The LSAT podcast that randomly came up during my jog to-day was about equivocation. The podcast defines this as when an ambiguous word is used across its different meanings. The example offered is the following syllogism:
Nothing is better than a juicy hamburger.
Brussels sprouts are better than nothing.
Therefore, Brussels sprouts are better than a juicy hamburger.
There is a simple test to see if the meaning is a shifting meaning, substitute ‘nothing’ for what it could mean: ‘no food.’ Now let us rerun the syllogism.
No food is better than a juicy hamburger.
Brussels sprouts are better than no food.
Therefore, Brussels sprouts are better than a juicy hamburger.
So, the poetry is lost, but notice that the syllogism is the same in either case. Therefore, the fallacy is not one of equivocation, but rather it is in a misunderstanding of ‘better.’ Notice that the first term in the comparison is placed above the second term in a hierarchy. If the fallacy was equivocation then switching the order of the terms would not matter, but since ‘better’ is a conditional term, the order is what determines the meaning and consequently that is the fallacy of the syllogism. The folks at Princeton review should be ashamed.
So, what then does equivocation look like? I like the confusion over the ‘realism’ debates. There are two different debates and two different meanings for realism, but these distinctions are often lost and literature in one conversation is often introduced improperly into the other debate.
The first realism is an epistemological question: how do we know what is real? The realist assumes that reality can be measured and accurately perceived. The usual criticism is that reality is not measurable, rather, reality presents us with data which we must then filter through and interpret. The different schools of philosophy will then disagree about how we go about with that interpretation, but the need to interpret dispels the real of reality.
The second realism is in international studies and is a theory of how nations interact with other nations. Realism maintains that a nation’s foreign policies are the result of exogenous factors, usually the foreign policies of another nation. The usual criticism of this realism is that nations make foreign polices based upon internal constituencies. For example, President Bush goes to war to secure re-election or to gain political capital for domestic programs or because he believes he was elected to go to war. The realist would say the decision was in response to the security dilemma.
An example of equivocation comes when someone is armed with an international realist’s response to criticisms, for example John Mearsheimer argues that the anti-realists are chasing a pipedream because ultimately all states will make security policies based on foreign threats, regardless of what constituents want. ‘Realism is inevitable’ is a simple way to characterize this argument.
So, let us now return to the first debate. The psychoanalyst would tell the analysand to stop calling the significant other passive-aggressive, when she says she has no preference of where to eat dinner. The psychoanalyst will then interpret the passive-aggressive interpretation as a projection of the analysand’s anxieties upon the significant other. Being passive-aggressive would be the realist take on things, whereas the realist critic says (that while the person may be passive-aggressive) that diagnosis is an interpretation of data and not an objective measure. The lesson of the psychoanalyst (one of the schools that criticizes realism) is: your diagnosis of the other is not real, but rather a projection of something in yourself onto the other.
Back to equivocation. We now have the first realism debate and then enters the confused realist in response. The realist invokes Mearsheimer’s argument: realism is inevitable. This response does not measure up and is a non-sequitor. I am told to not try to improve my relationship with my girlfriend because I will inevitably be a realist and forget the lesson of the psychoanalysis. But, even if I will forget I should still employ the lesson for the added happiness it can bring me. Trust me, it brings happiness because my girlfriend hates being called passive-aggressive.
15 September 2006
Nuclear Proliferation, slightly visited
Here is a little gem I discovered to-day in the files. It is from Kenneth Waltz in his book (1995, The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate) where he engages Sagan (I think it is Sagan) about the benefits of nuclear proliferation:
Second, deterrent balances are inherently stable. This is another reason for new nuclear states to decrease, rather than increase, their military spending. As Secretary Brown saw, within wide limits one state can be insensitive to changes in another state’s forces. French leaders thought this way. France, as president Valery Giscard d’Estaing said, “fixes its security at the level required to maintain, regardless of the way the strategic situation develops in the world, the credibility – in other words, the effectiveness – of its deterrent force.” With deterrent forces securely established, no military requirement presses one side to try to surpass the other. Human error and folly may lead some parties involved in deterrent balances to spend more on armaments than is needed, but other parties need not increase their armaments in response, because such excess does not threaten them. The logic of deterrence eliminates incentives for strategic-arms racing. This should be easier for lesser nuclear states to understand than it was for the United States and the Soviet Union. Because most of them are economically hard-pressed, they will not want to have more than enough. (31)
While I think I may fall more on the Waltz side of the debate, that nuclear proliferation is not as dangerous as we are supposed to believe, I still find some problems with this comment.
The first sentence belies the fundamental assumption Waltz makes, that reality can be measured. To be stable someone needs to know exactly what is happening, and in a security dilemma that observer would need to know what is happening on both sides of the equation. This is an impossibility, because reality is data which needs to be interpreted. Reality does not present warrants. Let us say that France has a minimal deterrent, the stated goal of proliferants according to Waltz. If France were to perceive German arms acquisitions as a capable first strike force then the minimal deterrent is no longer preserved, it is now an insufficient deterrent. A French minimal deterrent also depends upon French interpretations of German willingness to sacrifice. If France thinks German leaders are willing to allow a large population to die, known as willing attrition (which is fair to say the German culture has allowed), then the French minimal deterrence is now not large enough.
Waltz also assumes a security dilemma that is bilateral. Let us assume France (mis)perceives German intentions and reacts accordingly. There are more actors than France and Germany: Russia, England and others might see this move as hostility and as a willingness to first strike or even as a willingness to absorb retaliatory strikes. I think Waltz’ model makes sense in a simple bilateral security dilemma, but that simplicity rarely exists. Maybe it explains the Brazil/Argentina case, but clearly not the India/Pakistan case because China is also involved.
The gap that introduces this problem is actually touched upon by Waltz when he speaks of credibility. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, what the beholder interprets as an other’s interpretation of the beholder’s actions. Interpretation is too messy and too unscientific to be relied upon.
Waltz also assumes that nations and those security policies are in response merely to exogenous factors. Maybe there is a prestige issue at work and Iranians want to develop nuclear weapons not out of a desire to protect itself or to assert itself, but to (re)establish Persian culture as a major player in the world. US non-proliferation efforts are then seen not as a security action, but rather as a racial action, an attempt by the European Americans to keep down Persians, a recurring story in Persian culture. Waltz’s model neglects these calculations, although this argument’s politics is often in line with Waltz’s politics: allow the proliferation to occur.
Waltz’s defenders have some answers to these arguments, which I will discuss in length later.
Second, deterrent balances are inherently stable. This is another reason for new nuclear states to decrease, rather than increase, their military spending. As Secretary Brown saw, within wide limits one state can be insensitive to changes in another state’s forces. French leaders thought this way. France, as president Valery Giscard d’Estaing said, “fixes its security at the level required to maintain, regardless of the way the strategic situation develops in the world, the credibility – in other words, the effectiveness – of its deterrent force.” With deterrent forces securely established, no military requirement presses one side to try to surpass the other. Human error and folly may lead some parties involved in deterrent balances to spend more on armaments than is needed, but other parties need not increase their armaments in response, because such excess does not threaten them. The logic of deterrence eliminates incentives for strategic-arms racing. This should be easier for lesser nuclear states to understand than it was for the United States and the Soviet Union. Because most of them are economically hard-pressed, they will not want to have more than enough. (31)
While I think I may fall more on the Waltz side of the debate, that nuclear proliferation is not as dangerous as we are supposed to believe, I still find some problems with this comment.
The first sentence belies the fundamental assumption Waltz makes, that reality can be measured. To be stable someone needs to know exactly what is happening, and in a security dilemma that observer would need to know what is happening on both sides of the equation. This is an impossibility, because reality is data which needs to be interpreted. Reality does not present warrants. Let us say that France has a minimal deterrent, the stated goal of proliferants according to Waltz. If France were to perceive German arms acquisitions as a capable first strike force then the minimal deterrent is no longer preserved, it is now an insufficient deterrent. A French minimal deterrent also depends upon French interpretations of German willingness to sacrifice. If France thinks German leaders are willing to allow a large population to die, known as willing attrition (which is fair to say the German culture has allowed), then the French minimal deterrence is now not large enough.
Waltz also assumes a security dilemma that is bilateral. Let us assume France (mis)perceives German intentions and reacts accordingly. There are more actors than France and Germany: Russia, England and others might see this move as hostility and as a willingness to first strike or even as a willingness to absorb retaliatory strikes. I think Waltz’ model makes sense in a simple bilateral security dilemma, but that simplicity rarely exists. Maybe it explains the Brazil/Argentina case, but clearly not the India/Pakistan case because China is also involved.
The gap that introduces this problem is actually touched upon by Waltz when he speaks of credibility. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, what the beholder interprets as an other’s interpretation of the beholder’s actions. Interpretation is too messy and too unscientific to be relied upon.
Waltz also assumes that nations and those security policies are in response merely to exogenous factors. Maybe there is a prestige issue at work and Iranians want to develop nuclear weapons not out of a desire to protect itself or to assert itself, but to (re)establish Persian culture as a major player in the world. US non-proliferation efforts are then seen not as a security action, but rather as a racial action, an attempt by the European Americans to keep down Persians, a recurring story in Persian culture. Waltz’s model neglects these calculations, although this argument’s politics is often in line with Waltz’s politics: allow the proliferation to occur.
