The Great Conde and the Frondeurs

Evangelizing

2006-06-25T20:39:00.000-04:00

My roommate (read: meal ticket) is out of town this weekend so my external motivation for even waking up has been flagging. Not that she wakes up at a decent hour on weekends either (its usually me banging on her door by 1pm to make sure she hasn't choked on her own vomit or something.;), but that the opprobrium of having that other person recognizing your laziness is usually enough to bring me out of bed by at least 10am. But yesterday I had myself a lazy-fest. Woke up at 11:30am and managed to spend most of my waking time surfing the net watching world cup streams, reading blogs and only pulled myself out of the chair and outta the apartment to grab a smoked meat sandwich and fries from Lester's Deli down the street* [see note at end]. But this morning I managed to pull myself out of bed at a respectable 8am, boiled some water, ground some beans and pressed myself a couple of steaming cups of hyper-caffeinated brew. It feels good to wake up early on your own. And I'm feeling positive this morning. (It’s the coffee talking)

Which made me want to impart some positivity. Atheism is defined by what it is not, which makes it propositionally negative. This can make atheists seem like negative people just taking shots at other people's beliefs without offering anything positive in return. This is a legitimate complaint from theists. Atheism, as it has no organization, no institutional belief structure and no dogma, can not fall back on a pre-existing set of beliefs to positively instruct atheists. Because atheism is not a belief system at all. Atheism is simply a neutral belief arrived at thru skepticism. It is up to atheists individually to create for themselves a positive ethos and a motivation for their own action. As my lazy Saturday demonstrates, motivation for action can be very difficult for an individual. But as my early rise this morning also illustrates, it is possible (I started this post at 10:30… I've already done two loads of laundry, unloaded the dishwasher, watered the plants, scooped the litter box and taken out the trash. When I'm thru with this little rant, I will embark on cleaning the house, which sorely needs it after a weekend of sloth.).

But first, the negative. Atheists usually have to start by saying why they don't believe what the vast majority believe (this is annoying for me to have to do this, but I'm sure even more annoying for you to have to read it :). I have to explain to my audience first why the predominant thinking isn't adequate for me because atheism for so long has been marginalized. The God hypothesis is an unnecessary insertion into any moral code or metaphysic. I think of it this way... when a scholar analyzes an ancient text (Josephus for instance) and comes across a passage that seems surprising, he may look for continuity of that passage in its context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Textual_continuity). If the work has more continuity with the passage removed, it is likely (though not conclusive) that the passage in question has been added to the original. Analogous to this is the addition of "God" into any metaphysic or moral code.

Let’s start with metaphysics. The complaint of theists is that reason alone can not answer for the existence of a complex universe. The unguided natural world can not account for the vastness of the universe, the regularity of planetary motion, the existence of stars and suns and of course, the existence of life and in particular, intelligent life. The problem is complexity. How does one explain the existence of complexity? Science says that complex life can be explained by cumulative selection. But the counter is that such a process is itself complex and requires explanation beyond nature. The existence of the universe is itself complex and the big bang itself is in need of explanation. To reduce this, the origin of complexity needs to be explained and that the scientific explanations are themselves complex and need explaining. I would agree with this. Evolution had to start somewhere. The "original singularity" or "singular originality" (taken from EL Doctorow's City of God) had to start somewhere. The philosophical answer is yes, it had to have a cause, or no, it just poofed from nothing without a cause, or no, it always has existed. Theists understandably find the latter two unsatisfying. So the idea is that the complexity of the universe had to be created and therefore had to be created by God.

But here is where the God hypothesis is merely a superfluous addition into the same set of problems. For theists, it is not satisfying to believe that complexity could have arisen from less complexity (caricatured as "chance", but more broadly, natural properties or physical laws of the universe.). Yet they posit a creator of complexity. Is this creator more complex? If not, then the same critique applies --- complexity arising from something less complex, which is precisely what evolution/abiogenesis posits without the need for a creator god. If the creator is more complex, then this begs for an even bigger explanation of how a more complex creator could have arisen. If the universe requires explanation because of its complexity and a creator of more complexity is posited, then the complexity of that creator is itself in need of explanation. And the answers theists usually give are the exact same responses that made them dissatisfied with the explanation of the universe in the first place!... God just poofed from nothing or God has always existed! The same philosophical dilemmas exist with or without the "God hypothesis"! Causality is either an infinite chain or something had to "poof" into existence from bothing and this is the case whether you insert God into the mix or not. I prefer to cut that Gordian Knot rather than try to untie it.

As for morality (I covered this one before many moons ago.), the same superfluity of the “God Hypothesis” holds true. The critique of atheism is that there is no basis for a moral code and therefore an atheist’s morality is strictly postmodernist relativism. But anybody, theist or not, has to start with themselves. A theist believes in a particular God-based morality because it is his choice or because it was his society’s choice (most people believe in the same God as their parents.). So you are either conditioned from an early age to believe certain moral precepts or you at some point rationally choose which moral code to follow. The same is true for any atheist. We are conditioned to believing certain moral precepts and we grow to rationally choose which more precepts should guide our actions. The need for some to insert God into the question is simply a desire to give subjective moral beliefs an objective standard. We as a society do require some sort of objective consistency in order to relate our subjective beliefs. Pure subjective relativism is dangerous to the functioning of society. So God was invented as a lawgiver so that society had an objective standard of morality. As an atheist, I still need an objective way to apply moral standards. But this standard is simple… logical consistency. Morality is a dichotomy between individual rights and social order. This is not some abstract concept but one grounded in the history and application of social interaction. Human beings develop moral sentiments from childhood because we have evolved as a social animal. Our moral choices must be framed by that dichotomy of individual right and social order. It is logical consistency within that framework that trumps a purely postmodern relativism. Unchanging absolutes are not necessary to have logical consistency. Society evolves but the fitness of society continues to be measured against the same criteria; individual right and social order.

So with that out of the way (pace yourselves!:) lets look at the question of optimism and pessimism. Several months ago, when I still worked at ADP, I and a friend of mine were bored. It was late in the afternoon and we needed something to occupy us until quitting time. As we were wont to do, we emailed each other to pass the next couple of hours. But we had already exhausted the normal channels (what are you doing after work… nothing, you? Etc.) so I asked her a question to try to spark a discussion. Did she view the world and humanity as essentially “good” or essentially “bad”. It always is a mild shock to me when someone replies “bad” and this was her reply. Her reasoning was all the wars, child-molesting, diseases, ADP, natural disasters, death itself. It’s hard to argue with that. What is always curious to me though, was that the world was essentially “bad” and yet she believed unquestioningly that God had created it. Theologically, this is resolved by saying that the world was created to test mankind and that those who passed the test of this horrible existence would be rewarded with paradise after death.

I don’t know about you, but I find this way of thinking to be extremely hostile towards existence as we know it. And I find this way of thinking to be somewhat common especially as “faith” increases. Even some atheists see the world as corrupt and contemptible. Buddhists see the world as something full of suffering and to overcome that world through denial of it. Maybe I have lived a charmed life, but even when I believed in God it wasn’t because of scripture or moral argument but because when I looked up into a blue sky dotted with puffs of clouds or when I saw a sunset, or even just looking up thru the skirt of a massive oak tree, I saw beauty. And I believed that beauty came from God. I still see beauty even without believing in god. I see nature as inherently beautiful. I even see the human condition as a thing of beauty. Its not that I am blind to suffering, but that suffering is part of the picture and the picture is still beautiful.

