-in girlfriend, as long as you're not married. That's 6 months in the joint as opposed to 18 months.
Thus, this bigoted anti-homosexuals ammendment not only banned gay marriage but also common sense in the State of Ohio. This is what happens when you let theocrats run your state.
Those consequences are now occuring. In this case, a judge was forced to rule a domestic violence law cannot be applied in instances where the two people involved in the relationship were unmarried. This is because the domestic violence law defined a "family" as two people living in the same place while the new ammendment says that "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." So, gentlemen, it's now only a misdemeanor if you beat your live-in girlfriend, as long as you're not married. That's 6 months in the joint as opposed to 18 months.
Thus, this bigoted anti-homosexuals ammendment not only banned gay marriage but also common sense in the State of Ohio. This is what happens when you let theocrats run your state.
I Sincerly Wish I Was Making This Up
Today at lunch I, as I usually do, was scanning up and down the AM band when I happened upon Rush Limbaugh sounding, well I think it can only be described as Savage-esque. It's as if we was he was channeleling some great propagandist of the 20th Century (take your pick). In a nutshell, he was expounding on the Terri Schiavo tragedy and essentially accused "Liberals" of wanting Terri Schaivo to die. That's disgraceful, but not in itself surprising...After that though, it want totally out of control. I'll let the transcript speak for itself:
That, my friends, is just insane. Not that I expect Rush Limbaugh to be sane, but that is just sad.
"...What did this woman ever do to us? What did she do to you? Are you so desirous of being able to kill your spouse one day that you want this to set a precedent? Help me out here. Could it be -- and I suspect this is the real answer -- could it be that you have been so pent up with rage and frustration over the Christians in this country? You just hated the success of The Passion of the Christ. You hated the outpouring of support for that movie, you just despise the red state, hayseed, holy roller crowd that you think is steamrollering the country.
Maybe this is just payback; you want this woman to die because Christian conservatives want her to live, and since you don't like Christian conservatives so much you want them to be disappointed. You want them to find out what it's like to be on the losing side. You want them to find out what it's like to not get away with everything they want just because they're Christians. Is that it? Does it really have nothing to do with Terri Schiavo, does it have solely to do with the fact that you want payback? You're so excited for the Christian conservatives to lose that even if it requires the death of this woman, you'll take it? If that's true, if that's the case, if I have nailed it, and as I say, my liberal friends, I'm on this, I'm on it like white on rice, cold on ice, dots on dice, drugs on Miami Vice."
That, my friends, is just insane. Not that I expect Rush Limbaugh to be sane, but that is just sad.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
JWZ Is Undoubtedly The Man
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems"
-Jamie Zawinski
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Saturday, March 19, 2005
All Ahead Full Suck, Mr. Sulu
Wednesday, I started writing a lengthy post that was going to end up about being how The West Wing has gone from "starting to suck" to "full suck" and how my new beau, Battlestar Galactica is shockingly good for a first year science fiction show. However, before I could finish that post, The West Wing took a total head dive and can now only be described using words usually reserved for excrement while BSG aired an episode that was better West Wing than West Wing. Somewhere, I hope Aaron Sorkin finds that funny.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Catching Up...
Seeing as I haven't posted in two weeks, how about some catching up...
Last month, I totally missed when Eric (aka MaximusFarticus) quoted a forum post I made on the meaning of freedom and democracy. That was cool to see. Thanks, Eric.
In other news, I see that the techno media has finally caught on to the iTunes 4.7.1 sharing restrictions that were introduced in January. Better late than never, I guess. It's sad that companies can slip in bull like that and the media takes so long for them to notice. OTOH, if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that, the media's response time would be measured in minutes. I hope the Shiny Fruit Bastards catch hell for this.
Last month, I totally missed when Eric (aka MaximusFarticus) quoted a forum post I made on the meaning of freedom and democracy. That was cool to see. Thanks, Eric.
In other news, I see that the techno media has finally caught on to the iTunes 4.7.1 sharing restrictions that were introduced in January. Better late than never, I guess. It's sad that companies can slip in bull like that and the media takes so long for them to notice. OTOH, if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that, the media's response time would be measured in minutes. I hope the Shiny Fruit Bastards catch hell for this.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Too Easy A Target
As you may or may not be ware, I listen to a lot of radio. I listen to NPR whenever possible, but since the local public radio station here sucks, I often meander through the AM band during dinner. Usually, this means I spend much of my time avoiding Sean Hannity. Tonight though, the Han-man was playing up the Ward Churchill poo-fest and I wanted to hear that. I've been curious how the VRWC has been covering Churchill, since this is one of the few occasions when they don't actually have to bend/break/manufacture the facts to make a point, since Churchill, being a delusional asshole, has done all of their work by himself.
And so here is the Hanninator just playing audio clips of Ward Churchill. he did far less talking than he usually does, and when he did talk he mainly just repeated whatever stupid thing Ward Churchill said in a silly voice. Here is Ward Churchill doing everything he possibly can to sound exactly like the Red Menace the Right likes to make the Left out to be. Here' s a clue idiots like Churchill in prominent positions: DO NOT MAKE IT EASY FOR THE RIGHT TO FARK YOU UP THE ASS. Free speech is a great thing, but so is thinking about the trash eminating from your mouth before you say something stupid and make Fox News's day. Ward Churchill has made himself a great example for the doofuses who listen to right-wing talk to soothe what little conscience they have left so they can sleep at night. When you're making Sean Hannity's job easier, it may be time to reevaluate your position.
And so here is the Hanninator just playing audio clips of Ward Churchill. he did far less talking than he usually does, and when he did talk he mainly just repeated whatever stupid thing Ward Churchill said in a silly voice. Here is Ward Churchill doing everything he possibly can to sound exactly like the Red Menace the Right likes to make the Left out to be. Here' s a clue idiots like Churchill in prominent positions: DO NOT MAKE IT EASY FOR THE RIGHT TO FARK YOU UP THE ASS. Free speech is a great thing, but so is thinking about the trash eminating from your mouth before you say something stupid and make Fox News's day. Ward Churchill has made himself a great example for the doofuses who listen to right-wing talk to soothe what little conscience they have left so they can sleep at night. When you're making Sean Hannity's job easier, it may be time to reevaluate your position.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Ohio Weather
There are some places on the planet where nature will actually try to kill you on a regular basis. Florida has hurricane season, Kansas has tornado alley. California has earthquakes and mudslides. Thankfully, Ohio is not one of those places. Rather, in Ohio, nature has decided to take a more subtle, far more devious approach. Here, the weather just tries to annoy you to death. I mean, I can take wet poo falling from the sky. I can take high winds. But wet poo falling from the sky and high winds? Now I'm seriously annoyed.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Discover the Douchebaggery: David Horowitz
Our dear friend David Horowitz has a new site up: Discover the Network. The proported purpose of this site is to let the inquiering defender of freedom discover all the connected individuals and organizations that make up the dreaded Left. This is rather brilliant piece of horse feces, I've got to admit.