Waltz’s defenders have some answers to these arguments, which I will discuss in length later.
12 September 2006
StoopidNoodle Sports, Sept. 9 Update
It was a bad weekend for the fans and ownership of the StoopidNoodle Sports Empire. The baseball team lost its playoff match. It had been a strange season, with a consistent ranking in the top two until the final week when Dan Kolb Sucks and SleepingUgly mounted charges from behind. The manager had this to say about the team’s untimely demise, “It was a strange series. Soriano batted well and Texiera had heated up from his early season slump but the bats of Dan Kolb Sucks just all went hot at exactly the same time. I don’t know which high priced sports psychologist they hired, but we will pay them more money to hire them next year.”
The soccer team also had some success, but just not enough. Two weeks ago in a home match against Dindin, the two teams played to a tie game. StoopidNoodles retained their lead on the top of the fixture with the point. Last week’s match, however, was a match they were supposed to lose. Beytar Hills has been in the league for at least a season longer than the StoopidNoodles, so it is not surprising that they had some superior talent. The game was tight, however, as the StoopidNoodles scored three goals and only lost by a single PK late in the match.
Monday night saw the conclusion of the week as the football team took a loss in its first week. Donovan McNabb’s strong played helped buoy the team, but the mismanagement of Shelton Quarrles may have cost the match. Quarrles was reported to be in fine health and to be slated to play, but a last minute scratch meant that he occupied a roster spot and did not produce for the StoopidNoodles. “A stupid mistake that I will make sure not to make again,” Manager Jonathan McSweezyneezy told this reporter.
The soccer team also had some success, but just not enough. Two weeks ago in a home match against Dindin, the two teams played to a tie game. StoopidNoodles retained their lead on the top of the fixture with the point. Last week’s match, however, was a match they were supposed to lose. Beytar Hills has been in the league for at least a season longer than the StoopidNoodles, so it is not surprising that they had some superior talent. The game was tight, however, as the StoopidNoodles scored three goals and only lost by a single PK late in the match.
Monday night saw the conclusion of the week as the football team took a loss in its first week. Donovan McNabb’s strong played helped buoy the team, but the mismanagement of Shelton Quarrles may have cost the match. Quarrles was reported to be in fine health and to be slated to play, but a last minute scratch meant that he occupied a roster spot and did not produce for the StoopidNoodles. “A stupid mistake that I will make sure not to make again,” Manager Jonathan McSweezyneezy told this reporter.
09 September 2006
Little Miss Sunshine, Reviewed
Here is what I think the producers were thinking: let us solve problem of Vacation. All sorts of stuff goes wrong in this road trip movie, many of them similar to the dilemmas in Vacation (death of an elderly family member, car troubles) so similar in fact that I think it is an homage to the classic. But the homage has too prominent a place in this movie. A homage should be a reference but not a central driving arc of the movie. Here is what I am thinking: maybe the writers thought they were perfecting some of the problems faced by the Griswolds, but they are wrong.
A review of a new road trip movie deserves some discussion of the search for identity. A uniquely American genre, the road trip is a national search for an identity, or a families search for its identity. My conclusions about what this movie prescribes is below, but is fairly obvious from the beginning. Once we learn the story of Steven Carrell’s character the lesson of the movie is set and the remainder is merely a reinforcing of the lesson. I find Chris Vogna to be correct that the life lesson is well-woven into the fabric of the story that it is bearable. But not by much.
This movie is not an improvement to the road trip genre. In fact, I am scared to see the other entries at Sundance if this was the darling of the festival. It was a fun movie, but not worth more than the $7 matinee price I paid for it. Here is the problem I allude to above. In Vacation Clark Griswold continues to drive across country despite all of these horrible events when the easy response, and the most likely, is to turn around go home. Now I do not subscribe to the theory that this is a problem because Vacation (and this is the genius of the movie) has the perfect solution, make Clark Griswold more than a funny loser by making him a funny lunatic.
Little Miss Sunshine tries to solve the problem by making us fall in love with the cute little girl, the supposed Miss Sunshine. They press on because the girl wants to go compete in the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, but the problem is that we do not fall in love with her. We watch the movie waiting for the moment we realize why the characters are willing to do this for the girl, but, there is the catch; if I were Greg Kinear I would also press on for my little girl, although when the conflict with the brother plays out I would then turn it around. The girl has never asked to press on despite the problems and the way the girl’s character develops I think she would gladly offer to have the family go home.
The gimmick of the movie about her performance is clearly highlighted and we are made well aware of our anticipation. We know that we are supposed to fall in love with her after her performance, but even then we don’t. There also is little time left in the movie for her to work on us with her newfound capital.
The ending is obvious and predictable, except the message is almost too political to stomach. Yes, we should all be happy with ourselves even if we are not all winners. We should try to be happy but also not beat ourselves up over our shortcomings, let alone others’. The critique of child beauty pageants is funny but too obvious and too gross.
The movie is formulaic. It takes several people that have nothing in common and are all supposedly losers in their own rights and put them in a small car for a long trip, since they are family it is supposed to make some sense. Then throw some unusual complications at them and let them laugh until they realize their hang-ups and all come together to fight a common foe. Despite the plot-by-numbers it is a fun movie and worth some money. For me I am putting the threshold at $7. I would easily pay more to see Vacation and even Road Trip.
A review of a new road trip movie deserves some discussion of the search for identity. A uniquely American genre, the road trip is a national search for an identity, or a families search for its identity. My conclusions about what this movie prescribes is below, but is fairly obvious from the beginning. Once we learn the story of Steven Carrell’s character the lesson of the movie is set and the remainder is merely a reinforcing of the lesson. I find Chris Vogna to be correct that the life lesson is well-woven into the fabric of the story that it is bearable. But not by much.
This movie is not an improvement to the road trip genre. In fact, I am scared to see the other entries at Sundance if this was the darling of the festival. It was a fun movie, but not worth more than the $7 matinee price I paid for it. Here is the problem I allude to above. In Vacation Clark Griswold continues to drive across country despite all of these horrible events when the easy response, and the most likely, is to turn around go home. Now I do not subscribe to the theory that this is a problem because Vacation (and this is the genius of the movie) has the perfect solution, make Clark Griswold more than a funny loser by making him a funny lunatic.
Little Miss Sunshine tries to solve the problem by making us fall in love with the cute little girl, the supposed Miss Sunshine. They press on because the girl wants to go compete in the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, but the problem is that we do not fall in love with her. We watch the movie waiting for the moment we realize why the characters are willing to do this for the girl, but, there is the catch; if I were Greg Kinear I would also press on for my little girl, although when the conflict with the brother plays out I would then turn it around. The girl has never asked to press on despite the problems and the way the girl’s character develops I think she would gladly offer to have the family go home.
The gimmick of the movie about her performance is clearly highlighted and we are made well aware of our anticipation. We know that we are supposed to fall in love with her after her performance, but even then we don’t. There also is little time left in the movie for her to work on us with her newfound capital.
The ending is obvious and predictable, except the message is almost too political to stomach. Yes, we should all be happy with ourselves even if we are not all winners. We should try to be happy but also not beat ourselves up over our shortcomings, let alone others’. The critique of child beauty pageants is funny but too obvious and too gross.
The movie is formulaic. It takes several people that have nothing in common and are all supposedly losers in their own rights and put them in a small car for a long trip, since they are family it is supposed to make some sense. Then throw some unusual complications at them and let them laugh until they realize their hang-ups and all come together to fight a common foe. Despite the plot-by-numbers it is a fun movie and worth some money. For me I am putting the threshold at $7. I would easily pay more to see Vacation and even Road Trip.
30 August 2006
Beltway Boys, the Move
A friend of mine from the Dallas days called upon us to help him move from an apartment in northern Bethesda to Roslyn. Sori was not able to help for too long as he had a game late that day, a 12-6 loss to the Phillies, although Sori did have a solo HR and another run off a Zimmerman(?) double. DoubleU was useful, surprisingly so. We all expected him to dawdle and complain about how movers could easily make this move happen. He has over the years become more ingrained in the sybaritic life. He was always well off ever since I first met him, but the change in attitude has been palpable lately.
We had another friend, JewBoy, come to help us but he showed up late. So late, in fact, that he arrived after we had already arrived in Roslyn. He showed up late because he was busy smoking a bowl. And he was wearing flip flops. Have you ever tried to walk backwards down a truck ramp while carrying a sofa while wearing flip flops?
Here’s the thing that annoyed me most about JewBoy, and I do apologize if this is not politically correct, but as I came back downstairs to make another trip upstairs with some stuff, I saw him for the first time. He had one end of the sofa and said HI and then asked me WHAT ARE YOU GETTING OUT OF THIS? I was annoyed. HE IS A FRIEND. He is a friend and friends do not need coaxing to help with things like this, otherwise we are hired help. I do know that he will make it up to me, buy me dinner or some beer or whatnot, but that arrangement is a given and it is rude to speak of it and arrive at an agreement beforehand.
WELL, I AM GETTING FOOD. SO MNNEHH. Now, most of my friends talk about these stereotypes but I just think it is talk based upon enclaves of groups, such as the Jews in Merchant of Venice. But then something like that happens and I come to believe more and more that the stereotype may still have some predictive power.
