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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

...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.

The Pharamcist's Mate by Ammy Fusselman

As a rule I do not immediately discount anything because of its size, spiders are attracted to my sweet smelling skin. So, I was willing to approach The Pharmacist’s Mate with some skepticism and caution. Zadie Smith told me about its punch, but I finished the book and even slept for a night before deciding the punch is a fan. It was an okay book, like a slap from an 11 year old. It did become more interesting and even a bit more provoking towards the end, but overall it lacked the emotional impact I was led to believe it would give.

Wanna Buy a Port?

Harold Meyerson (“Wanna Buy a Port?” Washington Post February 22, 2006) wants to go back home. He wants the US as he knew it: machine tool industry still in Cleveland, high-tech manufacturing still in the Eastern seaboard and corporations with a notion of citizenship. As we all learn when moving back in with mother after college, you can never go back home.

The world has changed. Nations are now linked in ways beyond tourism and communications: labor now builds parts that are then shipped abroad to be assembled and then shipped again to be sold in another nation. Corporations are unable to compete without making changes to meet the new global economy. Globalization does not surprise anyone anymore, except when there is supposedly a security interest involved, then some think it is all fire and brimstone in America’s future. The concern this time is about selling port management, note it is not the port or who comes into port, just the management company, to an Arab country. I like how he deploys the word ‘Arab,’ as if it is a dirty word. It is an ambiguous word. The United Arab Emirates share one thing in common with Iran, Pakistan and others: the main religion of its population is Islam. But, that does not excuse ignoring the stark differences between UAE and other Arab nations. UAE is an ally of the US. While there may be some citizens that are disgruntled with US policy in the Middle East, note Miami or any of the other ports are not near these people, it would be a disastrous mistake to conflate UAE as anti-American, similar to saying everyone from Michigan is a threat to FBI buildings everywhere, not just Oklahoma City.

Meyerson then claims security is all-important except when economics is involved. Now I have to ask who is selling whom short here? The Bush Administration, of which I am no fan, has consistently acted against shareholders when security is a concern; a look at our sanctions against China is enough proof of this. There are many export controls on dual use technologies Chinese firms would love to purchase. There are space technologies China is actively looking to purchase that American firms would love to sell. Iran recently opened up bids to American firms to build power plants and to invest in oil fields, yet Bush denies American firms the opportunity to bid for these contracts. All in the name of security.

Meyerson throws up two assumptions that are supposedly so powerful in their charge that evidence and arguments are unnecessary: Arabs bad and security good. I remember the schoolyard recess when we would not let girls play kickball with us: girls bad and athletes good. Let us grow up.

Last night's (December 14) The Apprentice: Martha Stewart.

Dismissing Jim was a no-brainer. I think that dye had already been cast even before the interviews, where I must say Jim was more nonsensical then usual. The editors made some decisions that also cast some doubt on both Dawna and Bethany’s answers in the interviews. “How do you see the Martha brand?” was one of the questions, which is a no-brainer. A soft-pitch. Bethany then says, “I don’t know.” How ridiculous was that? Fortunately, there is one more competition and the interviews alone do not decide it, as Dawna might have been the hire.

I am baffled by Bethany’s choice of teammates. Jim and Ryan made perfect sense to me. Ryan was always correct until the last task, and even then he might have been bang on correct had Song Airlines made a different demographic the targets. Jim does beautiful work it is only when he has to interact with others that his value becomes suspect. Carrie is forgettable. So much so, that I do not remember a thing about her. Leslie, however, is a wonderful salesperson and she would have been my third choice. Leslie also strikes me as professional enough, or is it caring enough about her reputation and her portrayal on national television, that she would not hold a grudge. Carrie is neither professional nor concerned about being petty: it seems the definition of petty is characterized best by Carrie, not caring about how she is perceived instead opting to act out on a grudge. So, Bethany may be ruined by her poor hiring choice. But I think Carrie gave her a way out. When asked about the conflict in the car, Bethany should have immediately realized what was happening and fired Carrie. That would signal a level of professionalism to Martha that is normally hard to come by, especially in an interview format such as this. It would also provide a buffer for a close loss to Dawna. Bethany could then claim some staff troubles and also claim that she took some action, unfortunately not soon enough. The best candidate is not always the one that has the victory but the one that performs best, and firing Carrie might win some Martha points.