One can clearly see that the American Library Association is tied to Zacarias Moussaoui who is tied to Harvard University who is tied to Fidel Castro who is tied to Martin Sheen. It's like the Kevin Bacon game for fanatical conservative assholes.
I think that we can pretty clearly say that if Michael Moore is head propaganda douchbag of the radical left David Horowitz is head propaganda douchbag for the radical right.
One can clearly see that the American Library Association is tied to Zacarias Moussaoui who is tied to Harvard University who is tied to Fidel Castro who is tied to Martin Sheen. It's like the Kevin Bacon game for fanatical conservative assholes.
I think that we can pretty clearly say that if Michael Moore is head propaganda douchbag of the radical left David Horowitz is head propaganda douchbag for the radical right.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A Unique Problem
I have this problem where I seem to find all of the coolest websites after 2:00AM. The later (or..err...earlier) the hour, the more massively awesome the discovery. I mean, I don't look for these things, they find me in passing. So, as I was writing my post last night I did a search for "Teela Brown" because I wanted to be sure I had her last name right and I was curious if there was some sort of, I don't know, fan site or something about her to which I could link. In doing that, I stumbled upon something of immense awesomeness (and questionable legality, so I will not link to it), but suffice to say, my morning was shot.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Booty Dance
If you have not already started reading Questionable Content, then it is your duty to start doing so now.
For some reason Ellen reminds me considerably of Teela Brown from Larry Niven's Ringworld novel. There are parallels...They're both about the same age, they both come off as naive, and they both can be rather intelligent when given a chance. They also seem to like to have sex with older men (though Ringworld's Louis Wu is...err...considerably older than QC's Steve). However, I doubt that Ellen possesses that most powerful of psychic powers, Author Control.
For some reason Ellen reminds me considerably of Teela Brown from Larry Niven's Ringworld novel. There are parallels...They're both about the same age, they both come off as naive, and they both can be rather intelligent when given a chance. They also seem to like to have sex with older men (though Ringworld's Louis Wu is...err...considerably older than QC's Steve). However, I doubt that Ellen possesses that most powerful of psychic powers, Author Control.
What is the Meaning of Human?
I very much enjoyed this article in today's New York Times on the severe faults of Intelligent Design (via Boing Boing). Intelligent Design is something that only works in your head if you don't think about it too hard. It's one of those diseases where the more you believe it, the less the likelyhood that you'll see the vast flaws in it sitting right in fornt of your face. ID is really a form of egotism..."Look at me, I'm a Picaaso! I have such a wonderful designer!"
Daniel Dennett calls evolution "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and for good reason...It forces you too change your dialectic about viewing the Universe, and youself. If forces you to question your beliefs about fate, about meaning, and about purpose. If the fact that you're here is an accident, that you are the result of a myriad of random conditions ariving down one of a myriad of paths, than how can we say that any one of us has any special purpose or fate attached to us? How can any of us, mere pieces of matter, be any more special than any other pieces of matter? Your brain might be pretty complex, but is it any more complex than a star? Consciousness is just another process, not unlike nuclear fusion. It is not a gift. There are no gifts; only accidents.
Some people call that view depressing. They've been tought to expect gifts, to prize fate, to ponder meanings as if no other question has value. But, that's to be expected of people who have had their worldview torn asunder. Depressing? Certainly not. The correct word is liberating. We create our meanings. I mean, that's the whole point of Intelligent Design. It's a craving for meaning where some people feel meaning needs to be assigned. But that is like using a supercomputer to balance your checkbook; there are far more interesting things to ponder. For example, if we create our own meanings, what is the meaning of War? What is the meaning of Freedom? What is the meaning of Morality? What is the meaning of Imagination? What is the meaning of Knowledge? If we, human beings, are what we decide to be, what is it that we want to be? What is the meaning of Human?
Daniel Dennett calls evolution "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and for good reason...It forces you too change your dialectic about viewing the Universe, and youself. If forces you to question your beliefs about fate, about meaning, and about purpose. If the fact that you're here is an accident, that you are the result of a myriad of random conditions ariving down one of a myriad of paths, than how can we say that any one of us has any special purpose or fate attached to us? How can any of us, mere pieces of matter, be any more special than any other pieces of matter? Your brain might be pretty complex, but is it any more complex than a star? Consciousness is just another process, not unlike nuclear fusion. It is not a gift. There are no gifts; only accidents.
Some people call that view depressing. They've been tought to expect gifts, to prize fate, to ponder meanings as if no other question has value. But, that's to be expected of people who have had their worldview torn asunder. Depressing? Certainly not. The correct word is liberating. We create our meanings. I mean, that's the whole point of Intelligent Design. It's a craving for meaning where some people feel meaning needs to be assigned. But that is like using a supercomputer to balance your checkbook; there are far more interesting things to ponder. For example, if we create our own meanings, what is the meaning of War? What is the meaning of Freedom? What is the meaning of Morality? What is the meaning of Imagination? What is the meaning of Knowledge? If we, human beings, are what we decide to be, what is it that we want to be? What is the meaning of Human?
Friday, February 18, 2005
Senate Bill 24
I saw this excellent editorial in the BGNews yesterday:
Senate Bill 24 doubts students, faculty By Megan Schmidt
If State Senator Mumper wasn't such an asshole, he'd make a great comedian. This is a man who told the Columbus Dispatch:
In any event, this whole issue is nonexistant. Take a careful look at what Mumper (and dodos like Horowitz) are saying and you'll see what they're really after. What they claim is that professors are over politicising classrooms by presenting one-sided views, which leads to indoctrination of students.
There are really two issues at stake here. One is laughably minor and the other concerns the fate of our nation.
The indoctrination accusation is already a load of horse hockey. These are college students here, not 2nd graders. There's no indoctrination happening in college classrooms. If you're a student, you know the score...When a professor goes off about something controversial, there are two types of people in that room:
So, what's the real agenda here? Senate Bill 24 would require colleges to ensure that classes that cover controversial subjects present "balanced" viewpoints. This is designed to destroy departments like Women's Studies and American Culture Studies. If these departments were required to teach "balanced" courses, it would defeat the point of the exercise. These are departments that study history created by liberals of the past, read books written by liberals, and produce research on topics of interest to liberal causes. Most, if not all of the people who teach these courses and take these degrees are more liberal than the average person on the street. If you wanted to be blunt about it, you could say that these departments are taxpayer funded enclaves for people with unconventional political beliefs. That's what Horowitz and Mumper want to eliminate. It's also why they're deeply wrong.
By the same logic, you could call the Math department a taxpayer-funded enclave for people who love math. I mean, most of the population hates math and actively tries to avoid having to involve themselves in it. Should we try to target math departments for destruction? Astronomers seem to be more interested in the stars than most people, does that mean we should destroy that department too?