Henry Miller once said “It is not for us to make the world a better place but to make ourselves fit to inhabit it.” I believe that. It is the failure of our own imaginations and the limits of our own understanding that has us view the world with contempt. We are afraid of reality. Over half of America does not believe in evolution not because they think they have a better scientific explanation and not because they have ruled it out through reason. Hell, most people object to it without ever learning a thing about it. Most of those people don’t believe in it because they don’t want to believe in it. It offends their pride or the reality of it is too scary for them. This was also my initial objection to the theory of evolution (I was raised a somewhat conservative Christian). As soon as I learned what the theory actually said (beyond the caricatures and strawmen I had been presented), I had no objections to it but emotional ones. But the truth shall set you free and it set me free even from my emotional shackles. My failure to come to grips psychologically with the theory was not a failure of the theory. Reality is what it is. It was not the world’s responsibility to change its shape to fit my beliefs, faith does not move mountains.

And this is my positive belief. Heaven does indeed exist and it is the ground beneath my feet, the wind thru my hair, the sun that warms my skin and commands the seeds to “rise up! And bare fruit.” This is heaven. It is real, it is beautiful and it is for us to make ourselves worthy of it, worthy of the life we’ve been given. Heaven is not an afterdeath; I do not have the temerity to ask for more than the life I have. The violence of creation, the pain of birth, the suffering of life; these things I awaken myself to. I do not hide from them. Rather, they illuminate life. That suffering and violence brings sadness to my eyes, does not make me shut them, but to stare down that which confronts me, in defiance if need be. And this too is beautiful and illuminating. I do not accept violence and I do not accept suffering. It is not acceptance of life (which sounds too much like “resignation”.) but awareness; Awareness is ecstasy. And ecstasy is that which is truly alive.

* Smoked meat sandwiches are a culinary favorite up here. It’s smoked,
spiced brisket (with a direct east-European influence) but its not
quite pastrami and not quite corned beef. It’s better than both,
meltingly tender. It has to be sliced by hand... a deli-slicer would
disintegrate it. It’s stacked high on comically tiny (by comparison)
pieces of old fashioned rye with a dab of mustard.

the frondeurs

2005-05-28T13:50:00.000-04:00

are they to replace the mouseketeers? donning an odiferous b.o., spraying political graphitti on plastic landmarks, singing songs of rasputin (though this time learning the lyrics), and writing tales of lust for rampage and rebellion?

I'm hungry. Time to go eat hotdogs at a barbeque.

bushy-poo

2005-05-26T16:12:00.000-04:00

Links

Edit-Me

President George W. Bush today pledged millions of dollars in direct American aid for the Palestinian Authority, providing a tangible lift and a verbal endorsement to its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, during a symbolically important White House visit.

President Bush had a simple message today for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader. "America wants to help," he said. Bush also predicted that Palestinians would favor Abbas's Fatah Party in parliamentary elections set for July and reject candidates allied with the militant group Hamas.

I read the above excerpt from a NY Times article (White House Hopes to Boost Palestinian With Visit and Aid, Thursday, May 26, 2005). I'm oftentimes astounded by Bush's predicitons... how simple they are, and obvious. Of course Palestinians are less likely to support a militant group--or are they? Oh, I don't know. Either way, again... Bush sounds stupid.

American Idol

2005-05-26T15:09:00.000-04:00

Links

Edit-Me

Last night, while dining with a friend, I caught a glimpse of the American Idol finale. I've never paid attention to American Idol, as I consider it a frivolous and vacuous reality show, that fills no certain void in my meager existence. Plainly, it looks fatuous and vain.

They replayed nostalgic vignettes from the show's season, highlighting the parents and talents who displayed exaggerated emotion from their loss or success: the best, obviously, was the mother who fell down on the floor in happy shock after her son was allowed to the next round. I almost feel sorry for the kids who try out for the show, because I wonder if their parents are as insane as show-dog owners--primping and preparing them for a celebrity's success, that they, the parents, never obtained but w/ which they can viscerally live through their kids. The other trophy moment was the overweight singer who first appeared in her old-navy cotton tshirt, while bellowing out strings of hip-hop; sound muted on tv, she looked either operatic, or like she was talking in slow motion... either way, her moment required a lot of oxygen... I wonder if they had a tank in the background. She was allowed to return... and return... and so forth. By the end of her stint on American Idol, her hair was straightened, face made-up with multiple and bright shades, and her body graced with a velvet gown. She still looked as stoic and afraid of public attention, as the first appearance. Her face making no emotional muscular renderings; her body not moving... except for her lungs, inhaling and exhaling with gusto and force. We debated weight's effect on voice... that if a lot of overweight weomen can hold a note and issue forth a strong voice, then why are so many singers twiggy reincarnated?

Last night's show was not particularly eye-catching, in my book. A hippie-garbed dude sang a popular 70's song (title, unbeknownst a moi), mirroring intonations of Tom Jones and the disco-rock suaveness of Blood, Sweat, and Tears. His voice was not his own: it replicated disco and blues singers past, and tinging with hope that the crowd would like him as much as the blonde, country chic, bellying out whatever song she chose to mimic.

I understand American Idol is really a talent show; it's Simon-what's-his-face's attempt to find the next big thing, with each successive season. As far as I know, he's been a modicum successful by bringing to surface two singers: Kelly Clarkson, and some other chic... she was overweight also, and had a previous drug habit that got her kicked off the show... well, whatever--she's now staring in Rent on Brodway, in NY.

Yes, American Idol is the next Star Search. But the very fact that the talent performs other people's songs... retarded. A sophomoric response, I know. But, singing cover songs to exude talent is antithetical to the very idea of talent: to express a unique trait or skill by which people are either entertained, or receive a welcomed service. The talents on American Idol are simply singing other peoples' song to receive acclaim, a broad applause, and PR attention. They are simply entertainers. How weird to me to be the person writing the song and then someone else performing it. Naturally, it's analogous to acting: the screenplay writted by a person who is not the actor. But, then songs, to me, are more personal than the latter. And thus what you are singing has a unique voice, particularly based on your skill to write, compose, and perform it.

But, whatever. American Idol is another reality show for hum-drum Americans to watch, feeding themselves endlessly--sort of like the movie the STUFF, reality shows are white sticky goo that people eat, and that buds and propates within and outside of them. But nevermind that, American Idol is far from reality. Becoming an idol is not realistic. Period. Being a bachelorette with a dozen men surrounding you, wanting to be your husband; getting to know them for 2 months and then deciding who it would be... not realistic. Eating worms, because it's supposed to represent one of your fears? Not realistic.

A Tale of Two Former Governors

2005-05-12T10:12:00.000-04:00

For the second time in three nights, I had the pleasure to shake hands with former Governor Roy Barnes. The gov is a very likeable guy, always smiling, articulate but in a soothing and slow southern drawl. His hair and dress is that sort of disheveled but hip look that old professors sometimes get... as if he were too busy to be concerned with appearance. But what was so interesting about both encounters I had with Mr. Barnes was the setting of each event.

Monday night, my father, a Scottish Rite Mason, invited me to a steak dinner for Cobb County Scottish Rite Association's 40th anniversary. One of the members was an old friend of Roy Barnes, who himself is a member of Scottish Rite and a Cobb County native. So Roy Barnes was selected as a guest speaker to the event. Now, like most Masonic functions I have ever seen (and I've been to quite a few as my dad is very involved), this event was packed with geriatrics---Cobb County Geriatrics. Conservative Religious Cobb County Geriatrics. So Roy Barnes tells a couple of amusing little anecdotes from his time in the trenches and in the governor's mansion to get the crowd warmed up. Then after getting some laughs, he proceeded with the substance of his talk--- The future of Georgia and the need for urgent change in how we deal with transportation, water and education. The crowd was a bit quiet on hearing about these issues. Honestly, what on earth did they care about these things aside from maybe a foresighted concern for their grandchildren? Like many so-called conservatives of the present day, their political energy is largely generated from moral outrage and fear. What they really wanted to hear was what should be done about gays and their abominations and how to get the bible back in public schools. When the floor was opened to questions, one lady (one of the younger people at probably around her late 40's/early 50's) started talking about the problems in school. Barnes articulated further what he thought should be done---raising expectations, smaller class size, the whole routine. Another lady, an older lady, asked about "political correctness" (one of the main talking points in the arsenal of the brainwashed) and how it was ruining schools. Barnes, putting on his best face, again spoke of not accepting failure, raising expectations and (to the thrill of the silver-haired throng) allowing teachers to spank kids who disrupted learning for the whole class. Finally, the governor had given them something to rouse their attention. Had it not required walkers, canes and back groans, the mention of young punks getting their asses tore up might have brought on a standing ovation. In the air-conditioned cadillacs and buicks of upper middle class septuagenarian suburbia, what kindles the flames of political thought was the dire need to beat children into submission (and of course making sure gays don't start fornicating in their backyards). After the show, I shook hands with the governor, telling him that there probably weren't many democrats (little "d") in the room, but that he had at least one in the audience in myself.