Everything eventually moved into the new place and our friend was in a time crunch, so we all returned to our respective homes. All in a day’s work for a friend.
We had another friend, JewBoy, come to help us but he showed up late. So late, in fact, that he arrived after we had already arrived in Roslyn. He showed up late because he was busy smoking a bowl. And he was wearing flip flops. Have you ever tried to walk backwards down a truck ramp while carrying a sofa while wearing flip flops?
Here’s the thing that annoyed me most about JewBoy, and I do apologize if this is not politically correct, but as I came back downstairs to make another trip upstairs with some stuff, I saw him for the first time. He had one end of the sofa and said HI and then asked me WHAT ARE YOU GETTING OUT OF THIS? I was annoyed. HE IS A FRIEND. He is a friend and friends do not need coaxing to help with things like this, otherwise we are hired help. I do know that he will make it up to me, buy me dinner or some beer or whatnot, but that arrangement is a given and it is rude to speak of it and arrive at an agreement beforehand.
WELL, I AM GETTING FOOD. SO MNNEHH. Now, most of my friends talk about these stereotypes but I just think it is talk based upon enclaves of groups, such as the Jews in Merchant of Venice. But then something like that happens and I come to believe more and more that the stereotype may still have some predictive power.
Everything eventually moved into the new place and our friend was in a time crunch, so we all returned to our respective homes. All in a day’s work for a friend.
29 August 2006
Eternals #3
Despite what the guys at Comic Book Hater Podcast say, I like this series. The first issue was not very good admittedly, but it has improved and issue 3 helped speed the arc along, somewhat. At the end of this book, though, we do not know anymore of the backstory, which is where the magic really is. We have only seen to this point an (re)awakening of supernatural abilities and some character development of the Eternals.
The art does leave something to be desired, although I hesitate saying that because much comic art these days is so overdone. Too many lines, too many shadows, too much action and movement. While Romita Jr. does a good job in this sense, he does not really draw you into the book with the art, rather it is Gaiman’s storytelling that draws me in and keeps me buying the books.
I wish there was more explanation of the mystery of the backstory, instead of hints of the mystery. Seriously Neil, we know there is stuff you have not told us, why tease more with our ignorance? As with most comics the interior art which advertises upcoming books is better than the art in the very book for which I have paid. That is annoying.
The thing I enjoy most about the storyline is the complications provided by the supernatural abilities. This issue deals with mark Curry’s ability to move ultrafast, and the science involved. Bullets still retain kinetic energy, enemies wielding guns are disarmed in a less than gentle manner. It would be easy enough to pass this skill off as a Flash-like cool thing, but instead Gaiman spends time making us realize how difficult it is to wield such powers. There are some other superpowers reveled in this book but yet none of the same attention seems to be devoted to it. I hope the remaining books discuss this, but if it does not then that makes the series only slightly better than all other comics instead of much better.
Overall, the books seem well produced and I am excited to see what comes in the future. These seem like the type of books that would come with product placement and also benchmarks for high quality productions in American entertainment.
The art does leave something to be desired, although I hesitate saying that because much comic art these days is so overdone. Too many lines, too many shadows, too much action and movement. While Romita Jr. does a good job in this sense, he does not really draw you into the book with the art, rather it is Gaiman’s storytelling that draws me in and keeps me buying the books.
I wish there was more explanation of the mystery of the backstory, instead of hints of the mystery. Seriously Neil, we know there is stuff you have not told us, why tease more with our ignorance? As with most comics the interior art which advertises upcoming books is better than the art in the very book for which I have paid. That is annoying.
The thing I enjoy most about the storyline is the complications provided by the supernatural abilities. This issue deals with mark Curry’s ability to move ultrafast, and the science involved. Bullets still retain kinetic energy, enemies wielding guns are disarmed in a less than gentle manner. It would be easy enough to pass this skill off as a Flash-like cool thing, but instead Gaiman spends time making us realize how difficult it is to wield such powers. There are some other superpowers reveled in this book but yet none of the same attention seems to be devoted to it. I hope the remaining books discuss this, but if it does not then that makes the series only slightly better than all other comics instead of much better.
Overall, the books seem well produced and I am excited to see what comes in the future. These seem like the type of books that would come with product placement and also benchmarks for high quality productions in American entertainment.
24 August 2006
Beltway Boys, the Return
I know I have probably let some of you down these past few weeks. I do have a backlog of stories about the my boys, DoubleU (DoubleU hates it when we call him that, preferring George or even Will, he says DoubleU is too much like the Texan name for President Bush, no shit, since Sori and I have both lived in Dallas) likes to refer to us as the Beltway Boys, so I will probably be posting them more frequently than I used to for a bit. Sori told DoubleU that there already was a Beltboy Boys and DoubleU then turned on his no-nonsense voice, dropped his chin so it makes that double chin thing and then lectured us about how that was a TV show so we could still claim it, and how even if they did refuse our appropriation of it that they would be unable to get us to drop the name and how it was a bad show and how his show is much better, even with Dweebie George.
I know that last sentence was long and possibly confusing but that is how DoubleU speaks when he is ad-libbing, most of what he says on TV has been rehearsed, sometimes enough so that he can actually write down his arguments before the show. Anywho.
A couple of weeks ago, on a Wednesday night I met my girl at her office for Date Night. We walked to the Helix Lounge, which is on Rhode Island over by Scott Circle, not exactly close to L and 20th, but not a far hike either. On Wednesday nights they serve cheap burgers and beer (which is why we went there) and they also have (which we learned) dog night, so there were all these dogs around. The dogs were cute and we had a fun time watching them. I think she might even be looking forward to getting a dog now. She always told me we could have a dog when she had a ring on her finger (= fair enough), but now I may not have to wait for that moment, although I am not so sure it will be a long wait regardless.
After that we walked up the 18th Street Lounge to meet some friends, but it just was not our thing, as it was reggae night. That means there is this really loud and obnoxious music playing, music that was designed for poor folks to resist the upper class, nevermind the crowd at 18th is anything but poor. The musicians were easily the poorest lot on the bar that night, any night. They also burn incense, and a lot of it (ostensibly to cover up the marijuana smoking.) My sinuses were being torn up and I wanted to leave, so we started to leave when we ran into DoubleU and Sori outside the club. Sori had the day off from a 3 day swing into Philly, so he was enjoying the rare night out. ‘Rare until October’ we always tease him, although I was happy when he ended up not being traded to another team that might be using him in October.
They decided not to go in when we told them about Reggae Night. DoubleU invited us back to his place to watch some movies. His TV is always on, when not watching baseball he is always watching movies. I wonder how he manages to get so much work done.
He had just received Hitch from NetFlix so he put it in. We all made fun of him for this choice, but he was relentless about giving it a try. I must admit the movie was much better than I thought it would be. There was some horrible dialogue, advice to writers: stop working it, let it happen. I must admit I am surprised Will Smith would even agree to say some of that crap. The Tom Brady cameo was odd. Eva Mendes has a big bootie and they were not afraid to let it show. It was entertaining, I think because Will Smith made it happen; I bet he can by sheer willpower make things happen and make things work. Fresh Prince. Enemy of the State, lord knows that was not Gene Hackman’s doing. *pun alert* If you disagree with me here, then suffice it to say you “just don’t understand.” *pun alert off*
After Hitch it was late and we all had to get some rest, although I guess Sori and I had the next day off. But DoubleU had some work to do so he turfed us out and the girl and I returned home. It was a gorgeous night out and I wish these days of summer would never end.
Not a great return of the Beltway Boys, but there is more stuff I am working on writing down in between commercial breaks of the Rescue Me marathon I have DVRed.
I know that last sentence was long and possibly confusing but that is how DoubleU speaks when he is ad-libbing, most of what he says on TV has been rehearsed, sometimes enough so that he can actually write down his arguments before the show. Anywho.
A couple of weeks ago, on a Wednesday night I met my girl at her office for Date Night. We walked to the Helix Lounge, which is on Rhode Island over by Scott Circle, not exactly close to L and 20th, but not a far hike either. On Wednesday nights they serve cheap burgers and beer (which is why we went there) and they also have (which we learned) dog night, so there were all these dogs around. The dogs were cute and we had a fun time watching them. I think she might even be looking forward to getting a dog now. She always told me we could have a dog when she had a ring on her finger (= fair enough), but now I may not have to wait for that moment, although I am not so sure it will be a long wait regardless.
After that we walked up the 18th Street Lounge to meet some friends, but it just was not our thing, as it was reggae night. That means there is this really loud and obnoxious music playing, music that was designed for poor folks to resist the upper class, nevermind the crowd at 18th is anything but poor. The musicians were easily the poorest lot on the bar that night, any night. They also burn incense, and a lot of it (ostensibly to cover up the marijuana smoking.) My sinuses were being torn up and I wanted to leave, so we started to leave when we ran into DoubleU and Sori outside the club. Sori had the day off from a 3 day swing into Philly, so he was enjoying the rare night out. ‘Rare until October’ we always tease him, although I was happy when he ended up not being traded to another team that might be using him in October.
They decided not to go in when we told them about Reggae Night. DoubleU invited us back to his place to watch some movies. His TV is always on, when not watching baseball he is always watching movies. I wonder how he manages to get so much work done.