The fact is that colleges exist not only to educate students, but to act as incubators for research to be done in a myriad of relatively esoteric fields. The people who make up the Women Studies department, or the American Culture Studies are undoubtedly more liberal that most of the nation, but the fact is that researching the place of women in society and the effect of race on our society are just as worthy a project as supporting mathematics or psychology research. We're talking about universities here...Uni as in universal. The whole point of these institutions is to act as incubators for a diverse set of ideas in a diverse set of fields.
The society we have today is undoubtledly a knowledge based, post industrial society. We have a knowledge based economy and the Internet is a knowledge based communication system. Universities are to a knowledge based society what steel mills are to an industrial society. Without steel mills you don't have ships and trains and bridges and skyscrapers. Steel mills are the foundation that allows you to build everything else. In a knowledge based society, universities are the foundation, they allow you to build everything else. Whether or not Mumper and Horowitz like it, universities only work when they're allowed to work without restrictions, planting the seeds of the future in a diverse set of fields. In a society where change and growth come from unpredictable sources, the only way to ensure your future is to put your eggs into as many baskets as possible.
Senate Bill 24 doubts students, faculty By Megan Schmidt
If State Senator Mumper wasn't such an asshole, he'd make a great comedian. This is a man who told the Columbus Dispatch:
"80 percent or so of them (professors) are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists."Gee, Senator Mumper, are there 57 card-carrying Communists in the Defense Department, too? That quote just creeps me out...
In any event, this whole issue is nonexistant. Take a careful look at what Mumper (and dodos like Horowitz) are saying and you'll see what they're really after. What they claim is that professors are over politicising classrooms by presenting one-sided views, which leads to indoctrination of students.
There are really two issues at stake here. One is laughably minor and the other concerns the fate of our nation.
The indoctrination accusation is already a load of horse hockey. These are college students here, not 2nd graders. There's no indoctrination happening in college classrooms. If you're a student, you know the score...When a professor goes off about something controversial, there are two types of people in that room:
- People who don't care.
- People who already opposed the professors viewpoint and aren't changing their minds.
So, what's the real agenda here? Senate Bill 24 would require colleges to ensure that classes that cover controversial subjects present "balanced" viewpoints. This is designed to destroy departments like Women's Studies and American Culture Studies. If these departments were required to teach "balanced" courses, it would defeat the point of the exercise. These are departments that study history created by liberals of the past, read books written by liberals, and produce research on topics of interest to liberal causes. Most, if not all of the people who teach these courses and take these degrees are more liberal than the average person on the street. If you wanted to be blunt about it, you could say that these departments are taxpayer funded enclaves for people with unconventional political beliefs. That's what Horowitz and Mumper want to eliminate. It's also why they're deeply wrong.
By the same logic, you could call the Math department a taxpayer-funded enclave for people who love math. I mean, most of the population hates math and actively tries to avoid having to involve themselves in it. Should we try to target math departments for destruction? Astronomers seem to be more interested in the stars than most people, does that mean we should destroy that department too?
The fact is that colleges exist not only to educate students, but to act as incubators for research to be done in a myriad of relatively esoteric fields. The people who make up the Women Studies department, or the American Culture Studies are undoubtedly more liberal that most of the nation, but the fact is that researching the place of women in society and the effect of race on our society are just as worthy a project as supporting mathematics or psychology research. We're talking about universities here...Uni as in universal. The whole point of these institutions is to act as incubators for a diverse set of ideas in a diverse set of fields.
The society we have today is undoubtledly a knowledge based, post industrial society. We have a knowledge based economy and the Internet is a knowledge based communication system. Universities are to a knowledge based society what steel mills are to an industrial society. Without steel mills you don't have ships and trains and bridges and skyscrapers. Steel mills are the foundation that allows you to build everything else. In a knowledge based society, universities are the foundation, they allow you to build everything else. Whether or not Mumper and Horowitz like it, universities only work when they're allowed to work without restrictions, planting the seeds of the future in a diverse set of fields. In a society where change and growth come from unpredictable sources, the only way to ensure your future is to put your eggs into as many baskets as possible.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Past Is Prologue...
I moved over all the old posts from my old blog so that all of my relatively recent Internet writings are all in one place and have the cool Blogspot.com look. You can find them using the archive links on the right.
It's interesting how much I've changed politically in the past year or so. Looking at some of those older posts, I looked fairly conservative, though if you asked me I'd try to pull off a "centrist" sort of thing, because even back then I was beginning to distrust the Bush Administration.
Those who know me know today know that I'm a pretty liberal guy. Admittedly, I used to be more libertarian, and admittedly I did listen to way, way too much right wing trash talk radio in the 90s. Since I've been at college and become aquainted with liberal philosophy and shit like Abu Ghriab and Issue 1 keep happening, I've become rather solidly liberal. So, there was a shift there where at the beginning I could still trust right-wingers and today I can't stand them. These entries from 2003 and 2004 capture that transition, and that's one of the reasons I wanted to preserve them. That entry from February 2004 was basically the last gasp of whatever remaining trust I had in the right. When Abu Ghriab happen, those last gasps left rather quickly. I guess you could say that if nothing else, the Bush Administration has been an enlightening intellectual experience for me.
In terms of most policy matters, my views on individual issues haven't actually changed (I've been solidly for seperation of church and state for as long as I can remember, etc), but I did have to break through the "liberals will ruin our country" bullshit that I picked up from the claptraps on the radio. On a few things, like Affirmative Action and things like universal healthcare and education, I've become more open minded, but most of my views haven't changed. What changed was my confidence in which side I can trust to run the country.
It's interesting how much I've changed politically in the past year or so. Looking at some of those older posts, I looked fairly conservative, though if you asked me I'd try to pull off a "centrist" sort of thing, because even back then I was beginning to distrust the Bush Administration.
Those who know me know today know that I'm a pretty liberal guy. Admittedly, I used to be more libertarian, and admittedly I did listen to way, way too much right wing trash talk radio in the 90s. Since I've been at college and become aquainted with liberal philosophy and shit like Abu Ghriab and Issue 1 keep happening, I've become rather solidly liberal. So, there was a shift there where at the beginning I could still trust right-wingers and today I can't stand them. These entries from 2003 and 2004 capture that transition, and that's one of the reasons I wanted to preserve them. That entry from February 2004 was basically the last gasp of whatever remaining trust I had in the right. When Abu Ghriab happen, those last gasps left rather quickly. I guess you could say that if nothing else, the Bush Administration has been an enlightening intellectual experience for me.
In terms of most policy matters, my views on individual issues haven't actually changed (I've been solidly for seperation of church and state for as long as I can remember, etc), but I did have to break through the "liberals will ruin our country" bullshit that I picked up from the claptraps on the radio. On a few things, like Affirmative Action and things like universal healthcare and education, I've become more open minded, but most of my views haven't changed. What changed was my confidence in which side I can trust to run the country.