Last night, my friend, Kimberly, the newly sworn president of Fulton County Young Democrats (big "D"), invited me to join her at the monthly Creative Loafing Political Party at Dad's Garage in Inman Park. On the guest panel was Former Governor Roy Barnes. I got there about 20 minutes before the scheduled start. Kim and some other folks were already gathered outside as was the governor and his wife. I shook hands with Mr. Barnes again, and he recognized me from Monday night. We all made our way inside and the guest panel was introduced on stage. The crowd here, just by its existence, would have riled the group from Monday night had they seen it. Most were young urbanites. And that group consisted of black, Asian, gay, lesbian, straight, middle class, urban yuppie, poor, etc. There were also older, educated liberals and committed political activists. Ken Edelstein hosted the event, and Able Mable Thompson, John Sugg and some other dude rounded out the panel. Barnes was a different man in this setting, chastising the right for its tactics. He also made clear to the audience that the Republican party was convincing people to vote against their own interests because of religion, and he made sure to emphasize "religion". Such a statement would have resulted in a geriatric gang stomp at Monday's event. He scoffed at Alabama Justice Roy Moore (who is running for the governorship of that state), who made headlines for himself by defying his own court in sneaking in a monument of the Ten Commandments and at the reigning Mississippi Governor for saying that "Race was no longer an issue in Mississippi." We all got a good laugh out of that.

I was wondering which man was speaking more genuinely and if there really was a difference. Was he just telling each audience what he thought they wanted to hear? Was he just more restrained in what he said with a crowd he knew to be hostile and was he being more free with his thoughts with a crowd full of liberals? One could tell from last night that Barnes did still hold some beliefs that might not be totally in line with the most liberal among us. He defended himself when asked about his view on the death penalty and with how he handled the "Northern Arc" during his reign as governor. So I am inclined to think that the Roy Barnes that I saw last night, was the one most at ease with himself and with the audience. The lesson from it, I have not yet decided. Whatever the case, it was an interesting thing to see.

Clarification:

Well, It wasn't as blatant as I might have made it sound. I don't think he said anything at either event that he didn't actually believe. I think he believes in the death penalty and he believes in spanking kids but that he also believes in racial and sexual tolerance, increasing the minimum wage, affordable housing, viable mass transit and the separation of church and state. Its just that in the one setting he emphasized only those beliefs that would not be so controversial and in the other setting he felt freer to speak his mind. At least that's what I got out of it. And part of that may have had to do with something he said last night in the context of focusing on issues that concern women voters. He said "Let's face it. 35-60 year old white men. You are not going to change their minds no matter what." And I think that's what dictated how he acted and what he spoke about Monday night. He wasn't there to energize them politically and he surely wasn't there to try to change their minds. And perhaps even more to the point he wanted to present issues that actually affect people and the future of the state and not the chimeras of moral outrage and fear that motivate the republican party. Why play into their hands? Why give air time to issues that only matter because of their visceral emotional response? You can't compete with that sort of reptilian emotion anyway. Why are we wasting time with it? We should be focusing on the cerebrum, not the brain stem. Maybe that's the lesson.

Leviathan

2005-01-21T14:22:00.000-05:00

Life as a whole should not be taken too seriously. However, there are details in one’s life that should; little details that distinguish great art from rubbish. The more one delves into the minutiae of little details, the less one is prone to take the rest of life so seriously. This is the biological principle that is selecting the Renaissance man to extinction.

But what of extinction? History is one long tale of extinction is it not? And biology? All about extinction. Why do we dread it so? Let’s face it, genetic information passed on to successive generations (called childbearing by some) does not make one immortal. 99.99999% of all the people who have ever lived and died are soon forgotten by everyone. Only memes in the form of "history" have preserved any semblance of a human legacy. And memes are far less reliable as information replicators than nucleic acid. History is in fact more "story" than "history". So what are we grasping at in attempting to avoid our own extinction? Our life will end in our allotted times regardless of our supposed progeny or even our written legacies. What is it exactly that drives us to be remembered?

But we have an answer and that answer offends our pride. We are not seeking remembrance as much as we attempt to place meaning on our reproductive urges. We are simply reproducing. It is no different than herpes reproducing and our progeny are no different in this regard than a maggot is to flies. Life is a process, a very complex one, but nonetheless a process of phenomena. We fight this realization tooth and nail. We create grandiose layers of lies (called theology by some) to preserve our own arrogance. And what is it but arrogance. Why do we think we deserve better than other creatures or even other matter? We are all parasites. Life itself is a parasitic phenomenon, whereby dynamic matter sucks the nutrients out of static matter. Memes as well as genes further parasitise living matter for their own reproduction.

So let’s not take life so seriously. Let's refuse our parasitism by affirming it, not by cowardly denial. Lets instead focus on the details; details of our own choosing; details unconcerned with immortality or reproduction---in a word, "art". And not the art that needs an audience, for this is merely parasitism. But art for ourselves. Or like the Renaissance man, lets not focus too intently on any one thing at all, including life. Lets take the "meaning" (which is only delusional arrogance) out of life and thereby make life itself art---a seriously unserious art. Because as Hobbes said, "Life is mean, brutish, nasty and short." So why not flip or noses at it all in defiant glee. Defy life with your laughter.

Life then, is a joke. And the sooner we take to admitting it, the better our sense of humor will be. Humor is the culmination of power and wisdom. Power without wisdom is tyranny. Wisdom without power is tragedy. But power with wisdom is divine comedy. What else could The Infinite be but a trickster god? It is human to ere, but it is godly to laugh---to be above the wretched mire. But man surpasses even god when he laughs for he is above and within the mire. Or can god even laugh at himself?

A Digression:

Specialization of niche economies is a successful form of adaptation during times of plenty. When cataclysm strikes, the specialist is usually among the first to die, unless that specialization feeds off of disaster or depression. Thus does evolution propagate the scavenger and bottom feeder.
Economics works in much the same way. The specialist economy that strives on a niche, say ethnic food, is among the first to fold when times get rough. Yet alcohol, drugs and pornography, being the purest forms of capitalism, withstand – nay – thrive off of hardship and times of trouble. Morgues and cemeteries will be the last businesses to fold.

An Aside:

"Chain", as in a retail "chain" or fast food "chain" or funeral home "chain", is an apt word for the term. The "chain" has enslaved America.

The parking lot is diseased. The Chevy Malibu ® meme is reproducing like a virus and is suffocating the parking lot as if it were choked by sand.

A Tangent:

Flying in low under the GAYDAR is Sponge Bob. James Dobson and his whacky brand of Christian Intolerance has brought Sponge Bob out of the animated closet. Dobson is evidently an expert on animated homosexuality and is warning the world that Sponge Bob may threaten the sanctity of cartoon marriages everywhere. Fred from Scooby Doo, the Tick, Barney Rubble, Hefty Smurf, Bugs Bunny and Batman have all spoken out in support of Sponge Bob's coming-out. However, with rightwing theocratic fundamentalist crackpots in control of Washington and most State houses, the predominantly gay cartoon community is fearful of a backlash of intolerance. Already there are reports of violence on homosexual cartoon characters by notorious homophobe, Fred Flintstone, and George Jetson has filed a law suit against Spacely's Sprockets Inc. for alleged sexual discrimination after his employment was terminated last Wednesday.