He had just received Hitch from NetFlix so he put it in. We all made fun of him for this choice, but he was relentless about giving it a try. I must admit the movie was much better than I thought it would be. There was some horrible dialogue, advice to writers: stop working it, let it happen. I must admit I am surprised Will Smith would even agree to say some of that crap. The Tom Brady cameo was odd. Eva Mendes has a big bootie and they were not afraid to let it show. It was entertaining, I think because Will Smith made it happen; I bet he can by sheer willpower make things happen and make things work. Fresh Prince. Enemy of the State, lord knows that was not Gene Hackman’s doing. *pun alert* If you disagree with me here, then suffice it to say you “just don’t understand.” *pun alert off*
After Hitch it was late and we all had to get some rest, although I guess Sori and I had the next day off. But DoubleU had some work to do so he turfed us out and the girl and I returned home. It was a gorgeous night out and I wish these days of summer would never end.
Not a great return of the Beltway Boys, but there is more stuff I am working on writing down in between commercial breaks of the Rescue Me marathon I have DVRed.
23 August 2006
Worrywort
Form the backfiles and recently discovered from the November/December 2004 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
Nuclear terrorism would be horrific, but nuclear war would be far worse. As Lynn Eden reported in “City on Fire,” fire damage from nuclear explosions has been vastly and systematically underestimated – a move that allowed early U.S. war planners to demand a much larger nuclear arsenal. As Eden wrote, a single 300-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated above the Pentagon on a clear day would engulf the surrounding 65 square miles in firestorms that would “extinguish all life and destroy almost everything else.” And that’s a conservative estimate.
It is nice revisiting this as I now live within 65 miles of the Pentagon. I guess the worse fear is that if my death was not immediate then I would be frightened and possibly in bodily pain. The worse part though is thinking that the girl and I would be separated. She works only a few blocks from the White House, so odds are good I would not see her again. Would I try to fight my way there to check on her, or would I flee hoping to put some distance between myself and the cataclysm so I could hopefully survive? I don’t know what I would do. Not knowing also scares me, as Denzel Washington’s character in Man on Fire says, “there is no tough, there is only trained and untrained.” I want to be trained, having gone through these scenarios in my mind so if they do happen then I can act and not be paralyzed or even delayed in action.
BTW, how bad are the Nationals looking these days? I just try to imagine how great a year Soriano would be having if he were on a good team. More scenarios for which, I am sure, Sori is probably preparing himself.
Nuclear terrorism would be horrific, but nuclear war would be far worse. As Lynn Eden reported in “City on Fire,” fire damage from nuclear explosions has been vastly and systematically underestimated – a move that allowed early U.S. war planners to demand a much larger nuclear arsenal. As Eden wrote, a single 300-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated above the Pentagon on a clear day would engulf the surrounding 65 square miles in firestorms that would “extinguish all life and destroy almost everything else.” And that’s a conservative estimate.
It is nice revisiting this as I now live within 65 miles of the Pentagon. I guess the worse fear is that if my death was not immediate then I would be frightened and possibly in bodily pain. The worse part though is thinking that the girl and I would be separated. She works only a few blocks from the White House, so odds are good I would not see her again. Would I try to fight my way there to check on her, or would I flee hoping to put some distance between myself and the cataclysm so I could hopefully survive? I don’t know what I would do. Not knowing also scares me, as Denzel Washington’s character in Man on Fire says, “there is no tough, there is only trained and untrained.” I want to be trained, having gone through these scenarios in my mind so if they do happen then I can act and not be paralyzed or even delayed in action.
BTW, how bad are the Nationals looking these days? I just try to imagine how great a year Soriano would be having if he were on a good team. More scenarios for which, I am sure, Sori is probably preparing himself.
19 August 2006
Adams Morgarita Fest
As I write this I am a little tipsy, so please pardon my dust. To-day was the first annual Adam Morgarita Fest. The girl and I rose out of bed around 2 in the afternoon and decided we would cruise the bars in Adams Morgan in search of the best margarita.
The first bar we went to was Ventnors. There were many other bars we would have ende dup at except that it was only 2 and they were not yet open. It was very strange and the topic of most of our discussion while at Ventners. The ritas were good. She felt they were too sweet, but I relay enjoyed it. The free popcorn was excellent and except for the Yankees fan cheering (they were beating the BoSox at this point) it was a nice excursion. We left and the next open place we found was Tom Tom. The girl .had been here a couple of times in the 2 months I had been away working in Detroit, but it was a nice place. My margarita was almost tasteless, but I felt that was probably due to the quality of the pours involved. After Tom Tom she was drunk so out of a N of 2, I can say that Ventnors had a better margarita, $1.50 more expensive, than Tom Tom. And she will say Tom Tom had the cheaper, although without the yummy free popcorn, and tastier margarita. Mind you, she was drunk.
We then stopped by Safeway and bought some crackers, Basque cheese, hard salami and a bottle of Berringer’s 2005 White Zinfadel. I also snuck in a box of Chicken on a Biskit, which is the ultimate remainder of my white trash life, which she likes. We then came home and ate the crackers and wine while watching the last few episodes of Season 3 of Simple Life. What a great show for a Sat. afternoon.
On the way home there was a set of drawers sitting on the corner which looked acceptable. Since my return from Detroit we realized we needed to get her a set of drawers for the closet, and this seemed perfect, if only because it was light enough for me to carry back to the apartment in a slightly inebriated state.
The last season is genius. Paris, being lazy hires a double and then schedules her for the wrong day, so Nicole shows up and makes the double do all kinds of craziness. About to give a damaging interview, Paris is informed of the double cross and then shows up, so we get the eventual Paris v. Nicole showdown, only to be continued next season. But, the production of it is just brilliant. We were so happy with it. With our wine, cheese and salami and crackers. We think we are the ultimate in white trash disguised. Maybe she is disguised, my friends know me for what I am, but she would shock people with her trailer like qualities.
I declare Adams Morgarita Fest a success. Now back to the Colorado at DC United tied game and the Halo Graphic Novel.
The first bar we went to was Ventnors. There were many other bars we would have ende dup at except that it was only 2 and they were not yet open. It was very strange and the topic of most of our discussion while at Ventners. The ritas were good. She felt they were too sweet, but I relay enjoyed it. The free popcorn was excellent and except for the Yankees fan cheering (they were beating the BoSox at this point) it was a nice excursion. We left and the next open place we found was Tom Tom. The girl .had been here a couple of times in the 2 months I had been away working in Detroit, but it was a nice place. My margarita was almost tasteless, but I felt that was probably due to the quality of the pours involved. After Tom Tom she was drunk so out of a N of 2, I can say that Ventnors had a better margarita, $1.50 more expensive, than Tom Tom. And she will say Tom Tom had the cheaper, although without the yummy free popcorn, and tastier margarita. Mind you, she was drunk.
We then stopped by Safeway and bought some crackers, Basque cheese, hard salami and a bottle of Berringer’s 2005 White Zinfadel. I also snuck in a box of Chicken on a Biskit, which is the ultimate remainder of my white trash life, which she likes. We then came home and ate the crackers and wine while watching the last few episodes of Season 3 of Simple Life. What a great show for a Sat. afternoon.
On the way home there was a set of drawers sitting on the corner which looked acceptable. Since my return from Detroit we realized we needed to get her a set of drawers for the closet, and this seemed perfect, if only because it was light enough for me to carry back to the apartment in a slightly inebriated state.
The last season is genius. Paris, being lazy hires a double and then schedules her for the wrong day, so Nicole shows up and makes the double do all kinds of craziness. About to give a damaging interview, Paris is informed of the double cross and then shows up, so we get the eventual Paris v. Nicole showdown, only to be continued next season. But, the production of it is just brilliant. We were so happy with it. With our wine, cheese and salami and crackers. We think we are the ultimate in white trash disguised. Maybe she is disguised, my friends know me for what I am, but she would shock people with her trailer like qualities.
I declare Adams Morgarita Fest a success. Now back to the Colorado at DC United tied game and the Halo Graphic Novel.
18 August 2006
Snakes on a Plane
Let me just say there are snakes in that movie. If by snakes the movie producers mean, as I do, an unseen force that alters the moods of objects. I loved this movie and yet when looking back on it and when trying to describe it to friends I realize that I should not have enjoyed it. I am not spoiling anything by explaining that the reason why the snakes go crazy and attack everyone is because there are pheromones on the plane. There must have been pheromones in the theater. Every cheap and silly cliché of a suspense is present, including the snakes fondness for attacking people in their most vulnerable spots, the genitalia.
The snakes cling to their victims, as only snakes in Hollywood do. The snakes approach menacingly as only snakes in Hollywood do. The story ends with a cheesy tie-in to the first line of Agent Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) as only stories in Hollywood do. While there is not anything that lets you know the movie is mocking these tropes instead of buying into them, I could not help but enjoy the moments. This movie was more entertaining than Pirates and even more entertaining than Captain Jack Sparrow without the detritus of the Pirates franchise. I do like how the producers were not afraid to kill people, and cute dogs. Lots of people and lots of pets. It was almost as thrilling as in House of wax when they killed Paris Hilton. If they cannot kill her off, then at least they can kill off the chic trend she started.