La Fille Aux Cheveux de Lin
Sometimes, I am astonished at how touching and emotional a work of art can be, no matter how simple it is. If you've never listened to Claude Debussy's "La Fille Aux Cheveux de Lin" (The Girl With The Flaxen Hair), do yourself a favor and let yourself get lost in it sometime. It's strikingly simple, but it tears at your heart. I've heard it perhaps dozens of times, but it never loses it's impact.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
WBGU
I saw in the Blade today that WBGU FM, the FM station on campus, is holding a fundraising drive because their funding was cut...
Even as a person who loves radio, I've never found WBGU all that appealing. I've only really actively tuned into one of their shows, the 2AM techno thing they had a few years ago. Admittedly, more because it was effective at putting me to sleep with the repetative noises and things than any enjoyment I had for the music. Other than that, I've never found anything they do to be too exciting. On occasion I've tuned in to find a show where the music mostly consisted of a guy screaming into a microphone. I've also heard sports coverage so abysmal that it became transcendatly comedic.
Of course, I've got to admit that I have a major bias here because I tend to dislike listening to music on the radio. For some reason, listening to music on the radio is about as exciting to me as watching paint dry. When I think of what radio should be as a medium, I think of most of a good public radio station's weekend schedule, or the BBC World Service, or even the good old days of Art Bell's Coast To Coast show. This is not to say that I like talk radio (99% of which is total sludge), but that between the sludge of political talk and the drudgery of music, there lies a great expanse of awesome radio, and that's what I tend to like.
However, my personal biases aside, I have no doubt that part of WBGU's problem is that their goals all seem to contradict each other. They seem to want to be the "anti-Clear Channel" of pioneering anti-corporate radio, they want to be a sandbox for the dozens of volunteer hosts, they want to be very low budget, and they want to be a decent radio station. The current mishmash of talent, ideas, genres, and hosts seems to miss all of these goals, and it doesn't seem to garner a lot of listeners either. Honestly, outside of the dozens of DJs, who listens to this station?
I think that's a good question. Consider, this is a station that puts out less power than your average dorm microwave (they claim 1000W, but the FCC documents say 450W), so there's not really a huge market to work with here. Perhaps, years ago, there was a need for independent music radio, but today in the post-Shawn Fanning era, I think the audience for that has dwindled. WBGU seems to be driven by the uber-ultra-mega-indie scene (read: stuff no one has ever heard of and never will), and while there will always be a core group for that, it's never going to be too broad.
What I would like to see on WBGU is some creative talk content. As the shoestring budget WNIR in the Akron-Kent area can profess to, talk is cheap. Right now, as far as I know, the only talk content WBGU has is a half hour show hosted by...err...Daniel Boudreau. Regardless of my feelings about the man or his politics, I think that in general , rabidly political talk is not what most people want to hear. The beautiful thing about talk radio, and what most of the talk radio on commerical radio misses, is that talk radio can be about anything. You can talk about local issues (which we seem to have plenty of), you can talk about health, you can talk about music, you can talk about cars, you can talk about sports, you can talk about computers, you can talk about books, you can talk about the stars, you can talk about relationships...
Seriously, you can talk about literally anything. WNIR appeals widely to the Akron area because to the people of Akron, that is their radio. It's about their town. When Clear Channel came in and set up a station specifically to try to put WNIR out of business, it failed because what people already had was radio about themselves, and it doesn't get any better than that. In a nutshell WNIR is to the people of Akron what WBGU wants to be for the students of BGSU. There's a lesson there.
Even as a person who loves radio, I've never found WBGU all that appealing. I've only really actively tuned into one of their shows, the 2AM techno thing they had a few years ago. Admittedly, more because it was effective at putting me to sleep with the repetative noises and things than any enjoyment I had for the music. Other than that, I've never found anything they do to be too exciting. On occasion I've tuned in to find a show where the music mostly consisted of a guy screaming into a microphone. I've also heard sports coverage so abysmal that it became transcendatly comedic.
Of course, I've got to admit that I have a major bias here because I tend to dislike listening to music on the radio. For some reason, listening to music on the radio is about as exciting to me as watching paint dry. When I think of what radio should be as a medium, I think of most of a good public radio station's weekend schedule, or the BBC World Service, or even the good old days of Art Bell's Coast To Coast show. This is not to say that I like talk radio (99% of which is total sludge), but that between the sludge of political talk and the drudgery of music, there lies a great expanse of awesome radio, and that's what I tend to like.
However, my personal biases aside, I have no doubt that part of WBGU's problem is that their goals all seem to contradict each other. They seem to want to be the "anti-Clear Channel" of pioneering anti-corporate radio, they want to be a sandbox for the dozens of volunteer hosts, they want to be very low budget, and they want to be a decent radio station. The current mishmash of talent, ideas, genres, and hosts seems to miss all of these goals, and it doesn't seem to garner a lot of listeners either. Honestly, outside of the dozens of DJs, who listens to this station?
I think that's a good question. Consider, this is a station that puts out less power than your average dorm microwave (they claim 1000W, but the FCC documents say 450W), so there's not really a huge market to work with here. Perhaps, years ago, there was a need for independent music radio, but today in the post-Shawn Fanning era, I think the audience for that has dwindled. WBGU seems to be driven by the uber-ultra-mega-indie scene (read: stuff no one has ever heard of and never will), and while there will always be a core group for that, it's never going to be too broad.
What I would like to see on WBGU is some creative talk content. As the shoestring budget WNIR in the Akron-Kent area can profess to, talk is cheap. Right now, as far as I know, the only talk content WBGU has is a half hour show hosted by...err...Daniel Boudreau. Regardless of my feelings about the man or his politics, I think that in general , rabidly political talk is not what most people want to hear. The beautiful thing about talk radio, and what most of the talk radio on commerical radio misses, is that talk radio can be about anything. You can talk about local issues (which we seem to have plenty of), you can talk about health, you can talk about music, you can talk about cars, you can talk about sports, you can talk about computers, you can talk about books, you can talk about the stars, you can talk about relationships...
Seriously, you can talk about literally anything. WNIR appeals widely to the Akron area because to the people of Akron, that is their radio. It's about their town. When Clear Channel came in and set up a station specifically to try to put WNIR out of business, it failed because what people already had was radio about themselves, and it doesn't get any better than that. In a nutshell WNIR is to the people of Akron what WBGU wants to be for the students of BGSU. There's a lesson there.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Daniel Boudreau Watch: Vol 1
The college paper here, the BGNews seems to be regularly printing columns written by my old Ethnics instructor, Daniel Boudreau. This makes sense, considering that whatever you think about the guy, it's clear he's always got an opinion, usually involving radical politics.
In class, it was rather apparent that even with a subject matter such as "Ethnics" (which roughly translates as "history as seen by the radical left"), he was constantly holding himself back from launching into full radical tirades. To be fair, the class was eminently thought provoking. I must say, I was rather pleased with myself, when discussing the impact of MLK jr. with him, I got him to say "American Imperialist Project". As nutty radical left vocab goes, that's solid gold.