I am beginning to think Iranian President Ahmadinejad is being quite brilliant with his campaign against Israel. Please note that brilliance is not always accurate. It seems by ratcheting up the bellicose impression of Iran that is held in the West actually helps Iranian goals. In this current geopolitical climate there is no risk of an invasion against Iran. So, Ahmadinejad knows that if the West fears Iranian nuclear developments they will not result to a military option leaving only a diplomatic solution. In order to gain more concessions from the West he is making the Iranian threat as large as possible. See also the new Iranian action which solicits American contractors to help build nuclear facilities. This helps point the way to Ahmadinejad’s goal, nuclear power and the cheap power which fuels economic growth. Western concessions are also key to achieving this goal, as the nations can send the technology to Iran in an effort to maintain some control and surveillance over illicit reactors that could also be used for nuclear developments.

The critics are for once unanimous and correct: Aeon Flux is a bad movie.

Besides the problems elaborated by the critics, there is a larger problem with the story and one that hits closer to home. Cloning is not bad, at least not for the reasons argued. The movie is a polemic against cloning, which is weird: MTV doing a movie that has at its core a message the Republican Party has at its core (does this answer the ‘liberal biased media’ hypothesis?: a Nader-esque answer that the disputants are both so conservative that any disagreement is really whitewashing?)

Conservatives and MTV think when a person is cloned, there is something else that transfers into the younger besides the elder’s genetics. This something is the X Factor, which some will call soul and others consciousness. In this movie the X Factor is manifest in dreams of previous incarnations and an accelerating unraveling of reality because those dreams are becoming worse.

This is nonsensical. Dreams spring from the brain and the changes that occur to the brain over a person’s life and not from a wellspring of data in the brain at birth. Dreams are the effect of environment and not of genetics. If dreams were genetic then they would be common to a species and not a specific DNA pattern, at which point they would not pose a threat to people. Dreams are material, the soul is not. What makes the soul so special is its immateriality, which then begs the question of how a copy of genes can also replicate a soul? A genetic copy could co-exist with its parent and they would still be unique individuals. They would have different ages, different memories, different experiences and even different souls. If the soul is so special and powerful and immortal then how can it be effected by mere mortals?

But there is a larger issue with this cloning problem. If it is true that cloning can capture the soul then that is exactly what makes cloning inevitable. The main villain of the movie shows that he wants to preserve the cloning procedure precisely because of its ability to capture the X Factor. The preciousness of the X Factor makes people want to capture that power. So, either way we have it, cloning will happen, either because it does reproduce the X Factor or because it does not reproduce the X Factor.

Once we come to a realization that cloning is inevitable then we can move beyond this debate and instead figure ways to make cloning safer and more ethical in its treatments of others.

There is an interesting story in the recent issue of Wired that merits discussion. It is about a Swiss company that is building camel jockey robots, so the slave-boys that currently do the jockeying can be freed and returned home to Sudan. Jim Lewis touches on some of the things this article makes me ponder, particularly when he writes, “But you can argue that progress unaccompanied by a keen ear for context is just a game of Whack-a-Mole. You pound out one problem and another appears right next to it.” But, Lewis needs to go further.

Even though the boys are being returned to freedom from a world of slavery, is this necessarily a good thing? First, we need to isolate the harms that are done to the boys, besides being slaves. Life is supposedly hard for these jockeys, they are malnourished, to keep the weight down, and their injuries are often left untreated. Would these harms exist in Sudan? Possibly. Many of the slaves from the Sudan are seized in the war-torn provinces. While there are some children in the nation that have some amenities we in the West might appreciate, these children are not the ones which are put into slavery. So, it is quite possible that these slave-boys would be malnourished and without adequate medical care either way. It also seems that these boys have the risk of living in a war-torn society if they were to remain or return to Sudan. A hardship compared to the relative stability of living in Qatar.