I loved it and I don’t know why. It must be the pheromones in the theater. Now if only I could stop seeing everything through these foggy green lenses. I wonder if the FTA will change their ban on liquids on flights to allow olive oil.
The snakes cling to their victims, as only snakes in Hollywood do. The snakes approach menacingly as only snakes in Hollywood do. The story ends with a cheesy tie-in to the first line of Agent Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) as only stories in Hollywood do. While there is not anything that lets you know the movie is mocking these tropes instead of buying into them, I could not help but enjoy the moments. This movie was more entertaining than Pirates and even more entertaining than Captain Jack Sparrow without the detritus of the Pirates franchise. I do like how the producers were not afraid to kill people, and cute dogs. Lots of people and lots of pets. It was almost as thrilling as in House of wax when they killed Paris Hilton. If they cannot kill her off, then at least they can kill off the chic trend she started.
I loved it and I don’t know why. It must be the pheromones in the theater. Now if only I could stop seeing everything through these foggy green lenses. I wonder if the FTA will change their ban on liquids on flights to allow olive oil.
22 June 2006
Another new book
I just bought a new book: Another world is possible if… by Susan George. I do not know who George is, but the title intrigued me. It is also published by Verso, which I have a crush on. I am not sure, but I love the books by Verso, the way they feel, the way they read and the stuff they talk about. Sometimes they are too complex and sometimes they are not challenging enough, but when I go into a bookstore, I look first for Verso books.
At first I thought this book would be critical of the counter-culture, her introduction deals rather sufficiently yet briefly with this labeling, but it is not. It is instead a blueprint for the counter-culture. We shall see how I find it. If nothing else, it will provide me, akin to Ann Coulter’s books, with material to write about, usually critically.
The book is laid out in strange chapters, they are arranged by the steps needed to achieve this new world (such as targeting the correct opponents, combining knowledge and politics, etc…). Simply put George says we can achieve a new world if we change the world (read: make the world a-new). Tautological? Of course, it is. She would argue that the new world of the title is a large systemic change whereas the new worlds of the blueprint are smaller changes. This resurgent Marxism, however, still suffers from the problems of the original Marxism. It assumes this dual structuration of the world, one we can call the base (superstructure) and the other we can call ideology, party, culture, or any of a host of terms depending on one’s focus in life as they went through their schooling. What if this duality does not exist but rather merely appears to exist. What if there is something more fundamental which links the base to the ideology, etc? I am curious to see if George escapes this dilemma or if she plies her way through some changes neglecting why these factors came into place originally.
At first I thought this book would be critical of the counter-culture, her introduction deals rather sufficiently yet briefly with this labeling, but it is not. It is instead a blueprint for the counter-culture. We shall see how I find it. If nothing else, it will provide me, akin to Ann Coulter’s books, with material to write about, usually critically.
The book is laid out in strange chapters, they are arranged by the steps needed to achieve this new world (such as targeting the correct opponents, combining knowledge and politics, etc…). Simply put George says we can achieve a new world if we change the world (read: make the world a-new). Tautological? Of course, it is. She would argue that the new world of the title is a large systemic change whereas the new worlds of the blueprint are smaller changes. This resurgent Marxism, however, still suffers from the problems of the original Marxism. It assumes this dual structuration of the world, one we can call the base (superstructure) and the other we can call ideology, party, culture, or any of a host of terms depending on one’s focus in life as they went through their schooling. What if this duality does not exist but rather merely appears to exist. What if there is something more fundamental which links the base to the ideology, etc? I am curious to see if George escapes this dilemma or if she plies her way through some changes neglecting why these factors came into place originally.
19 June 2006
Carolina wins Stanley Cup
I am glad Edmonton did not win the Stanley Cup. The obvious reason is because they are Socialist (read: Canadian) and Carolina is from American. Too obvious. Another good reason is because they have won many and Carolina has not, alright I can deal with that one. But, my reason is much more base and silly: I hate Chris Pronger. I am not sure why. I have vague recollections of saying his name in disgust during my Dallas days. But that was years ago and since then I had a year with no hockey only to be followed with another year without hockey as I do not receive OLN at my current home. Something about being too physical, too big and too big a nuisance for my Dallas Stars. You know what? I am fine with that explanation. I am comfortable that many people might say it does not qualify as a legitimate reason. This is not to say, a la Dallas Mavericks, the world is stacked against me. I just think if I were to hear that explanation from someone I would find them petty and trite. Ok, I can accept that.
06 June 2006
Carlin Romano on Dworkin and Me on Rescue Me
Carlin Romano must surely feel proud of himself, so much so he even ‘invents’ a word for why is he is so self-congratulatory: vicarian, one “who expend[s] their mental energy dissecting what another type of person does.” His article is a criticism of Ronald Dworkin for being, here comes the punch line, too self-congratulatory.
A vicarian is merely one who interprets the actions of another, interpreting in order to divine a reason for an action. That tone of voice he used? The color handbag she carries? The look on his face when you said that? Those are all the acts of a vicarian and I contend there is no such thing as a vicarian because we are all vicarians (I call it destruction through saturation, when the word becomes useless as a term of discrimination.)
Instead of being Dworkins and Romanos I think we should instead strive to be Gavins. Tommy Gavin that is, Dennis Leary’s character in Rescue Me. I have had my share of shows that I enjoyed in my lifetime but I do not think I have ever so eagerly anticipated not only a new season but a new episode of a show like I do for to-night’s episode of Rescue Me. The trailer makes it seem to be a horny episode, one where little of the story line is advanced and instead it is a fireman’s plight to get some tail. But that is the genius of the show. It refuses to take itself too seriously, recognizing that tail chasing is plot advancement, just not in the smug sense we have become accustomed to.
A vicarian is merely one who interprets the actions of another, interpreting in order to divine a reason for an action. That tone of voice he used? The color handbag she carries? The look on his face when you said that? Those are all the acts of a vicarian and I contend there is no such thing as a vicarian because we are all vicarians (I call it destruction through saturation, when the word becomes useless as a term of discrimination.)
Instead of being Dworkins and Romanos I think we should instead strive to be Gavins. Tommy Gavin that is, Dennis Leary’s character in Rescue Me. I have had my share of shows that I enjoyed in my lifetime but I do not think I have ever so eagerly anticipated not only a new season but a new episode of a show like I do for to-night’s episode of Rescue Me. The trailer makes it seem to be a horny episode, one where little of the story line is advanced and instead it is a fireman’s plight to get some tail. But that is the genius of the show. It refuses to take itself too seriously, recognizing that tail chasing is plot advancement, just not in the smug sense we have become accustomed to.
05 June 2006
I do love this city. I walked down to Adams Morgan Hardware on 18th because I needed a wrench and three small screws for some Ikea stuff to help organize the new pat. It is so wonderful for this boy from the suburbs to walk in the city and be able to accomplish tasks using only hoof power. I have lived in some cities with my DOS time, but even then the freedom to range was not like it is here. Maybe I will own a ranch to escape to at times, but I love living in the city, and I particularly love this city.
I was returning home, with the screws but not the wrench as I did not bring any of the bolts with me. Dumas. As I arrived at the intersection of Lanier and Quarry, crossing Quarry continuing up Lanier I paused, because a minivan had pulled up and I wanted to make sure it did not turn, running into me. Then I noticed to the van’s right was a small red hatchback pacing the van in reverse. This possibly large man was behind the wheel yelling at the minivan driver to f-off because he has a black ass or is a black ass, I was not sure what he said, until – “Nigger.”
I yelled at the man, without thinking, to “shut the fuck up” and he turned to me immediately. The van drove off between us, past us and Lanier and then Argonne Place and the red car has stopped in the intersection. “Fuck you!,” I could see him fumbling for the seatbelt. I slid the earphones out my ears and unplugged them from the iPod (stopping the playing and saving battery power) so I could wrap the cords around the device. He stepped out of the car - a huge, real porterhouse of a man.
If I have not talked about it yet, I am average. Average height. Average weight. Average physical shape. I have always been more athletic than the next guy, but not enough to be overcome my genetics. But this guy is a monster compared to me. When I was in 3rd grade I had one day really pissed off a 6th grader. He came after me and by the time he had caught up to me I was off school grounds and in the alley that ran along the back border. There was, fortunately for me, a pipe on the ground and I picked it up just in time to hit him in the back twice. He ran off and I did not get in any trouble (I am not sure he even complained, having received an ass-kicking by a 3rd grader). Well, isn’t Karma a bitch (why is Karma a woman)? I have been in fights all my life, even some overseas that could have ended very badly for me, but they never did. Payback.
“Yes, I was scared,” I told the police who took my report. “Yes, I was scared,” I told the nurse who cared for me my night of observation in the hospital. “Yes, I was scared,” I told the officer who booked me on assault charges. “Yes, I was scared,” I told Lucy when she bailed me out. But, I am from Texas and I have some weird notions of how a man is supposed to live, which is a good reason why we should not be in charge of large militaristic organizations.