Daniel Boudreau's February 9th column was "War glorification uncalled for". Now, I hate to try to say that Mr. Boudreau in some way represents a whole diverse wing of radical politics, because that's not quite fair, but all too often their writings can be identified rather quickly with two trademarks:
In February 14th's piece, "Bush out of touch with citizens", Daniel Boudreau returns to discussing Social Security. This piece starts off strong, and does in fact have a pretty solid thesis. That the right is out to squeeze the life out of the middle class is not something I disagree with. However I take issue with the way this is accomplished. Take this, for example:
It should be noted here, though, that as content on the BGNews opinion page goes, I've seen far, far, far worse.
More coverage of Daniel Boudreau's columns will occur as they happen...
In class, it was rather apparent that even with a subject matter such as "Ethnics" (which roughly translates as "history as seen by the radical left"), he was constantly holding himself back from launching into full radical tirades. To be fair, the class was eminently thought provoking. I must say, I was rather pleased with myself, when discussing the impact of MLK jr. with him, I got him to say "American Imperialist Project". As nutty radical left vocab goes, that's solid gold.
Daniel Boudreau's February 9th column was "War glorification uncalled for". Now, I hate to try to say that Mr. Boudreau in some way represents a whole diverse wing of radical politics, because that's not quite fair, but all too often their writings can be identified rather quickly with two trademarks:
- The chances that there will be a quotation or anecdote included from a member of the radical pantheon such as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky are about 92%. (Note that this rule also works for the radical right, though they tend to use the likes of Ayn Rand, the Bible, and Ronald Reagan)
- They have so many things to complain about that the piece turns into a rambling, incoherant mess.
In February 14th's piece, "Bush out of touch with citizens", Daniel Boudreau returns to discussing Social Security. This piece starts off strong, and does in fact have a pretty solid thesis. That the right is out to squeeze the life out of the middle class is not something I disagree with. However I take issue with the way this is accomplished. Take this, for example:
"Take a moment to let the implications of the president's commentary on Mary Mornin's everyday reality sink in. 'Uniquely American'? 'Fantastic?' This from a child of privilege who was raised in the pampering environs of Washington D.C. and the blue-blood communities of New England (though he does his damnedest to cultivate a good ole Texan boy persona), and who has never truly worked hard for anything in his life, seeing every opportunity come his way due to family connections."That's pure character assassination. Look, I don't like Bush, and I don't like the right, but these people need to be attacked with the facts. Maybe I'm spoiled with the excellent factually based critiques I've been reading about the Social Security privitization plan (at Matthew Yglasias and elsewhere), and maybe I'm just totally sick of the character assassination I've seen lately (Michael Crichton, Eason Jordon, Ward Churchill, etc), but this shit has to stop.
It should be noted here, though, that as content on the BGNews opinion page goes, I've seen far, far, far worse.
More coverage of Daniel Boudreau's columns will occur as they happen...
It Just Works
Skype is one of the coolest applications I've seen in a long time. Who knew that the people who made Kazaa (which is made with the ground up remains of aborted fetuses) could create soemthign so cool?
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Yes, We Have Gone Insane...
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Yes, washingtonpost.com can now confirm that SpongeBob SquarePants Has No Gay Agenda.
Thank you James Dobson for giving the media the perfect story for exposing you for the tremendous asshole that you are.
Yes, washingtonpost.com can now confirm that SpongeBob SquarePants Has No Gay Agenda.
Thank you James Dobson for giving the media the perfect story for exposing you for the tremendous asshole that you are.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Dr. Barnett: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Future
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Over Labor Day weekend I was sitting around doing nothing and eventually decided to sit down in my broke-ass Target folding chair and watch some TV. Flipping around, I came to C-SPAN where a man was giving this fancy looking PowerPoint presentation. So I watched for a little bit, and as I did, I became entranced. Here was a man that was making sense.
When each of us opened our eyes on the morning of September 12th, 2001 and contemplated what we had all watched on the previous day, eacvh of us knew that the world had changed in some extremely important way. Moreover, we were all left with deep, stiring questions. Who were these terrorists? Why did they attack us? How could we be safe? How could we accomplish peace? Today, we still lack answers for these questions.
The tumultous days since May 2003 when President Bush declared major combat over in Iraq have been days of extreme uncertainty and soul searching for this nation. These days left us with more questions. How was a war in Iraq connected to 9/11? Was invading Iraq the right choice? Will we win in Iraq? Can we win in Iraq?
Every day, we are bombarded with so-called answers to these questions. The Moores, the Morrises, the Deans, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, the Hitchens, the Sullivans, the Chomskys, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Powells, the Kerrys, and all the others have all tried to fill these gaps in our minds. The fact that these questions linger in our minds today is indicitive to me (at least) that none of those people have adequately answered these questions yet.
The crux of the problem is that our leaders have not adequately explained to us what the hell is going on. Bush's current explanation for us about why we are in Iraq is that we are there to "spread freedom", as if freedom comes from Smuckers or something. That's unacceptable. Our leaders have failed to establish serious goals for the future. The "global war on terror" has no defined end. Our leaders need to learn that leadership is not simply making decisions, it's guidance, it's direction, and currently it seems as if we have none. What we need is someone to explain to us what the hell is going on in the world, and where the United States, and our invasion of Iraq, fit into the big picture.
Enter Thomas Barnett, the man I saw on C-SPAN that night. A strategic planner at the Naval War College, Barnett is the kind of guy that I had always hoped existed somewhere within the government. He's does not seek to compress complex issues like 9/11 or Iraq into 30 second sound bites (crap like "they hate our freedom"). His mantra is thinking about war "in the context of everything else".
Today, Thomas Barnett is breaking into the mainstream with David Ignatius devoting a full op-ed column to his book "The Pentagon's New Map" today. The column gives a brief overview of Barnett's ideas. Various writings of Dr. Barnett's can be found on his website, a long with his excellent blog.
On the 20th, C-SPAN (having been rather impressed with his last appearence and probably having sold a ton of DVDs) is going to air a new taping of Barnett's "Brief" at 8PM EST along with a live call-in program afterwards at 9:30PM. I invite everyone to watch, because even if you don't agree with him, Dr. Barnett will get you thinking like almost no one else.
Over Labor Day weekend I was sitting around doing nothing and eventually decided to sit down in my broke-ass Target folding chair and watch some TV. Flipping around, I came to C-SPAN where a man was giving this fancy looking PowerPoint presentation. So I watched for a little bit, and as I did, I became entranced. Here was a man that was making sense.
When each of us opened our eyes on the morning of September 12th, 2001 and contemplated what we had all watched on the previous day, eacvh of us knew that the world had changed in some extremely important way. Moreover, we were all left with deep, stiring questions. Who were these terrorists? Why did they attack us? How could we be safe? How could we accomplish peace? Today, we still lack answers for these questions.
The tumultous days since May 2003 when President Bush declared major combat over in Iraq have been days of extreme uncertainty and soul searching for this nation. These days left us with more questions. How was a war in Iraq connected to 9/11? Was invading Iraq the right choice? Will we win in Iraq? Can we win in Iraq?