Rise and Fall

2004-09-08T11:12:00.000-04:00

"Just when will humans "get it", I wonder?"

The great thing, is that they have in the past. 1776, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1917. There is a book called Unconquerable World by Jonathan Schell that tells of how all empires fall at the hands of peoples movements. I haven't read it but it is on my list. Personally, I am what one might call a "Tragic Optimist", a term that the writer, Nikos Kazantzakis, applied to himself. Eleni, Nikos' wife defined that as one who "has confidence in man, who looks straight at the demon of destruction, hates it, but is not afraid of it, because he knows that all destruction is but the preparatory stage to a new creation."

I think that things will get worse. I am confident in that. Part of what makes me an optimist is that I know that however bad the current situation is, I know that it can always get worse. But when the stuff really hits the fan, that is when "the people" shine. Because we haven't seen the worst of it, people continue to remain comfortable. It takes real hardship for people to recognize their own rights, their own needs and their own power. I wish that it weren't so. I wish that we could all recognize the path to ruin before we take it. But that is always but a brief compromise with history, holding back against the inevitable tide. As soon as the American Empire was proclaimed without shame in the 90's, our downfall has also been heralded. (see http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/08/08_404.html for an exchange between Tom Engelhardt and Jonathan Schell, who wrote Unconquerable World.) But to borrow from Henry Miller, what matters if we are at the nadir? What matters that we are on the wane? We are nonetheless at an incredible point in history and we are lucky to be alive to witness it.

That we know that our condition will need to worsen before it gets better, does that mean we let it get worse? No. Of course not. We keep trying, we keep our voices heard. We are not saviors, but prophets (if I may descend into blasphemy). Prophets live and die without seeing their saviors arrive. We might live and die before we see the promise land. But upon our sunset, new mornings will dawn. We will watch our sunset and be happy. And when the sun begins to descend, we will climb higher and higher to prolong our view-- to the tip of the highest cloud if need be, to be the last to wave it good bye.

A Digression:

Due to the recent slaughter of women and children in Russia at the hands of 'Chechen' terrorists, Vladimir Putin has said that Russia will strike at terrorists at their bases, in sort of a Russian version of America's unending "War on Terror". Now, some hypotheticals emerge from this. First of all, it has been known for some time that there is a connection with Chechen terrorists and so-called 'Arab-Afghans', otherwise known as Al Qaeda. The Russians claim that Arabs are among the dead in the terrorized school. Granted that current Russian power projection might be prohibitive of such, but what if Russia decided to attack such terror states as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan in the name of their own "War on Terror"? Where would the US stand on such a move? Does our own crusade set a precedent for other nations to follow?

An Aside:

I hate to say this but Kerry is barking up the wrong tree with Korea. He has been criticizing Bush for pulling troops out of South Korea. Of course, this is a misguided attempt to make himself look strong. Personally, I see the North Korean "threat" as grotesquely overblown. First of all, there is little reason, other than for show, why US troops remain in South Korea at all. In a conventional war, S Korea is more than capable of handling North Korea on her own. South Korea, according to cdi.org, spends about 7 times the amount that North Korea does on their military. As for the supposed Nuclear threat, there is still nothing definitive that says that North Korea isn't just bluffing. I wouldn't test that, but at the same time, they are not going to use their nukes, if they have any, as a first strike, knowing that retaliation would be swift and cataclysmic to North Korea. The only issue is if China supported any North Korean aggression and in which case we would have much more to worry about and so would the Chinese. The key is that MAD (cold war acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction, the concept that you won't nuke me since doing so you would guarantee your own annhiliation in turn) and nuclear deterrance is still viable---even to a "rogue state". What a nuclear capability for North Korea ensures is that they won't be invaded. Nukes are defensive weapons, particularly for nations that do not possess the arsenals to obliterate entire continents.

A Tangent:

Ok, back to the "War on Terror". Margaret Thatcher's son, Sir Mark, was detained by South African authorities recently on suspicion of a plot, funded by a handful of uppity British elite, to send mercenaries to the oil rich African state of Equitorial Guinea in order to overthrow the government. Does this qualify Margaret's son as a "terrorist" as Equitorial Guinea claims? If a well to do foreign national, the offspring of a foreign ruler, were to steal away with some mercenaries on our shores for the purpose of violently overthrowing the elected government in Washington, if they were caught, would Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Co. call them terrorists? Of course they would. So, should Sir Mark be a target in our own "War on Terror" or does such a war only apply to terror that doesn't fit our agenda?

Power of the People?

2004-09-02T13:50:00.000-04:00

A report from the RNC and the streets:

I went to two marches this week in NYC. The big one was on Sunday with an estimated 400K+. An anonymous police source said 120,000 but I've been to Sanford Stadium in Athens and Death Valley in Baton Rouge on game day and I've seen what 100,000 people look like and this march put those crowds to shame. I don't know how far it stretched but 7th Avenue was covered with human flesh and poster board as far as the eye could see. The head of the march started on 23rd St. We were on 16th and there were so many people that when people on 23rd started walking, it took two hours before people on 16th could start walking. There were people from all walks of life. This was an urban crowd in the highest sense of the word. There were older white-collar types. There were children being carted on wagons. There were Blacks, Asians, Gays, Disabled, Veterans, Hispanics, Homeless, Affluent. You name it, this crowd was represent'n. The city embraced the protests. Shops and buildings had "PACE" signs in the windows or No Bush signs. Anti-Republican graffiti and stickers were everywhere. Only at the fortress of Madison Square Garden itself was there any hint that there were Republicans in town. Outside of MSG, the black un-marked police SUVs carrying stiff suits and the occasional woman in khaki slacks-pulled-up-past-her-navel with a tucked-in-turquoise-tee-shirt were the only signs that any republicans were venturing out of their play-fort. The RNC was under siege. Cops and concrete completely circled MSG. Police helicopters circled above. Cops were present on the sides of the march but they kept a pretty low profile, not wanting to agitate a crowd that could completely own the streets should its mood turn. But fortunately, for all involved, it was not July 14, 1789.

The attitude of the cops was completely different the following day with a smaller march---the Poor People's March. This march consisted of homeless people and housing advocacy groups as well as a more strident concentration of hardcore leftists. All told it numbered maybe a few thousand. I believe though that the cops may have outnumbered the marchers. They were everywhere and making a big show. Even though it was a permitted march, the cops held it up at every intersection, sometimes for half an hour at a time. I'm not sure why, unless it was simply to annoy the marchers as all the roads had already been blocked. But the cops were itching for mayhem. Every passerby that stepped one foot off the sidewalk was met with shouts and attitude. Several cops were unsheathing their nightsticks, fondling them adoringly, hoping to crack skulls. It seemed as if some of these guys became cops for one reason, their love of violence. But to their credit and to the credit of the marchers, it never came to that. There was no violence despite the feel of it in the air.

All in all, I have a new found faith in humanity. The camaraderie exhibited by every one of the 400,000 marchers on Sunday in a city renowned for its hostility to strangers was refreshing and hopefully a sign of better days to come. Each person at that march was not there for themselves, but for one another. And if "patriotism" is to be anything but a fighting word for reactionaries, then this must be the definition of "patriotism"---speaking up, not for ourselves, but for one another. But I left the city on a downer. I don't think the job was done. I think we still have much farther to go and I'm not even sure if this is the herald of a beginning or an end. In the end, it was the convention that got the press, not the city in protest. When a march of near half a million should be a historical triumph of grassroots humanity, it was recorded as a footnote to a lesser event. What makes the 20,000 people in the air-conditioning of a makeshift fortress more important than the 400,000 outside, sweating in the heat, standing shoulder to shoulder, and pouring their hearts out? This is indeed the question of our time and it speaks to the survivability of the very idea of "Democracy".

A Digression:

So Laura Bush killed her "boyfriend" by running a stop sign when she was 17. Just something to mention the next time a liberal hater brings up Chappaquidick.