I learned this lesson a long time ago as an undergraduate: even though a fight may seem inevitable, if I swing first I will get charged for instigating it, especially if (I learned back then the guy was the son of the county DA) the guy is an off-duty cop. Judges also seem to think it appropriate to augment your bail, even though you did not know the guy was a cop and even if he parked his car and came out at you. Government sucks. This is was between the two of us, why was the government involved? I got my ass kicked, why do I have to pay bail on top of the hospital bills (insurance does not want to pay much of what I think they ought to pay, a fight that is even harder given the result of the police report.) But, then again that may just be the plight of a Texan in DC: bad things will happen. I should not have involved myself in the affair.
I was returning home, with the screws but not the wrench as I did not bring any of the bolts with me. Dumas. As I arrived at the intersection of Lanier and Quarry, crossing Quarry continuing up Lanier I paused, because a minivan had pulled up and I wanted to make sure it did not turn, running into me. Then I noticed to the van’s right was a small red hatchback pacing the van in reverse. This possibly large man was behind the wheel yelling at the minivan driver to f-off because he has a black ass or is a black ass, I was not sure what he said, until – “Nigger.”
I yelled at the man, without thinking, to “shut the fuck up” and he turned to me immediately. The van drove off between us, past us and Lanier and then Argonne Place and the red car has stopped in the intersection. “Fuck you!,” I could see him fumbling for the seatbelt. I slid the earphones out my ears and unplugged them from the iPod (stopping the playing and saving battery power) so I could wrap the cords around the device. He stepped out of the car - a huge, real porterhouse of a man.
If I have not talked about it yet, I am average. Average height. Average weight. Average physical shape. I have always been more athletic than the next guy, but not enough to be overcome my genetics. But this guy is a monster compared to me. When I was in 3rd grade I had one day really pissed off a 6th grader. He came after me and by the time he had caught up to me I was off school grounds and in the alley that ran along the back border. There was, fortunately for me, a pipe on the ground and I picked it up just in time to hit him in the back twice. He ran off and I did not get in any trouble (I am not sure he even complained, having received an ass-kicking by a 3rd grader). Well, isn’t Karma a bitch (why is Karma a woman)? I have been in fights all my life, even some overseas that could have ended very badly for me, but they never did. Payback.
“Yes, I was scared,” I told the police who took my report. “Yes, I was scared,” I told the nurse who cared for me my night of observation in the hospital. “Yes, I was scared,” I told the officer who booked me on assault charges. “Yes, I was scared,” I told Lucy when she bailed me out. But, I am from Texas and I have some weird notions of how a man is supposed to live, which is a good reason why we should not be in charge of large militaristic organizations.
I learned this lesson a long time ago as an undergraduate: even though a fight may seem inevitable, if I swing first I will get charged for instigating it, especially if (I learned back then the guy was the son of the county DA) the guy is an off-duty cop. Judges also seem to think it appropriate to augment your bail, even though you did not know the guy was a cop and even if he parked his car and came out at you. Government sucks. This is was between the two of us, why was the government involved? I got my ass kicked, why do I have to pay bail on top of the hospital bills (insurance does not want to pay much of what I think they ought to pay, a fight that is even harder given the result of the police report.) But, then again that may just be the plight of a Texan in DC: bad things will happen. I should not have involved myself in the affair.
18 May 2006
Found Fiction: Penthouse June 2000 page 30
Medical benefits may be inhaled because the statute of limitations has expired. Travis reassured Nirav that ‘inhaled’ was indeed in the letter. “‘You can eat it’ is what he is trying to tell you”, Travis thought he saw confusion and/or betrayal on Nirav’s face. “It’s too late and they refuse to pay for the treatment.” “But I came out of the coma, I have not been able to act on this until now”, Nirav was starting to sweat and the machine hooked up to the cables that extended below the sheets and were somehow/somewhere connected to him began to beep more frequently. “Yea, this sucks,” pointing to the now active machine, “Do I need to call someone?”
The judge was living with the manufacturers in bitterness. He had accepted the bribes many years ago and only once had he been called upon to earn the money he had received back then and also received in the form of a monthly allowance to a 4 star hotel room stocked with cocaine, liquor and Mandy, his preferred escort from Madam Ovary’s Escort Service. His wife had been injured almost 4 years ago to the date in a freakish monkey incident at a drive through wildlife park. The manufacturer of the car window was at fault for the damages and they settled with the Judge in a manner that made him richer and allowed him to maintain a quality of life, despite the recent debilitating injury to his wife. The Judge had already prepared himself for the inevitable knock on the door, preferably his home door and not the office door at the Menshowitz Law Center in downtown Bethesda, by the police for his arrest. Things just spiraled out of control and he no longer cared. His wife would not even notice his absence; only Mandy would, which was enough reason for him to continue with the charade.
Cochran slowed down to understand justice. He was constantly on the move: organizing protests, demonstrations, rallies and the occasional stint in jail for his civil disobedience. This case, however, forced him to focus his attention in another manner, by reading books about the legal options available to Nirav. While you had to admire his gusto and willingness to fight the law through non-legal means (supposedly avoiding cooptation), it was difficult to condone his actions if he was actually your attorney.
One fallen comrade after an autopsy asked the Navy for outstanding achievement. Obviously, he didn’t ask for the commendation, but the coroner’s interpretation (especially given the absence of a counterinterpretation) of the corpse shows the extreme duress the sailor was in when he acted heroically. The autopsy file was later used by the family to push for a posthumous award from the Navy, but the outcome of that wrangling has yet to be determined. This observer doubts such a commendation will be granted, because the sailor only acted heroically if you accept the duress he was already working under. Without that previous duress, then the sailor was merely following orders. The contractor that made the transparent shield has a lot of pull with the Pentagon and will probably get the commendation quashed, as it would otherwise draw attention to their cost-cutting measures (notice the savings were not passed on to the Pentagon but rather to the contractor’s profit column.)
He earned Cochran’s alarm. Not that he wanted to. Here is the catch to having a vocal attorney. When the injury is life-threatening attorneys will convey the sense of urgency and fight more vigorously for their client. But Cochran becomes even more (too?) vocal. When one has such a vocal attorney it is hard to not be reminded that your life is inevitably and quickly coming to an end and that your family has yet to be cared for. Cochran does try to comfort you by telling you that your family will be taken care of, but there is still a lot of anxiety that it will not happen or at least not soon enough. There is also the nagging fear that Cochran’s critics (not always the biased opposition either, which makes the critics even more credible) are correct: his antics ramp up the anxiety levels of his client and the family, accelerating the client’s demise. The best example was a poor teenager hurt by a drunk-driving city councilwoman: a local hippie turned chic-liberator told the boy’s mother, within earshot, that Cochran was a horrible attorney because the worst possible thing that could happen to his career was for him to win thereby losing the ability to say, “I told you so!”
The others immediately telephoned Dr. Jajosky, who’d been misdiagnosed. The shaky hands, the stammering, the recent accidents in the operating room. It was all circumstantial until the police pulled her over, in her car, with him asleep in the passenger seat. They found the cocaine easily enough; it had actually slipped out from under the seat and was easily seen by the police officer looking down at the two through the open convertible top. She panicked and said it was his. He panicked and protected her. They called the house to see if the Dr. Jajosky in the papers was indeed the Dr. Jajosky. She panicked and told the truth (having learned her lesson not to panic and tell a lie), which made them quite happy. They vultured his practice, robbing it of patients and staff and then when he was down on his luck they bought his equipment. Somehow the board found out about his conviction (he had denied the possession and actually blamed her, but the court determined he was lying, which earns a sentence enhancement) and denied him membership permanently, even though he would only be away from his practice for 4 months, far short of the One Year Hiatus Rule that determines recertification requirements.
He said, “That man is crazy.” He then turned and continued to mutter and point to himself as he walked down Pennsylvania Avenue until the next stop to whisper something to those tourists.
Cochran was insane. He had been committed under a different name and it was only time until someone found out. But until then Cochran enjoyed fighting for the little guy and yelling about “violence inherent in the system.” One observer had pointed out that it was a Monty Python line, but Cochran insisted that proved the critique: social commentary is dismissed merely because it is in a movie that makes people laugh. The observer shouted back. “It’s dismissed because they’re British.” The crowd laughed and Cochran returned home, reminded of a Tom Robbins truism: never be laughed at personally, but it is okay if it is on your client’s behalf.
He should have raised the whole tone off bad vibes.
What? That sentence makes no sense. Raised the tone off bad vibes?
It’s poetic; it isn’t too bad. But I can only think of the Cochran storyline, I need something new.
Forget it, this is a stupid exercise. It takes too much time, besides the Nationals are beating the Cubs for the first time this year.
Really? I’m coming.
The Pentagon knew to ignore a sick, creepy feeling.
Dr. Jajosky’s response, a lazy, bureaucratic tone, found a call from the Navy and when he finally said, “No” Dr. Jajosky diagnosed you.
Medical benefits may be inhaled because the statute of limitations has expired. Travis reassured Nirav that ‘inhaled’ was indeed in the letter. “‘You can eat it’ is what he is trying to tell you”, Travis thought he saw confusion and/or betrayal on Nirav’s face. “It’s too late and they refuse to pay for the treatment.” “But I came out of the coma, I have not been able to act on this until now”, Nirav was starting to sweat and the machine hooked up to the cables that extended below the sheets and were somehow/somewhere connected to him began to beep more frequently. “Yea, this sucks,” pointing to the now active machine, “Do I need to call someone?”