Every day, we are bombarded with so-called answers to these questions. The Moores, the Morrises, the Deans, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, the Hitchens, the Sullivans, the Chomskys, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Powells, the Kerrys, and all the others have all tried to fill these gaps in our minds. The fact that these questions linger in our minds today is indicitive to me (at least) that none of those people have adequately answered these questions yet.
The crux of the problem is that our leaders have not adequately explained to us what the hell is going on. Bush's current explanation for us about why we are in Iraq is that we are there to "spread freedom", as if freedom comes from Smuckers or something. That's unacceptable. Our leaders have failed to establish serious goals for the future. The "global war on terror" has no defined end. Our leaders need to learn that leadership is not simply making decisions, it's guidance, it's direction, and currently it seems as if we have none. What we need is someone to explain to us what the hell is going on in the world, and where the United States, and our invasion of Iraq, fit into the big picture.
Enter Thomas Barnett, the man I saw on C-SPAN that night. A strategic planner at the Naval War College, Barnett is the kind of guy that I had always hoped existed somewhere within the government. He's does not seek to compress complex issues like 9/11 or Iraq into 30 second sound bites (crap like "they hate our freedom"). His mantra is thinking about war "in the context of everything else".
Today, Thomas Barnett is breaking into the mainstream with David Ignatius devoting a full op-ed column to his book "The Pentagon's New Map" today. The column gives a brief overview of Barnett's ideas. Various writings of Dr. Barnett's can be found on his website, a long with his excellent blog.
On the 20th, C-SPAN (having been rather impressed with his last appearence and probably having sold a ton of DVDs) is going to air a new taping of Barnett's "Brief" at 8PM EST along with a live call-in program afterwards at 9:30PM. I invite everyone to watch, because even if you don't agree with him, Dr. Barnett will get you thinking like almost no one else.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Thanksgiving and America
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Ever noticed how the word "Thanksgiving" has the same kind of "so simple that anyone with a 2nd grade education could understand this" quality as the term "Homeland Security"? Heh, in any event...
Thanksgiving is probably the only truly American holiday. July 4th comes close, but then again, lots of nations celebrate an independence Day. We have other oddities such as Memorial Day and Labor Day, and perhaps Presidents Day, but these are more like simple excuses to have a day off rather than things we celebrate. On Thanksgiving, though, nearly everyone drops everything and spends time with family, and most likely has a meal that uses some variation on the turkey-cranberry sauce-stuffing paradigm. It's a much bigger deal than your average excuse to sleep late day.
Thanksgiving is oddly reflective of our nation's quasi-secular/quasi-religious nature. Here we have a holiday where one is presumably giving thanks to a certain "God", and yet unlike most religious holidays the traditional idea of a Thanksgiving revolves more around turkey and stuffing than spending time in a place of worship.
Thanksgiving is also representative of our nation's various obsessions with the oddest events. Here we are essentially celebrating how a bunch of nutty religious dissidents got thrown out of England, were afraid of the cultural freedom of the Dutch, and made the hilarious unwise decision to shake the bees nest of fate by setting up a colony in America without having a clue how to survive. Following the deaths of most of the colonists, the following autumn they decided to celebrate the fact that some natives had shown them how to go another winter without finishing the starving to death business. This cooperation between two cultures is supposed to be inspiring or something, even though we know the rest of the story where the successors of these religious dissidents go on to generally kill or otherwise oppress most of the natives on the continent.
It may come off like I'm somehow demeaning Thanksgiving, but I'm not. Generally, the older a holiday is, the more bat-shit insane the story behind it becomes (Random Thought: Ever notice how in a lot of Natvity scenes, the newborn baby Jesus is the size of a two year-old?). Holidays, in a sense, are not about the reason the holiday exists. The usefulness of using holidays to preserve the memory of the past probably started to dwindle when the printing press was invented in the West. Today, what holidays are really about lies in how the people of the present day celebrate that holiday. The memory of Saint Patrick is in very few people's mind on St. Patrick's Day and only the barest few people here in the U.S. know anything about Cinco de Mayo beyond the fact that the number 5 and the month of May are involved. These holidays are really socially condoned occasions to get smashed. With New Year's Eve we've taken this idea to it's logical conclusion and we celebrate the occasion of an accumulator register adding a one..."year++...Let's party!!!"
Thus, what's comforting to me about Thanksgiving and reassuring to me of the condition of our society is how it's still a holliday genuinely devoted to family and togetherness (unlike Christmas which has become genuinely devoted to getting free stuff). This is family values in it's true form, not the "people smiling too much who hate gays" form. This is a holiday that reflects the place of love in our society and also that despite some appearences, we truly appreciate what we have. We have New Year's to celebrate life. We have Independence Day to celebrate liberty. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the pursuit of happiness.
Ever noticed how the word "Thanksgiving" has the same kind of "so simple that anyone with a 2nd grade education could understand this" quality as the term "Homeland Security"? Heh, in any event...
Thanksgiving is probably the only truly American holiday. July 4th comes close, but then again, lots of nations celebrate an independence Day. We have other oddities such as Memorial Day and Labor Day, and perhaps Presidents Day, but these are more like simple excuses to have a day off rather than things we celebrate. On Thanksgiving, though, nearly everyone drops everything and spends time with family, and most likely has a meal that uses some variation on the turkey-cranberry sauce-stuffing paradigm. It's a much bigger deal than your average excuse to sleep late day.
Thanksgiving is oddly reflective of our nation's quasi-secular/quasi-religious nature. Here we have a holiday where one is presumably giving thanks to a certain "God", and yet unlike most religious holidays the traditional idea of a Thanksgiving revolves more around turkey and stuffing than spending time in a place of worship.
Thanksgiving is also representative of our nation's various obsessions with the oddest events. Here we are essentially celebrating how a bunch of nutty religious dissidents got thrown out of England, were afraid of the cultural freedom of the Dutch, and made the hilarious unwise decision to shake the bees nest of fate by setting up a colony in America without having a clue how to survive. Following the deaths of most of the colonists, the following autumn they decided to celebrate the fact that some natives had shown them how to go another winter without finishing the starving to death business. This cooperation between two cultures is supposed to be inspiring or something, even though we know the rest of the story where the successors of these religious dissidents go on to generally kill or otherwise oppress most of the natives on the continent.
It may come off like I'm somehow demeaning Thanksgiving, but I'm not. Generally, the older a holiday is, the more bat-shit insane the story behind it becomes (Random Thought: Ever notice how in a lot of Natvity scenes, the newborn baby Jesus is the size of a two year-old?). Holidays, in a sense, are not about the reason the holiday exists. The usefulness of using holidays to preserve the memory of the past probably started to dwindle when the printing press was invented in the West. Today, what holidays are really about lies in how the people of the present day celebrate that holiday. The memory of Saint Patrick is in very few people's mind on St. Patrick's Day and only the barest few people here in the U.S. know anything about Cinco de Mayo beyond the fact that the number 5 and the month of May are involved. These holidays are really socially condoned occasions to get smashed. With New Year's Eve we've taken this idea to it's logical conclusion and we celebrate the occasion of an accumulator register adding a one..."year++...Let's party!!!"