Now we need to compare the lives of a slave versus the lives of a free person. It is easy for us in the West to condemn the slave-master as evil and the free person as always better off. But is this necessarily so? There are some cultural values that might counter these assumptions of the greatness of freedom. We also have to wonder how free is a 4-year-old boy to begin with? How free is a 4-year-old boy in a war-torn society? How free is a 4-year-old boy in a war-torn society whose cultural practices often come under Western criticism? It seems a measure of transference is in effect here. We try to imagine our lives transposed into the life of a 4-year-old slave, but that is not an accurate measure as we do not know the reality of life as a free-boy or as a slave-boy. I am not arguing that slavery is good, rather that it is complicated and maybe we should pause for some reflection before knee-jerk reacting that they are of course better off as free-boys instead of as slave-boys.

We should also remember that people, even boys I suspect, are quick to attach identity to the place of suppression, so they can internalize the slavery not as the horror as we see it but as life, something to navigate. This is where Salecl’s discussion of The Shawshank Redemption can be useful. Most of the inmates had become institutionalized, looking to the prison life as a structuring force, and often when confronted with the very object of the desire, freedom, they would be consumed by the freedom often committing suicide or committing a crime to be returned to prison life. It is easy for us, as free-people, to look upon the slave-boy with the sympathetic eye, but maybe the slave-boy does not feel the oppression as we fantasize the slave-boy does.

So, what to do? Again, the solution is not to steal free-boys in Sudan away to Qatar, but the solution may not be to repatriate all the boys that are already in Qatar. The end of the article has a brief interview with Abdullah. Abdullah was a slave-boy who rode camels but now is too big to do so. But Abdullah does not necessarily want to return to Sudan, “But now, no. Any job, I can do it. I want to stay here, but when the robot came in there was no job for me.” His life is now in Qatar and maybe ripping him away from that would be just as violent as when he was ripped away from Sudan. The robots are probably good things, as they can be used to prevent the need for new boys, and maybe given the need to test and refine the robots, this moratorium will be the natural way of things. But there are reports of a planeload of boys being returned to Sudan without as much as a health exam. So, this may be another example of our good intentions gone awry.

Two articles today have struck my attention, not only for their differences but also for their similarities. The first is Bruce Lawrence's description of his upcoming book of bin Laden's testimonials. The second is a review by Karen Olsson of a book that is now out about alien abductions, Abducted by Susan Clancy. I will not ruin the reviews implicit in these articles as they are easily found at The Chronicle Review and at Slate.

Alien abductions are not real, per se. They only seem real. The afflicted usually suffer from sleep paralysis which is when "the brain and the body desynchronize briefly before waking up." This moment is then interpreted as a break of non-natural origin. Why is it then interpreted as an alien abduction? This is where the Lawrence can help us fill in some gaps. Olsson explains that it is an attempt to find the purpose of life. Fair enough, but this merely explains the desire for an interpretation and not why this interpretation.

We should look at the role of the state. For bin Laden the state is the enemy, an enemy that does not rest on lines of identity. Lawrence shows how bin Laden thinks of himself as supranational, a modern day Nasser working to revive Muslims. But what would happen if bin Laden was in the majority of the system he criticized? What would he do if he did not have an appeal that rests along minority identity constructions? This is the question that can be answered by the alien abduction problem.

Most of those abducted are white and middle class. They are in the center and not on the margins, which is where bin Laden recruits. How do you raise a supranational army of those already in the center of the state system? You fantasize it as an actual supranational system, one that takes notice of you and not of the actual state system. What better way to elevate a sense of one's worth than to have a more powerful group than your current structure pay attention to you, a normally vanilla blended-in white middle class folk? It doesn't help that Hollywood shoves images of aliens and even of alien abductions into our popular culture. Like bin Laden's al-Qaeda tries to do, an extraterrestrial is a perfect counterweight to American primacy, not only abroad but also in our daily lives.

Like bin Laden's project, alien abductions blend a measure of faith with the mundane. This faith aspect is what allows people to cling to the project even in the face of skepticism and counter-arguments. But this faith serves a deeper purpose belied by the previous sentence. Not only does the faith aspect allow one to exist in the face of these skepticisms, but exactly because of the skepticisms. As more and more skepticism is unleashed against those that do believe the stronger their sense of righteousness and faith grows. In a way it is the naysayers like myself that make them so committed.