The judge was living with the manufacturers in bitterness. He had accepted the bribes many years ago and only once had he been called upon to earn the money he had received back then and also received in the form of a monthly allowance to a 4 star hotel room stocked with cocaine, liquor and Mandy, his preferred escort from Madam Ovary’s Escort Service. His wife had been injured almost 4 years ago to the date in a freakish monkey incident at a drive through wildlife park. The manufacturer of the car window was at fault for the damages and they settled with the Judge in a manner that made him richer and allowed him to maintain a quality of life, despite the recent debilitating injury to his wife. The Judge had already prepared himself for the inevitable knock on the door, preferably his home door and not the office door at the Menshowitz Law Center in downtown Bethesda, by the police for his arrest. Things just spiraled out of control and he no longer cared. His wife would not even notice his absence; only Mandy would, which was enough reason for him to continue with the charade.
Cochran slowed down to understand justice. He was constantly on the move: organizing protests, demonstrations, rallies and the occasional stint in jail for his civil disobedience. This case, however, forced him to focus his attention in another manner, by reading books about the legal options available to Nirav. While you had to admire his gusto and willingness to fight the law through non-legal means (supposedly avoiding cooptation), it was difficult to condone his actions if he was actually your attorney.
One fallen comrade after an autopsy asked the Navy for outstanding achievement. Obviously, he didn’t ask for the commendation, but the coroner’s interpretation (especially given the absence of a counterinterpretation) of the corpse shows the extreme duress the sailor was in when he acted heroically. The autopsy file was later used by the family to push for a posthumous award from the Navy, but the outcome of that wrangling has yet to be determined. This observer doubts such a commendation will be granted, because the sailor only acted heroically if you accept the duress he was already working under. Without that previous duress, then the sailor was merely following orders. The contractor that made the transparent shield has a lot of pull with the Pentagon and will probably get the commendation quashed, as it would otherwise draw attention to their cost-cutting measures (notice the savings were not passed on to the Pentagon but rather to the contractor’s profit column.)
He earned Cochran’s alarm. Not that he wanted to. Here is the catch to having a vocal attorney. When the injury is life-threatening attorneys will convey the sense of urgency and fight more vigorously for their client. But Cochran becomes even more (too?) vocal. When one has such a vocal attorney it is hard to not be reminded that your life is inevitably and quickly coming to an end and that your family has yet to be cared for. Cochran does try to comfort you by telling you that your family will be taken care of, but there is still a lot of anxiety that it will not happen or at least not soon enough. There is also the nagging fear that Cochran’s critics (not always the biased opposition either, which makes the critics even more credible) are correct: his antics ramp up the anxiety levels of his client and the family, accelerating the client’s demise. The best example was a poor teenager hurt by a drunk-driving city councilwoman: a local hippie turned chic-liberator told the boy’s mother, within earshot, that Cochran was a horrible attorney because the worst possible thing that could happen to his career was for him to win thereby losing the ability to say, “I told you so!”
The others immediately telephoned Dr. Jajosky, who’d been misdiagnosed. The shaky hands, the stammering, the recent accidents in the operating room. It was all circumstantial until the police pulled her over, in her car, with him asleep in the passenger seat. They found the cocaine easily enough; it had actually slipped out from under the seat and was easily seen by the police officer looking down at the two through the open convertible top. She panicked and said it was his. He panicked and protected her. They called the house to see if the Dr. Jajosky in the papers was indeed the Dr. Jajosky. She panicked and told the truth (having learned her lesson not to panic and tell a lie), which made them quite happy. They vultured his practice, robbing it of patients and staff and then when he was down on his luck they bought his equipment. Somehow the board found out about his conviction (he had denied the possession and actually blamed her, but the court determined he was lying, which earns a sentence enhancement) and denied him membership permanently, even though he would only be away from his practice for 4 months, far short of the One Year Hiatus Rule that determines recertification requirements.
He said, “That man is crazy.” He then turned and continued to mutter and point to himself as he walked down Pennsylvania Avenue until the next stop to whisper something to those tourists.
Cochran was insane. He had been committed under a different name and it was only time until someone found out. But until then Cochran enjoyed fighting for the little guy and yelling about “violence inherent in the system.” One observer had pointed out that it was a Monty Python line, but Cochran insisted that proved the critique: social commentary is dismissed merely because it is in a movie that makes people laugh. The observer shouted back. “It’s dismissed because they’re British.” The crowd laughed and Cochran returned home, reminded of a Tom Robbins truism: never be laughed at personally, but it is okay if it is on your client’s behalf.
He should have raised the whole tone off bad vibes.
What? That sentence makes no sense. Raised the tone off bad vibes?
It’s poetic; it isn’t too bad. But I can only think of the Cochran storyline, I need something new.
Forget it, this is a stupid exercise. It takes too much time, besides the Nationals are beating the Cubs for the first time this year.
Really? I’m coming.
The Pentagon knew to ignore a sick, creepy feeling.
Dr. Jajosky’s response, a lazy, bureaucratic tone, found a call from the Navy and when he finally said, “No” Dr. Jajosky diagnosed you.
17 May 2006
The latest news about corporate America has had a more profound shift on our society than just an increase in incarceration rates. People are being downsized and people are publicly distancing themselves from larger bastions of wealth. In short, it is become less taboo to identify as or with the working class, see the New York Times survey in the May 15, 2005 edition. This is significant for the Democratic Party.
Politicians have been accused of neglecting the working class, aiming instead for the middle class. This strategy makes sense, or rather made sense. The working class were disenfranchised, while there is a rich debate about why this is so it is an afterthought for campaigning politicians, and were the least likely to vote. Campaigning for the hearts of non-voters seemed to be a sure way to lose. The shift from the middle class to the working class changes this calculus.
Some might argue that this shift is another irrelevancy for the campaigning politicians. Voting numbers are not increasing as a result of this shift, merely the self-identification of some voters. But, this is shallow analysis. Politicians can now change their messages in the traditional forums to be more working class. While this message might still fall on some deaf ears, there are an increasing number of people that will be attuned to this message that at one time were not. This shift also means politicians can campaign in non-traditional areas and have some results to show for it. Traditionally, a trip into a ghetto would not garner any votes, but now it will garner some votes as the ghetto has become larger and as people not in a ghetto will listen to the message delivered in the ghetto.
This strategy would also help recast the Democratic Party as the opposition party. It would also help overcome a failing of the traditional middle class approach: the best way to suppress the voting turnout of the working class and to disenfranchise them is to make them feel unwelcome and unimportant. Returning to this group will also counter the low voter turnouts as well as recast the political debate in this country. “American culture promotes a deep denial about the determinative power of class.” (Entin, 2005, 1211) This class amnesia has not helped the Democratic Party and has allowed the boughs of government to be controlled by Republicans, the reason is simple: if we are classless, wouldn’t a rational person want to be the rich one? We need to deny this premise of American culture and recast in terms favorable to the Democratic Party.
Entin, J. (2005). Class, culture, and the working body. American Quarterly, 57(4), 1211-1221.
Politicians have been accused of neglecting the working class, aiming instead for the middle class. This strategy makes sense, or rather made sense. The working class were disenfranchised, while there is a rich debate about why this is so it is an afterthought for campaigning politicians, and were the least likely to vote. Campaigning for the hearts of non-voters seemed to be a sure way to lose. The shift from the middle class to the working class changes this calculus.
Some might argue that this shift is another irrelevancy for the campaigning politicians. Voting numbers are not increasing as a result of this shift, merely the self-identification of some voters. But, this is shallow analysis. Politicians can now change their messages in the traditional forums to be more working class. While this message might still fall on some deaf ears, there are an increasing number of people that will be attuned to this message that at one time were not. This shift also means politicians can campaign in non-traditional areas and have some results to show for it. Traditionally, a trip into a ghetto would not garner any votes, but now it will garner some votes as the ghetto has become larger and as people not in a ghetto will listen to the message delivered in the ghetto.
This strategy would also help recast the Democratic Party as the opposition party. It would also help overcome a failing of the traditional middle class approach: the best way to suppress the voting turnout of the working class and to disenfranchise them is to make them feel unwelcome and unimportant. Returning to this group will also counter the low voter turnouts as well as recast the political debate in this country. “American culture promotes a deep denial about the determinative power of class.” (Entin, 2005, 1211) This class amnesia has not helped the Democratic Party and has allowed the boughs of government to be controlled by Republicans, the reason is simple: if we are classless, wouldn’t a rational person want to be the rich one? We need to deny this premise of American culture and recast in terms favorable to the Democratic Party.
Entin, J. (2005). Class, culture, and the working body. American Quarterly, 57(4), 1211-1221.
07 May 2006
“Most literary critics agree that fiction cannot be reduced to mere falsehood. Well-crafted protagonists come to life, pornography causes orgasms, and the pretense that life is what we want it to be may conceivably bring about the desired condition. Hence religious parables, socialist realism, Nazi propaganda.”