Thus, what's comforting to me about Thanksgiving and reassuring to me of the condition of our society is how it's still a holliday genuinely devoted to family and togetherness (unlike Christmas which has become genuinely devoted to getting free stuff). This is family values in it's true form, not the "people smiling too much who hate gays" form. This is a holiday that reflects the place of love in our society and also that despite some appearences, we truly appreciate what we have. We have New Year's to celebrate life. We have Independence Day to celebrate liberty. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the pursuit of happiness.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
I Don't Know Which One Scares Me The Most
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
As you probably are aware NBC News recently aquired footage of a Marine in Iraq shooting an injured insurgent who had apparently already surrendered in the head.
This, in itself is pretty disturbing.
Now, however, right-wing bloggers are circulating a petition stating:
It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. We don't need our young men and women taking an extra second to decide if its right to shoot an enemy terrorist when that could mean that one of our soldiers could lose their life. The lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor in this war against terrorism. The rights of terrorists can come second.As of this posting, over 130,000 people have signed that petition. I'm sure this is my current lack of sleep talking, but that almost makes me want to cry.
No human being has ever died for a thing. People fight over and die for ideas. America is nothing without the ideas we claim to stand for. Freedom, justice, morality, ethics, reason, due process...They are all just words unless you make them happen. We may not always live up to these ideals, but unless we try to make them happen, our words, our worth nothing. I cannot see how someone can claim to "love America" and at the same time sign a petition urging that we look the other way at a war crime. Moreover, a war against terrorism must be a war for humanity, not against it.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
A Lament For a Noble Dream
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Web design expert/CSS guru/Cleveland resident Eric Meyer has posted a touching dirge-like short essay on his dissapointment with the passage of Ohio's Issue 1 and other anti-gay marriage laws like it...
Chistopher Hitchens: Dissenter Within Dissenters
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
By now, I have come to realize that I am quite the commited liberal. If people like me (freethinking, non-religious, etc) are to exist in the future, liberalism is the only path to follow. If we have a true comittment to a more equal society, liberalism is the only path to follow. If we want a truly moral society based on rationality and individualism rather than what an old book tells us to do, then liberalism is the only path to follow.
With that said, there is a certain element of self-delusion in modern liberalism. There is that "faith" that because we're right, because we know we're right and we know why we're right, than rationally others will agree with us. Perhaps that would be true if philosophy was required in every school, but until then, you cannot beat religious zeal in the "faith" department. The recent election is a testament to that.
As a result, I think people like Christopher Hitchens, who takes the same set of assumptions and facts that most liberals work with and arrive at a different conclusion, are supremely important. Some people looke at Christopher Hitchens and see a traitor to the liberal cause. That's not really true. Rather, he is more like a dissenter within the dissenters. He does the soul-searching that perhaps we should be doing more often.
Today, Hitchens's column at Slate is entitled "Bush's Secularist Triumph", which is sure to raise some ire in the liberal community. However, as always, Hitchens weaves a fascinating argument. The enemies of secularism, he warns, are not the fundimentalists, the homophobics, and the creationists...The real enemies of secularism are the Islamicists, those who wish to create fundimentalist states, such as Osama Bin Ladin. In that sense, he argues, Bush has done more for secularism than any modern liberal.
I'm not saying I agree with this argument totally. What I like about it is that Hitchens picks up on the fundimental sort of paradox in modern liberalism. Modern liberals are very quick to define a sense of objective right and wrong in domestic affairs. The Civil Rights movement is an excellent example here. The motivation behind that movement was clearly that racism and segregation were wrong, no matter what the argument. There was a very clear moral component at work there. And yet when it comes to foreign policy, the argument is that we should not interfere in other countries, that we should let other cultures define themselves. What happened to objective right and wrong? Hitchens does a very good job highlighting the problem here:
"From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."Now, I don't for a second believe that the people that represent those views represent the core of modern liberalism. On the contrary, they are merely a very vocal minority. However, liberals have not disowned these people either, and that's Hitchens objection. If secularism really is the goal, and it is the goal because it breeds more peaceful, more open, and more free societies, why isn't just as much of a goal overseas as it is on American soil? Hitchens scolds that:
"Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Ralph Ingersoll or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without."And what we have here, is the very definition of dissent.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Friedman Gets It
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
I think it's fair to say that the NYT's Thomas Friedman gets the point...
My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for different ends.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Whither Jesusland?
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
I found myself, after Tuesday night, doing some serious thinking. I suspect that many others did some serious thinking as well...
But now what we are seeing is an angry backlash, one that blames religion for Bush's victory. You may have seen the joke cartoon going around about seperating the U.S. into the "United States of Canada" and "Jesusland" to the south...
Here's a better example. This is what Jane Smiley said in a piece today on Slate:
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.Now, as an atheist, when I read something like that, I do have a degree of sympathy for that point of view...In my own mind, I have wrestled with ideas like this, that perhaps religion truly is the "opiate of the masses". There have been times when I have gotten seriously angry thinking about religion. However, I was quick to realize that hate and intolerance are not the answer here. My anger will change nothing. I will never gaze upon a United States where a majority of people consider themselves agnostic or atheistic. That's the way it is. I have accepted that I live in a country where religion plays a serious role in everything.
Would it be better if we lived in a more secular society? Yes, in fact it would. The important word there is society. A more secular society is not one where people are forced to give up their religion, but one where the government and the structure of society is neutral to one's religion.
Jane Smiley is wrong. The ignorance we are facing today in America is not religion, but the idea that only one religion can be truly American (in my mind I imagine a man with a southern accent speaking into a poor telephone reciever about how this is a "Christian nation" on some talk radio show...). The problem with "Jesusland" is not the "Jesus", it's the "land". The problem is that religious people don't seem to understand the value of not embedding a certain brand of faith in everything.
What the religious people in this country have to understand is that Seperation of Church and State is pro-religion. It's pro every religion, including that 66% of the world that isn't Christian. That's the idea. If one stops viewing policy in a "Jesus-centric" light, one sees that we need a government that is neutral to religious matters can does not make decisions based on an intrepretation of faith.
Attacking the faith of millions of Americans will not accomplish that goal.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
55 Million
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Before everyone gets too depressed with Bush winning...Just think, 55 million Americans got the message and voted against him. 55 million.
Before everyone gets too depressed with Bush winning...Just think, 55 million Americans got the message and voted against him. 55 million.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Ohio...*sigh*
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
What I state I live in...In a single night we ban gay marriage or anything that even looks like it after 5 shots of Jager and we give the election to Bush...