An Aside:

Neil Bush, Brother of our illustrious President and son of the then Vice President, had dinner plans with a Scott Hinckley, brother of failed assassin John Hinckley, Jr., the day Reagan was shot. John Hinckley Sr. was a wealthy Oil man from Texas who happened to be a hefty contributor to the political campaigns of the then Vice President. Just an interesting aside.

A Tangent:

In less conspiratorial news, former Texas House Speaker, Ben Barnes has admitted to getting our illustrious President into the National Guard despite his having scored only a 25 on his Air National Guard test. To be fair, Lloyd Benson's son (remember the gramps that ran with Dukakis) was also admitted into the Champagne Unit so as not to be in Vietnam. And to be fair to Barnes, the reason why he is breaking the news now is that Bush is probably tired of paying him off.

Book Learn'n

2004-07-09T14:03:00.000-04:00

What we all hope in reaching for a book, is to meet a man of our own heart, to experience tragedies and delights which we ourselves lack the courage to invite, to dream dreams which will render life more hallucinating, perhaps also to discover a philosophy of life which will make us more adequate in meeting the trials and ordeals which beset us. To merely add to our store of knowledge or improve our culture, whatever that may mean, seems worthless to me.

--Henry Miller

Or perhaps, we aren’t reaching for books at all. A New study by the NEA has found that nearly 90 Million American adults did not read a book in 2002. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised but GODDAM!!! Not even a little novella? Not even “My Pet Goat” to your 1st graders? Who are these people and why are they here? I suppose reading isn’t for everyone and everyone may have more engaging things to do than read a book, like child-molesters, Stock-car drivers and their pit crews, the illiterate and the dead. Not counting the dead among their number, are there really that many child-molesters, illiterates and stock-car competitors?

Let’s see. Here are the NYT best-sellers for July 7, 2002 that could have been read:

Hard Eight, Janet Evanovich
Beach House, James Patterson
Emperor of Ocean Park, Stephen Carter
Fire Ice, Clive Cussler
In This Mountain, Jan Karon
Nanny Diaries, Emma McLaughlin
Mount Vernon Love Story, Mary Higgins Clark
Shelters of Stone, Jean Auel
Summons, John Grisham
Dragons of a Vanished Moon, Margaret Weis
You Can Not Be Serious, John McEnroe
Stupid White Men, Michael Moore
Right Words at the Right Time, Marlo Thomas
John Adams, David McCullough
Mind at a Time, Mel Levine
Master of the Senate, Robert Caro
Firehouse, David Halberstam
Once Upon a Town, Bob Greene
Lucky Man, Michael J Fox

Most of these would not be what you would consider a “weighty tome”. There is even a book written for stupid white men who might not ordinarily read. To be fair, I have read none of these books, but I did buy John Adams by David McCullough for my father as a present. So why are books losing their appeal? You can blame the usual culprits of TV, video games, titty bars, prison weight rooms or the internet. It might be for some a case of Compassion Fatigue, but books can also be a diversion. So what gives? Are people replacing books with another means of education or are people just settling for less education? Maybe books have just become too slow.

Segue…

A digression:
Slow Down in Cabbagetown

I passed a sign on my way to work this morning imploring drivers to Slow Down in Cabbagetown. It’s a nice thought but one likely to be scoffed at by motorists commuting to the salt mines. I briefly slowed down around the curve then all but gunned it (if a 2000 Toyota Echo can be “gunned”) on the way out. What makes us go so fast? Why are we in such a hurry? Why are we so eager to get to the “veal fattening pens” and salt mines of our daily routine?

Segueing back to books, recently on the Book Show, with host Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina, Carl Honore, author of In Praise of Slowness was featured. This is yet another book I haven’t read and I probably won’t. The interview wasn’t all that interesting, but he did make the near obvious point that our society’s need for speed has deteriorated our quality of life. Food, work, sex, vacations and reading bedtime stories to your kids, are all more enjoyable the less you hurry through them. Maybe this is what Bush had in mind while My Pet Goat was read to the class he attended while airliners were being hijacked and crashed into buildings. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for a change and say that perhaps he was wanting America (or ’Mairca if you prefer Bush phonetics) to take life more slowly. (low blow, I admit it.)

An Aside:

I would believe in the “America is getting dumber” hypothesis for the phenomenon of less book reading, but in some ways, it seems to me, kids are getting smarter. Maybe that’s because I’m not around very many kids. But it does seem that more is packed into a school curriculum than has been in the past. But maybe some other things have been taken out. Maybe the crammed learning is only ephemeral, a result of teaching-to-the-test. Do kids retain their knowledge more or less than previous generations? I would think less, due to all the many distractions that are out there. And then sometimes I see kids and I think that ignorance is bliss and its being fed to us through rectibators, by-passing our kidney’s and brains, going straight to our bloodstream and swelling our wrestlemania glands.

A Tangent:

Enough about the kids, lets talk about grandma. Recent studies have indicated that old people are what make us human---at least that’s part of it. So thank the elderly, the horse and ancient Chinese paper makers for shaping humanity and our development.

Post Script:

Speaking of slowness, John Cage's "organ2/ASLSP" has reached its second chord in its 639 year journey to completion. The next chord is scheduled to take place on March 5, 2006.

Democracy Ablaze

2004-06-28T11:06:00.000-04:00

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last Friday when it was released here in Atlanta. It sold out three simultaneous showings at the theatre we went to. We went to another theatre afterwords to meet some people and I had to park nearly 3 miles away it was so crowded. If anything, it was an event, perhaps the event of the weekend (I missed TD Jakes and it rained too much for me to attend "Pride"). All together there was not a whole lot that was new for me in the film. It was an anti-Bush rant from the beginning, which it doesn't even try to disguise. It inspired anger and applause from all in attendence. A couple of people in our posse (we got a group of about 10 to see it) actually left the theatre crying.

I wouldn't use the film as a resource or educational tool, but it was effective in jarring the audience if not entertaining them. To call it a "documentary" would be a mistake and I think even Moore would admit that. Perhaps a new term such as "editorial film" or "commentary film" or some such might be better to describe Moore's work.

There were some amusing parts to the film, blatant attempts to get the audience to see Bush and co. as a joke, which the images themselves did admirably without any help from Moore's commentary. There was a particularly funny shot in the opening of Paul Wolfowitz rubbing spit in his hair to style it and then someone rubbing their own spit into Wolfowitz's hair. Seeing and hearing John Ashcroft croon the audience was amazing to say the least.

The images of wounded soldiers, their comments (pointedly selected, of course) and images of dead and wounded Iraqi's was incredibly powerful. Particularly horrific was a shot of an angry Iraqi man putting a burned corpse of an infant into a pick up truck full of bodies while screaming anti-American vitriol.

While there is no doubt about the film's agenda and its bias, there are some legitimate questions raised---such as just what Bush was doing for 20 minutes in that elementary school after learning about the attacks on 9/11. The question of Bin Laden family members being ferried out of the country without recorded questioning is another. Conspiracy theories aside, competence would have dictated at least a routine level of questioning. Another question for the Democratic leadership was why not a single Senator (D) in 2000 would sign the petition to delay certification of the vote while scores from of African Americans representing their community sought such to sort out allegations of disenfranchisement. It is also difficult for me as a liberal to rally behind the democrats when they did so little to stop the Iraq war and handed Bush a carte blanche to do as he pleased.

But most of these were issues, that for many of us, were already out there. For dedicated liberals, such as myself, there was nothing all that revelatory. And I suspect that most conservatives will not even see the film. But like his fellow blowhards on the other side of the aisle, Moore is meant to be viewed by his own in the way Rush is meant as education for the already conservative to use as weapons in grassroots debate. I am ambivalent on such a thing. Part of me despises the low-brow tactics of the blowhards and rabble-rousers but part of me also thinks that Senator Leahy should have retorted more forcefully, like "A man named "Dick" is telling me to go fuck myself??" The right seems to get away with any tactic, and this from the party of so-called "family values", while a scream to get the attention of audience members in the back of a room put Howard Dean out of the race.