So, what to do? How about instead of insisting on their incorrectness, we grant them what they seek most, validation. Validation of their experiences as marginalized. Even though they feel this way this does not mean they are impotent, which is the distinction that needs to be hit home. This it seems to me is a hard sell, but a more conciliatory posture would be prudent here.

There is a funny story today on Mcsweeney's (http://mcsweeneys.net) called "The Legend of Me" by Jack Handey. Now we recommend everyone read this story. It is funny, yet Handey is on to something important, especially in international relations thought.

There is a school of thought that likes to think of themselves as distinctly non-realist who say we should not react to threats because those threats are the byproducts of our interpretations and not of reality. For example, Chinese military modernizations need not be countered with more militarism because we interpret Chinese modernization as hostile, when instead it is merely a buildup of defensive means. The same has been said of Iraq, North Korea and even Iran. Now this article is not a pithy dismissal of these authors as naive or sophomoric because for the most part we think they may be correct and at worst have something valuable to give us pause.

However, the fact that these aggressive actions may simply be the byproducts of our own aggression does not mean that we need to sit idly by. Let us return to the opening metaphor. Maybe the Mummy is not a monster but yet a misunderstood, ugly, foul-breathed soul. So, we should consider it. But, it is the naive mother that when seeing the Mummy approach does not usher her children inside for safety's sake. Just in case the Mummy is not misunderstood at all, or maybe it is just a bad day or maybe his halitosis really is that bad.

Here is the thing with the critique of realism: even though we cannot accurately obtain reality that does not mean all ends well. There are still dangers out there. Sometimes they are our own creation. For example, while it may be true that the Second Reich was created by abusive conditions set upon Germany at the conclusion of World War I, that does not mean we should have sat idly by allowing Hitler to rampage. Maybe we did create the monster, but once the monster breaks out of the closet it is time to act, and often violently.

Iraq had demonstrated a history of violence to the international order (although dispute about which actions were actually violent is credible) but what Iran and North Korea have done to be deemed belligerent we are unsure. It does seem that these nations' modernization programs (not just nuclear weapons) are defensive in nature. These might be prime examples of where a moment of reflexivity is the prudent action instead of instant demonization and opprobrium.

The Beginning

So, here is the beginning of the StoopidNoodle team’s blog. Who is StoopidNoodle? Maybe the better answer is what is the purpose of this presence on the internet? We are all already on the internet but yet this location is special for us. Our mission has two directions, in two seemingly different directions. We will attempt to link these pulls and show how maybe they are not so disparate. So, here are the two quotations we came across that define this location and then we will return for a brief discussion.

“It is in response to this practice [“pull[ing] away form a mimetic theory of art and attempt[ing] to construct in its stead an interpretative model “ – SN] that contemporary theory must situate itself: not outside of interpretation but in the hidden places of negotiation and exchange.” Greenblatt, Stephen. 1987. Capitalist culture and the circulatory system. In Murray Kreiger, ed., The aims of representation: Subject/text/history (257-73). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. 272.

“I still hope that my rethinking of some foreign policy questions can be incorporated into a vibrant progressive movement. Indeed, I’d argue that a strong defence of pluralistic, democratic societies needs to be an essential, perhaps a defining, [sic.] component of any genuinely progressive politics in today’s world.” Abramsky, Sasha. 2005, April 10. Whose al-Qaida problem? Online at Open Democracy. www.opendemocracy.net. Obtained October 6, 2005.

So, we will run the gamut here. Sometimes our discussions will only reflect one of these directions and sometimes it may reflect both, even though it may only hold to one. We reserve the right to clarify and add to our mission later as time and you teach us new things.

Your job? Yes, we here at StoopidNoodle feel that there is a role to be played by the audience instead of merely by us. You are encouraged to comment and provide feedback and keep us honest and true to our missions. Maybe along the way we can all educate each other and maybe make life a bit easier and better for us all.