The urban areas tried, hell yes they tried...Cuyahoga County, Summit County, Franklin County, Mahoning County, Montgomery County...All the urban areas but Hamilton County basically. So, if you're unhappy with the President you have for the next four years, blame Cincinatti.
...And here is Robert Novak making an ass of himself on CNN...Now we have to listen to the increasingly assinine conservatives blow afterburner-heated air...Ugh...
What I state I live in...In a single night we ban gay marriage or anything that even looks like it after 5 shots of Jager and we give the election to Bush...
The urban areas tried, hell yes they tried...Cuyahoga County, Summit County, Franklin County, Mahoning County, Montgomery County...All the urban areas but Hamilton County basically. So, if you're unhappy with the President you have for the next four years, blame Cincinatti.
...And here is Robert Novak making an ass of himself on CNN...Now we have to listen to the increasingly assinine conservatives blow afterburner-heated air...Ugh...
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Hysteria
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
It seems to me that there is some sort of rule that everyone has to go totally batshit insane right before a major election.
I mean, look at these quotes...
First off, George Will, who I have long respected as a thinker, despite his conservatism...But then he said this yesterday:"Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction.
As opposed to the man whose party has their head so firmly shoved up the fundimentalist Christian right's ass that he backed an ammendment to put homophobia into the Constitution? Mr. Will, the student of history he is, must see the utter idiocy of ammending the Constitution to restrict people's rights rather than to expand them. Will follows that up with this beauty...
"Kerry is more than merely comfortable with liberalism's preference for achieving its aims through judicial fiats rather than political persuasion — by litigation rather than legislation. That preference for change driven by activist judges rather than elected representatives expresses liberalism's condescension about the normal American's capacity for thriving without government tutelage."I always wondered what GOP talking points would look like if they had SAT vocabulary words thrown in. Unfortunately, it's the "activist judges" talking point that gives it away.
However, George Will's comments are peanuts compared to this...On the 27th, right-wing blogger Roger Simon informed the world that...
If the Kerry does win, the mainstream media will have gotten him elected with their biased coverage and they will pay for it more than they could imagine. And it will be the blogosphere and you, our supporters, who will make them pay. Our strength will grow incremently with a Kerry victory in terms of influence and even economic power. And both will be at the expense of the mainstream media. Yes, we too have "plans."That's not only hillarious, it's a more than a bit disturbing. So, Mr. Simon, Abu Graib should mean nothing to the American people? 380 tons of missing world class high explosive should mean nothing to the American people? The complete lack of any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq should mean nothing to the American people? The hillarious refusal of the Bush Administration to admit it's faults should mean nothing to the American people? Nevermind the implication of some sort of revenge for the decision of the people. He seems to be missing the point of democracy here. Any way you look at it, that quote is positively psychotic.
The news isn't all bad...Contrarian and occasional Bush supporter Christopher Hitchens had this to say today:
"Neither electoral outcome can alter that. It's absurd for liberals to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it's unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There's no one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end."Someone talking sense on the eve of an election?...The explanation here is that Hitchens isn't yet a naturalized citizen and cannot vote for President yet...Thus, he must be immune to election hysteria.
Re: Documentaries
***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***
Hmmm...I have a class to get here, so I'll make this quick.
I think the root of my problem with F9/11 is not the politics of the movie (I mean, all Moore wants us to do is vote for Kerry, and I'm already doing that for my own reasons). My real problem is that my intellectual life has been very much shaped and molded by excellent documentaries...Cosmos, Connections, The Day The Universe Changed, Ascent of Man, and many others have all been very important influences for me. All of those series, while they merely stated a series of facts, did so with the purpose of advancing the notion of a more secular, science based society...The idea of trusting in technology and not theology. In that respect, they are all very controversial works.
The beauty of them though, is that they were, under microscopic inspection, right with the details. They create a sort of thread with fact and history and weave it into a tapestry of a worldview. You can challenge the message, but you can't challenge the facts. It works like any well reasoned argument.
There's a bond of trust there between the viewer and the filmmaker.
Morris's Fog of War does something similar in the realm of political dissent. There were very obvious parallels there between the historical view he presented of the Vietnam War, and the mistakes that were being made then, and then the mistakes that Morris saw happening with our current policy in Iraq.
Michael Moore rips all that to shreds. All he cares about is the message, and he will make any accusation, use any innuendo or mold any circumstancial evidence that he needs to produce that message. "Documentaries" like that belittle and soil the legacy of the documentary format by breaking the bond of trust with the viewer. Moore doesn't even make an attempt to establish that trust with the viewer.
Moore has defended this problem by claiming that his works are comedy, not documentary. That, in itself is bullshit. He won an Oscar for a "documentary" (somehting that confoundes me to this day). Everyone knows he makes "documentaries"...He cannot simply change that by claiming a different format. As long as he is making "documentaries", he still soiling the format, no matter what excuse he uses.
If Moore wants to make brilliant, brilliant comedy, he can go right ahead. But as of yet, he has not. He's still making these petty "documentaries".
Now, the people who have decided to counter Moore with Moore-like material, are just as much part of the problem as Moore is. They are solving nothing.
Hmmm...I have a class to get here, so I'll make this quick.
I think the root of my problem with F9/11 is not the politics of the movie (I mean, all Moore wants us to do is vote for Kerry, and I'm already doing that for my own reasons). My real problem is that my intellectual life has been very much shaped and molded by excellent documentaries...Cosmos, Connections, The Day The Universe Changed, Ascent of Man, and many others have all been very important influences for me. All of those series, while they merely stated a series of facts, did so with the purpose of advancing the notion of a more secular, science based society...The idea of trusting in technology and not theology. In that respect, they are all very controversial works.
The beauty of them though, is that they were, under microscopic inspection, right with the details. They create a sort of thread with fact and history and weave it into a tapestry of a worldview. You can challenge the message, but you can't challenge the facts. It works like any well reasoned argument.
There's a bond of trust there between the viewer and the filmmaker.
Morris's Fog of War does something similar in the realm of political dissent. There were very obvious parallels there between the historical view he presented of the Vietnam War, and the mistakes that were being made then, and then the mistakes that Morris saw happening with our current policy in Iraq.
Michael Moore rips all that to shreds. All he cares about is the message, and he will make any accusation, use any innuendo or mold any circumstancial evidence that he needs to produce that message. "Documentaries" like that belittle and soil the legacy of the documentary format by breaking the bond of trust with the viewer. Moore doesn't even make an attempt to establish that trust with the viewer.
Moore has defended this problem by claiming that his works are comedy, not documentary. That, in itself is bullshit. He won an Oscar for a "documentary" (somehting that confoundes me to this day). Everyone knows he makes "documentaries"...He cannot simply change that by claiming a different format. As long as he is making "documentaries", he still soiling the format, no matter what excuse he uses.
If Moore wants to make brilliant, brilliant comedy, he can go right ahead. But as of yet, he has not. He's still making these petty "documentaries".
Now, the people who have decided to counter Moore with Moore-like material, are just as much part of the problem as Moore is. They are solving nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