I'm not sure if I'll see any other Michael Moore films (this was my first) and I probably won't read any of his books but I am not disappointed with my choice to see Fahrenheit. I left the theatre with my blood up and wanting to hit somebody...hard. I suspect that rightists who dare to view the film would have a similar reaction, but for different reasons, obviously. If Rush Limbaugh, self-professed and self-degraded crack whore that he is, brings home the Palme d'Or then I will see his film too. Its a safe bet, I know.

A Digression:

So...Iraqi Sovereignty, whatever that is, has been secretly transferred under intense security. Next year, when the Iraqi Government celebrates a national holiday commemorating the event, I wonder if they will celebrate in secrecy as well. I wonder if elections will be held in secret bunkers. While the symbolism that is "sovereignty" has been symbolically handed over to a symbolic organisation which symbolizes a symbolic attempt at democracy, real democracy in Iraq seems a long way away.

An Aside:

Well, I haven't poseted in a while. I've been busy moving. Thats my excuse. I also don't as yet have an internet connection at home---thats a better excuse.

A Tangent:

So, is there anyone reading my blog? A simple "amen" from the congregation will work wonders for my self-esteem. Just hit the comment button and supply one simple word..."amen"... so I'll know you are real. Or, if you would prefer, you can wax Cheney-like with a simple "go fuck yourself." I'll take that into consideration too. But please, just let me know if there is anyone reading.

Fast Forward

2004-06-18T12:26:00.000-04:00

At these stones, why
Start'st thou, stranger?
Many stones are lying yonder
Round my cottage...

...Yonder?

JWvGoethe

Yonder is Mars. As Peter O'Toole says in Lawrence of Arabia, "Aqaba is over there. It's only a matter of going." And yonder they went, conquering the desert port with a furious horse and camel chevauchée. Yonder is Mars. Its only a matter of going. But why go? Aqaba was a strategic port in a war for the soul of Arabia. It took 50 men to cross an impassable desert. Mars? What does Mars offer? How much will it cost?

Discussing it with a friend the other day, I realized that most of why I would be opposed to a manned Mars mission is the fact that a man, who I disdain with all the bile my liver can muster, is the one who has initiated the plan. I must be honest and admit that a more favorable White House resident would have me as an enthusiastic supporter for space travel. But, aside from the pride and boyhood fantasies that a manned expedition to Mars might tickle, will there be appreciable benefits to a Mars mission equal or greater than the benefits and cost effectiveness continued unmanned exploration would produce? Beyond the politics (and is this anything but political?) does the science involved justify a manned mission?

A Digression:

The moons of Mars are among the smallest in the solar system, little more than asteroids in Martian orbit. Phobos, the larger of the two moons, is named after the son of Ares (Mars) and Aphrodite (Venus) and is the personification of "fright" (hence "phobia"). Deimos, the other moon, was the personification of "dread". They accompanied Ares into battle. To echo a previous sentiment, War is accompanied by Terror and this is the direction we have chosen for ourselves. This is the legacy we will leave despite our pioneering.

An Aside:

The wake and contrails of our ship will leave a path of starvation, war and injustice. Our pride and our boyish fantasies will be achieved on the backs of the sick, impoverished and outcast. I once believed that to reflect was to signal the end. Outward expansion was needed, if nothing else, to wipe our problems from our conscience. This is what the "great" leaders have accomplished. This was the silent mantra of Reagan---optimism and grandiose ambition in the face of continued suffering. This is, on its face, a noble attitude. One might on the surface confuse this with the Sisyphus of Camus. But while the optimism and fantasy of space exploration might allow us to forget our problems, Sisyphus teaches us the opposite. Indeed, to forget one's problems is cowardice. Sisyphus doesn't fancy his rock to be anything but what it is. It is not optimism, but defiance that sinks the spur of Sisyphus. And it is with defiance and a spirited will, that transcendance (transcendence is a dance) is possible. Continuing to build our edifice higher, on the backs of the wavering (like the booming economies of the 20's and 90's), is not the path to transcendence, but a formula for disaster. To look inward is necessary. We must reflect like the pools of Parnassus and only then can we refract like the eye of Shiva.

A Tangent:

Her struggle for economic freedom is their struggle, her perishing children are their children, and her dreams, her aspirations, her martyrdom and victories are an internal part of the workers' campaign for a better, saner world. Why can they not understand that their own best instincts are in revolt against a social order which enthralls masses of men and leads inevitably to poverty, suffering and war? How spiritually blind are men, that they fail to see that we are all bound together! We rise or fall together, we are dwarfed or godlike, free or chained together.

Helen Keller

Sacré-Coeur

2004-06-14T15:07:00.000-04:00

The Heart of Louis XVII, the once and never-to-be king, was ceremoniously laid to rest in St. Denis. I’m sure there is some sort of extended metaphor I can draw from this, but I’m lethargic today and I frankly can’t muster enough elan to give a shit.

I never understood the modern world’s fascination with royalty and monarchy. Perhaps its because we like our horses and dogs to be inbred and maybe that’s an innate fixation with how we like our people too? It’s sick, this apotheosis of sister-fucked mules. The idea should transcend mere condemnation; the concept of hereditary aristocracy should be loathed in the way we abhor National Socialism. Why should a people, a country, a collection of borders, a monetary system and a division of labor be symbolized by horse-faced dandies parading in piped-epaulletted-glamrock costumes? Enlightened societies would have such people straightjacketed and lobotomized---unless they were figure skaters (or maybe especially if they were figure skaters). But we beatify them? Doestoevsky said, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” But perhaps a civilization might also be judged by its fetishes and a society with a royalty fetish gets a few points knocked down on the civ-o-meter.

A Digression:

Kings once led their armies from the front. Alexander supposedly even led an escalade up a fortress wall, a role typically reserved for the forlorn of hope. But that was a time when kings were leaders first and royals second. George Washington was the last American President to direct an army in the field---to put down a rebellion. Dubya once snuck into a Thanksgiving feast in Iraq and dressed up like a GI Joe doll on an aircraft carrier. I suppose that counts for something. Vive la Roi!

An Aside:

There was in fact one Warrior President. His name was James Madison. You may remember him as the husband of Dolly. While he did not command the army on the field of battle, he did join the debacle at the Battle of Bladensburg in August of 1814. Apparently, he was armed with dueling pistols and added only more confusion to the hackneyed defense of our nation’s capital. Besides George Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, Madison was the only sitting President to be personally involved in a war time combat. Of course, the US lost the Battle of Bladensburg and Madison and company made a "rapid strategic redeployment to the rear" (military-speak for tucking-ass and running). They then offered Washington DC as a burnt offering to Canadian Militia and a British sideshow force.

A Tangent:

Birds are much better symbols for a country than royalty is. Nothing inspires patriotism like a bald eagle, a pink flamingo yard ornament or an extended middle finger.

BRAINS!!!

2004-06-10T22:01:00.000-04:00

Well, today’s blog was supposed to be about the conflict (?) of mind and brain. But cappuccino, a few beers and a molasses cookie with just the right hint of clove have given ardor to my faculties. The cappuccino and the beers, while a quality quaff in their own right, are merely drugs to set my mind (or brain perhaps) into dissonance. But the cookie…well the cookie is l’art pour l’art. It is, to borrow a phrase from the wayward intelligent design theorists [sic], a thing of irreducible complexity. To take out a single ingredient, or even to exaggerate one to excess, would lead to total dysfunction, divorce and burdensome alimony. Molasses, taken singularly by the spoonful, is like swallowing death itself. It has the color and texture of rotten humors squeezed from used leeches and the taste is not too far off either. To put such rancorous goo in a cookie (or in any cuisine for that matter) seems absurd. But with context, hidden truths are made plain, and with a bite the oracle’s wisdom is revealed. As for the subtle hint of clove in the molasses cookie, the pairing is perfection itself. Too much clove, and one might-as-well soak the cookie in red wine vinegar. But with just a hint, to nudge the senses toward the sacred path, an exorbitant abomination becomes brio. It is this balancing that is the configuring of our own destinies.