-Vollmann, William. 2005. Europe central. P. 25
Spoken like a true literary critic. From Cornell nonetheless. In the Midwest, communication scholars have expounded upon the hint of accuracy within this quotation. Literary critics look for ways the art is non-fiction: the way the movie is a documentary. But, they tend to have the equation backward, it is not about art imitating life but rather art constituting life. Communication scholars, by focusing on notions of subjectivity and identity, are able to see life is an acting out of whom we desire to be. This is why President Bush is such a rich study. As a Texan, living in the middle of Yankees, I can see this first hand. People will chastise the President for being stupid and silly, but I see the myths, we as Texan boys are taught, at work. I see the man acting as a cowboy because that is whom we are supposed to be. Want to be in fact.
-Vollmann, William. 2005. Europe central. P. 25
Spoken like a true literary critic. From Cornell nonetheless. In the Midwest, communication scholars have expounded upon the hint of accuracy within this quotation. Literary critics look for ways the art is non-fiction: the way the movie is a documentary. But, they tend to have the equation backward, it is not about art imitating life but rather art constituting life. Communication scholars, by focusing on notions of subjectivity and identity, are able to see life is an acting out of whom we desire to be. This is why President Bush is such a rich study. As a Texan, living in the middle of Yankees, I can see this first hand. People will chastise the President for being stupid and silly, but I see the myths, we as Texan boys are taught, at work. I see the man acting as a cowboy because that is whom we are supposed to be. Want to be in fact.
11 April 2006
Legislating While Black
“Legislating While Black” is Ruth Marcus’ piece to-day in the Washington Post. The lesson is simple, there is some racism behind the McKinney/Capital Hill Police fight. Marcus does dispel, albeit by agreeing with dispellers, the “overt” racism, but then qualifies the mess as caused by “deeply embedded” racism.
Please. The Washington Post is going the educate me about “deeply embedded” racism? This is not a new lesson. While at it why doesn’t Marcus teach me about not hitting police officers, oh wait, she does. I have no problem with what Marcus writes in this piece, except that it would be better served in my doctor’s copy of Highlights. This is elementary. That is why people are so pissed at McKinney, not because she was the victim of racism, but because she initially claimed it was “overt” when everyone knows it was not. People are also pissed because she struck a cop who was only doing his job, albeit arguably poorly.
Marcus should have done some more discussion about this “deeply embedded” racism. Maybe she or her editors don’t know where to look for this issue in the literature, here are some suggestions: search for the term “whiteness” and/or read some books by bel hooks (if for no other reason than to understand why she does not capitalize her name).
This is a serious issue and needs some more examination. Not only did Marcus not provide the necessary coverage, but she does not even lead people to think there is more out there, that there is not more “deeply embedded” thought to explore.
“Legislating While Black” is Ruth Marcus’ piece to-day in the Washington Post. The lesson is simple, there is some racism behind the McKinney/Capital Hill Police fight. Marcus does dispel, albeit by agreeing with dispellers, the “overt” racism, but then qualifies the mess as caused by “deeply embedded” racism.
Please. The Washington Post is going the educate me about “deeply embedded” racism? This is not a new lesson. While at it why doesn’t Marcus teach me about not hitting police officers, oh wait, she does. I have no problem with what Marcus writes in this piece, except that it would be better served in my doctor’s copy of Highlights. This is elementary. That is why people are so pissed at McKinney, not because she was the victim of racism, but because she initially claimed it was “overt” when everyone knows it was not. People are also pissed because she struck a cop who was only doing his job, albeit arguably poorly.
Marcus should have done some more discussion about this “deeply embedded” racism. Maybe she or her editors don’t know where to look for this issue in the literature, here are some suggestions: search for the term “whiteness” and/or read some books by bel hooks (if for no other reason than to understand why she does not capitalize her name).
This is a serious issue and needs some more examination. Not only did Marcus not provide the necessary coverage, but she does not even lead people to think there is more out there, that there is not more “deeply embedded” thought to explore.
10 April 2006
Where is the radical position in debate?
Despite from the redundancy of the question (the radical is already a position, a space which is positioned opposite the non-radical, the normal) it is an important question to ask. Zizek’s latest book offers a clue as to where the radical is located:
[W]e should assert antinomy as irreducible, and conceive the point of radical critique not as a certain determinate position as opposed to another position, but as the irreducible gap between the positions itself, the purely structural interstice between them. (2006, 20)
Fair enough, I guess for that evaluation would require further reading of the book as well as some background reading that has yet to be done on my part, but where does this irreducible position lie in a debate? I argue it lies not with the negative but with the self-effacing move of non-affirmative. It is only with the self-effacing move that the move gains credibility, otherwise it is seen as self-serving in a strategic environment. See Jameson’s discussion of the self-effacing move as the one that can truly be utopian politics.
So, in the debate between Roe and Wade, the radical position lies not in Roe’s freedom now in Wade’s communitarianism, but in a place between, a non-participation in the debate. A call of bullshit, the voice against the War in Iraq (in some context’s also not a radical critique) becomes radical for its non-participation in the debate.
The problem though is best illustrated in Iran. The young radicals did not participate in the recent elections, because they wanted to stay in the radical place. But, the result was backwards. Instead of challenging the structure, those non-radicals did vote and the structure was reinforced. Now Iran is looking at a world that is anachronistic and antithetical to the young radicals’ wishes. Material conditions have worsened, but damn those radicals are now further empowered in their moralizing “We Told You So”. This is thrue desire of the radical, to be more credible in their moralizing. If an improvement of material conditions were the true desire then they would not occupy the radical position and instead adopt a reformist position.
Is this non-materialist stance not truly appropriate for a debate round however? The material conditions are not affected but only imagined, fantasized, regardless of the outcome of the ballot. Why then would debate not be the best forum for a “swing for the fences” mentality?
Despite from the redundancy of the question (the radical is already a position, a space which is positioned opposite the non-radical, the normal) it is an important question to ask. Zizek’s latest book offers a clue as to where the radical is located:
[W]e should assert antinomy as irreducible, and conceive the point of radical critique not as a certain determinate position as opposed to another position, but as the irreducible gap between the positions itself, the purely structural interstice between them. (2006, 20)
Fair enough, I guess for that evaluation would require further reading of the book as well as some background reading that has yet to be done on my part, but where does this irreducible position lie in a debate? I argue it lies not with the negative but with the self-effacing move of non-affirmative. It is only with the self-effacing move that the move gains credibility, otherwise it is seen as self-serving in a strategic environment. See Jameson’s discussion of the self-effacing move as the one that can truly be utopian politics.
So, in the debate between Roe and Wade, the radical position lies not in Roe’s freedom now in Wade’s communitarianism, but in a place between, a non-participation in the debate. A call of bullshit, the voice against the War in Iraq (in some context’s also not a radical critique) becomes radical for its non-participation in the debate.
The problem though is best illustrated in Iran. The young radicals did not participate in the recent elections, because they wanted to stay in the radical place. But, the result was backwards. Instead of challenging the structure, those non-radicals did vote and the structure was reinforced. Now Iran is looking at a world that is anachronistic and antithetical to the young radicals’ wishes. Material conditions have worsened, but damn those radicals are now further empowered in their moralizing “We Told You So”. This is thrue desire of the radical, to be more credible in their moralizing. If an improvement of material conditions were the true desire then they would not occupy the radical position and instead adopt a reformist position.
Is this non-materialist stance not truly appropriate for a debate round however? The material conditions are not affected but only imagined, fantasized, regardless of the outcome of the ballot. Why then would debate not be the best forum for a “swing for the fences” mentality?
08 March 2006
...But the White House can wait...
To-day’s commentary by David Ignatius exposes an interesting paradox of the Bush Administration. The President is supposed to lead the US. The President, while responding to American wishes, is also supposed to push those wants, challenge the public’s beliefs and make us examine what was once common. Sometimes the Bush Administration gets it, such as not succumbing to the vocal sentiment about the harms of global warming. Studies should be done and have been done. What is needed is a justification for more studies. It seems apparent that global climate change is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the questions that remain are about solutions and impacts of the change.
Skepticism is a fine line to walk. As the White House orders more studies it appears les and less to be grounded in justified skepticism and appears to be grounded more in ideological stubborn-ness (read: the very knee-jerk sentimentality the White House is supposed to moderate against.) There is a statement made by Ignatius which is telling. When talking about businesses and their voluntary efforts to deal with climate change, Ignatius argues this is the way to make government act. It is sad that the government’s agenda is determined by business, especially in a field where the very actions are seen as anti-business. The government should push and not be pushed.
To-day’s commentary by David Ignatius exposes an interesting paradox of the Bush Administration. The President is supposed to lead the US. The President, while responding to American wishes, is also supposed to push those wants, challenge the public’s beliefs and make us examine what was once common. Sometimes the Bush Administration gets it, such as not succumbing to the vocal sentiment about the harms of global warming. Studies should be done and have been done. What is needed is a justification for more studies. It seems apparent that global climate change is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the questions that remain are about solutions and impacts of the change.
Skepticism is a fine line to walk. As the White House orders more studies it appears les and less to be grounded in justified skepticism and appears to be grounded more in ideological stubborn-ness (read: the very knee-jerk sentimentality the White House is supposed to moderate against.) There is a statement made by Ignatius which is telling. When talking about businesses and their voluntary efforts to deal with climate change, Ignatius argues this is the way to make government act. It is sad that the government’s agenda is determined by business, especially in a field where the very actions are seen as anti-business. The government should push and not be pushed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