A Digression:

Ok, so what do yall think about the mind and the brain? Are they synonymous? Is the machine of the brain the sole cause of our thoughts, dreams, emotions and consciousness itself? Or is there something ineffable that also plays a part in the game of cognition and sub-cognition? Is the very concept of mind made obsolete by discoveries in brain anatomy, genomic mapping, neurotransmitters, the hippocampus, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, etc.? Talk amongst yourselves and come up with an answer.

An Aside:

My own thoughts on the subject? The mind is the layered web of empirical data, emotional and pain response, hippocampal networking, balances and imbalances of neurotransmitting chemicals (like seratonin) and symbol, the most important of which is language. The brain, in its totality, is solely responsible for the content and opinions of this layered web-- of the mind. The concoction of the psychoanalysts; of id, ego and superego; of conscious, sub and unconscious, are for the most part, serendipitous fictions. They aid us in conceptualization, but they are not scale models of reality.

A Tangent:

I want to get drunk. I want unbridled, debilitating, brain-killing addiction. I want the economy to plunge, the starving to burn their idols and beat their children. I want foul, decrepit, stubble-faced alcoholism. I want to drink a drum full of leaded gasoline and set my entrails ablaze with Molotov cocktails. I want to wake up in rat dung, covered with bruises and with my wallet stolen. I want to be loathed, I want to be ignored, I want acid reflux and straightjackets. I don't want cancer. I want speeding tickets, DUIs and republicans to rule the world. I want reality shows where the audience votes for who gets the kidney transplant. I want preservatives and antibiotics injected into free-range chickens and nuclear waste covered in crumbling grout. I want prayer in schools and coat-hanger-abortions done by smuggled Chinese laborers becalmed on a Ghanan slaver. I want endless mornings to begin with watered-down drip coffee and methadone. I want to sleep less than 3 hours a day, and then only after massive head injuries. I want the national debt to default. I want to be hospitalized for a cinnamon overdose and jailed for sedition. I want carpal tunnel syndrome and mad cow disease. I want to be scourged like Jesus and to cough up asbestos---just to see what I've been missing. I need mayhem, doom, destruction.

So maybe I'm being selfish. Maybe I should be grateful for not suffering these things. But 5 out of the 7 American Nobel Literature laureates were Alcoholics. And the other two probably masturbated themselves raw. Where does that leave one aspiring to creation? Is creation possible in a sanitary world? "Sanitary"...this is the same as "sterility". No, I'm afraid life was created from slime, bacterial-flatworm-infested slime, both in its genesis and in the regenerative womb. All vital creations, anything done with vigor, evokes a liquid state of swamps full of bile, puss, phlegm, blood, tears, mud, semen, menstrual fluid and sweat. Whether one is wet with alcohol (illicit drugs, diet pills, self loathing or caffeine work too) or tears (or more likely both), there is art in the making.

The Transit of Venus

2004-06-08T11:43:00.000-04:00

Venus and Apollo. Beauty passing before the Sun. Beauty tempting Form or perhaps Form framing Beauty.

Aphrodite (Venus) was conceived when the cast-off testicles of Uranus (the heavens) mated with the oceans of Earth. Her birth is a result of the forming (or separation) of the Earth itself from the dark cloak of the celestial. What is most interesting to me about this story is that Uranus (the heavens) shrouded and even smothered the Earth in his embrace and it was not until his son, Kronos, made him impotent that Earth was allowed to breathe and flourish. It is with the castrating of the Heavens that Beauty herself was born. Such is the summation of the history of art. To create is an act of gods. Art is a theft of the gods’ powers. A work of art is a snip at the scrotum of the absolute.

A Digression:

Perhaps it is telling that our “civilization” has begun the process to expand to Mars. Maybe there is metaphor in that we are directed closer to the god of War and further from the more difficult goddess of Beauty.

An Aside:

I’m focusing too much perhaps on the idea of God. I don’t want my blog to be merely an atheistic expression. But I am fascinated by the religious experience, of the cosmic, the temporal and the eternal. It’s not God himself that I am obsessed with but peoples’ notions and interactions with their spiritual ideas, expressions and creations. I don’t mean to offend anyone with my above post, but I can’t escape the enthusiasm I have for these metaphors. The Greek Pantheon seems so counter-intuitive to our Christian mindset. The Gods of old, especially the Greek or Indian gods, interact with mortals in a way that is alien in our western modernity. We can identify with the foibles, failings and passions of these gods. In that sense, they are more complex, but easier to understand. In many ways, these gods better represent the child/parent dichotomy. We, the children of the gods, are nurtured, commanded and punished by the gods. But we must eventually grow up and overcome them. We must leave the nest and build a better one.

As Rushdie expressed in his 1996 commencement speech “It is men and women who have made the world, and they have made it in spite of their gods. The message of the myths is not the one the gods would have us learn - that we should behave ourselves and know our place - but its exact opposite.”

The full speech is at the bottom.

And a Tangent:

David Hasselhoff didn’t have to worry about DUI when he was driving KITT.

All too Human

2004-06-07T11:23:00.000-04:00

There was a small controversy some weeks ago with the situation in Iraq. It was a small one as it was something of a tempest in a toilet compared to the controversy that would erupt over prison abuse. But in many ways, this controversy had much more fundamental implications in the waging of modern warfare. A photo was taken by a US contractor in Iraq in the belly of a cargo plane full of flag draped coffins. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1093341.htm ) It was a candid shot, amateurish , but at once strikingly beautiful and disquieting. The lady who took the photo was promptly fired for it as there has been a concerted effort to keep unsettling images of warfare out of the American living room.

To further this effort and to prevent the revelation of further atrocity in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Donald Rumsfeld issued a ban in Iraq on camera phones (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C4057%2C9643950%255E401%2C00.html ). The cameras themselves were part of the humiliation that was at the core of the dehumanization of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Images, in our time, define our being, define us as a species and as a community. Images can be used to make war all too human or make a foe sub-human. In war, the former must be proscribed and the latter embraced.

Indeed, this is what war is all about in our age---dehumanizing death and killing. Those Iraqis that just happen to be in the wrong place are not dead people, they are "collateral damage", upwards of 9,000 strong. We care not for their faces, their cries or their families left in the lurch. When asked about Iraqi casualties in Desert Storm, Colin Powell dismissed "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."

But even our own troops are dehumanized. We don't see 829 individual American's with holes shot through them and limbs flayed to ribbons and sinew, flesh burned or bones crushed, we see a number or we see what amounts to small cargo crates covered by stars and stripes. And even this image has been largely removed from the public psyche. Even of the living, we don’t see those “lucky enough” to survive their wounds; The 4,882 American men and women that are without a limb, with cracks in their skulls or maybe just a limp in their gate. It is nice and sanitized and clean that way. It makes war easier to swallow for those far removed from it.

But these are human beings, friends, loved ones, brothers, sisters, fathers, sons... If we have the moral authority to send these people to their deaths, then we should also have the moral fortitude to see, in full, the consequences of our decisions. Not doing so is the worst sort of moral cowardice and is undeserving of the precious lives we have sent to death. If we can fully digest the spectre of death and destruction of both friend and foe wrought by the choice of war, then there can be no debating the justness of our decision. If they that have fallen can give up their lives for our cause, then it is not too much to ask that we as citizens face the complete gravity of our cause and the actions we have ordered.

Or is this what we want? Or need? Maybe we are better left in the dark. If the public is confronted with this horrible visage, do we forsake war or do we get used to brutality, making war easier to wage? Do we accept war to where we become Hulegu razing Baghdad to the ground and piling skulls to the hundreds of thousands?

"People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel." Dostoevsky (Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov)

A digression follows:

A car bomb that kills 12 people is horrendous and dastardly and all that. But a cruise missile launched from 400 miles away and obliterates a building full of people is part of a “just war”. The irony is of the reversal of “values”. Ranged weaponry such as the bow and arrow or the “arquebus” were once thought of by warriors from Samurai to Feudal Knights as cowardly ways to wage war. Closeness in war, hand to hand combat, looking your enemy in the face---that was considered honorable. Now, the long range, high-tech and highly destructive warfare of aerial bombardment is the norm, ethical and pure. Loading a truck full of explosives and driving it into an armed camp is considered cowardly.

And an Aside:

Our consciences have been especially silent on wars that our own nation may not be directly involved. The dehumanization of war extends easier to black Africa and particularly the Congo. While we are catered with lip-service in regards to helping the once oppressed Iraqi people (a particularly important canard now that the WMD issue has been reduced to one solitary, leaky and ancient artillery shell) little is said about the continuing tragedy in the Congo. By most accounts, the war in the Congo, since 1997, has claimed more lives than any conflict since World War II. The brutality is unsurpassed, with punitive cannibalism not uncommon. Where is the righteous out-cry from the west?

And a Tangent:

Caffeine is a mind-altering drug and I am its bitch.

Atheism is not Nihilism

2004-06-04T10:26:00.000-04:00

A question was posed to me recently asking if, as an atheist, I believe that there is any hope for mankind. I think in some respects the question was meant to be rhetorical, assuming that atheists believe in nothing (we believe in nussing Lebowski, nussing!) and therefore the notion of hope can not possibly be grounded in a rigorous doctrine. Well, part of that may be true for me individually in that I am not one who is prone to rigorous doctrine, but that is not to say that I don't have some form of ideology or method in my reasoning (which is a subject worthy of its own debate). But the notion that Atheists believe in nothing and therefore have no grounding for any ideas seems to be a common one amongst "believers". Primarily with the "moral compass" people, the idea that values, particularly ethical and moral values, are impossible without an absolute credo, (namely the belief in a great moral cosmocrat issuing his unfailing edicts to all living things or perhaps just humans), makes those who don't believe in said credo completely devoid of a necessary base from which to derive rules of behavior, laws, table manners, highway etiquette and even aesthetic taste.

But is this really the case? As some believe, are atheists somehow more prone to break the law? Do atheists have no moral direction preventing them from committing murder? Since atheists don't believe in an afterlife are atheists more prone to suicidal rampages? Is atheistic behavior determined by a resignation of "what's the point?" as some believers assume?

I know of no study that shows that a higher percentage of crime is committed by avowed atheists versus theists. Perhaps there is one, but I am not familiar with it. Until I see this, I have no reason to accept such an assumption which is as bigoted a notion as minorities being predisposed to committing crimes. But as the issue is with an idea being predisposed to crime and not particular people per se, the notion should be addressed. The common belief is that since the idea of "Hell" is absent from atheists, there is no fear of otherworldly punishment preventing atheists from their indiscretions and misconduct. This is indeed a scary thought. Is the only thing preventing believers from slaughtering their children the fear that one day they will burn for eternity? I should hope not and I suspect that most believers maintain moral lives without the constant fear of roasting like a Peking Duck determining their actions. Why would this be different for Atheists who don't fear the crispy sweet and savory skin of a well cooked muscovy? Ah, but there is the carrot side to the stick too. Believers are motivated by their desire to enter heaven. Atheists don't have this to motivate their good deeds. But they certainly don't have this to motivate their bad deeds either. A thousand virgins don't await atheists who strap grenades to their chests and blow themselves apart in a crowded market. A reunion with god does not await atheists who spread their ideology to native peoples with smallpox blankets and the point of a sword. That certainly isn't to say that atheists don't do equally bad things (the Russian nihilists in the 19th century weren't averse to blowing themselves up with bombs), but i'm merely pointing out that the motivation of heaven doesn't alway result in "good" actions.

So where do atheists derive their moral direction? Its a legitimate question, and in proper skeptical tradition, it is one best answered by looking at what we see as the facts. First of all, Morality is something born of complex social environments. It is based on communication. Words are essential to laws and what are commandments without words. Therefore, as far as we know, morality is peculiar to intelligent life (and thus humans, as far as we know). Is there any reason to believe that morality is anything other than a human construct? The notion of a human only morality seems to be a case of special pleading when it is believed that morality is the decree of the creator of all things. In that case, wouldn't morality be inherent in all animals?

This inconsistency aside, skeptical atheists must adhere to the knowledge at hand, and that knowledge doe not include evidence for god. Occam's razor seems to point that Morality is a human construct. If we accept this, then why was morality invented in the first place? To help us with this answer it is necessary to ask what purpose does morality have for us now? Why, society could not function without some sort of moral code. Most would agree with this, atheist or believer. This is true now and it was true when man first started forming complex societies with complex languages. Our earliest moralities were probably based on simple familial or clan expectations of behavior. If an action was detrimental to the family or clan, then it was admonished. This is very rudimentary and its possible to see this in most social animals, even crocodiles. The change from more rudimentary morality is when clans become tribes. When more people are introduced to the mix, more sophistication in morality is necessary. Division of labor and political hierarchies further establish higher sophistication of moral codes until we have large cities. As Jared Diamond points out, in cities, man is faced with interacting with strangers, non-family or non-clan members. With smaller tribes, there was no need to prevent the killing of strangers or the theft of their property. Morality only extended to members of the clan. But when larger social structures emerge, such as cities, the need to extend morality to strangers necessitates a more elaborate code----one that is written or one that is decreed from an authority. "Thou shalt not" became necessary. One may not know every person in the city, but as long as you knew not to kill strangers, harmony in a large society was possible.

So that's it. Morality is simply for the operation of society. That is it. Laws are made and repealed for the benefit of an evolving society. These ultimately are human laws and perhaps societies that understand this are less prone to create suicide bombers. Laws change with the needs of society. This is not strict moral relativism in that the needs of society are absolute. In our day and in our culture that means two things, social order (keeping people from killing each other and stealing each other's stuff) and individual liberty (protection for the individuals that make up a society against a social machine that has a tendency to serve itself at the expense of the people it was crafted to help). It is life, not afterdeath, that justifies a human morality. Its just my opinion of course, but this is a motive I find to be much more reliable than basing one's actions on a reward or punishment in the netherworld.

So to answer that quasi-rhetorical question I started off with, "yes", there is hope for man. The hope is that man can use life itself to motivate his actions and that man, the individual, and man, the member of society, can balance the needs of both.

A Digression follows:

Existence precedes essence (textbook existentialism). What is more logical than that?

An Aside:

"Man must strive and in striving he must err." Spoken by God, by god, in Faust, by Goethe, by gollie.

A Tangent follows:

Is it the blue of Picasso or the blue of Hokusai? Is it the blue sparks that blast from your hammer stare or the blue tears that attempt to leap from your eye cliff-- ending their sadness but heightening yours?

disconcerting

2004-06-03T12:50:00.000-04:00

Its a bit disconcerting to go to the office restroom to sit down for a nice, hearty dump, only to find that the toilet seat is still warm. Someone has preceded you, and only moments before, reading the paper, dreaming of Keira Knightly or just doing some much needed house cleaning. There is something vile about such an intimate yet anonymous shared experience only divisible by a shred of time. Someone has defiled your virgin bowl, plucked its jewel before you. Is this demon someone you know? Is he someone you interact with? The intimacy is like seeing a friend naked---it changes the friendship. But you don't see anyone. It is only their warmth, their microwave background, their spiritual aura even, that you sense (or maybe thats just the smell). But here is where the optimist takes hold. Thank goodness for modern ventilation, lest the experience be even more invasive and appalling. The aroma dissipates before the warmth and afterall, despite the visceral reaction, the warmth is kinda nice.