It was a good show, here's part of the setlist that I remember:
Untitled (New song, Thurston vocals)
Untitled (New song, Kim vocals)
She Is Not Alone
Hey Joni
The Sprawl
Cross the Breeze
Rain King
Silver Rocket
"Your City is a Wonder Town" - (The Wonder, Hyperstation from Daydream Nation's Trilogy track)
Mote
If I'm wrong, I don't care, and the rest is just for me.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Polistitution
There is one thing that can be the death of any conversation, the death of many relationships, and frequently the deaths of a great many foreigners: politics.
In our great nation, we only have two parties that have any power. The DNC (Democratic National Committee, or Democrats) and the GOP (Grand Old Party, or Republicans). Each of these parties was founded very long ago on very different platforms than they have today. Oddly, contrary to one's expectations, the Democratic Party is far older than the Republican Party.
The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others as a counterparty to the Federalists. As soon as our nation was founded, there were some who immediately wished that the power of the federal government be increased, despite the fact that one of the founding principles of our nation was that of the independent State (ie: The United States). The people who believed that were believed to be in control of the Washington cabinet, and certainly John Adams was among them. The victory of the Jefferson campaign was the first major victory for the Democratic Party.
The Federalists faded almost as quickly as they had come around. The party died out, some of its members literally, in the wake of the war of 1812. They were replaced with a party that reminds us frequently of the UK, and more often of business interests, the Whig party. This remained the power structure until the issue of slavery divided the nation in the 1850s. The foundations of the GOP came as a result of the fact that most Democrats were pro-slavery and enough Whigs were to split from each of their parties to form the new Republican Party. The first President of this party, you may well know, was Abraham Lincoln.
The foundations of each party were differences of opinion from previously existing parties. The Democrats, originally, were a party that was chiefly interested in the rights of individual states to determine their own destiny. The Republicans, initially, were composed of people who were against slavery and so strongly for national unity that they took us to the bloodiest war in United States history to preserve it. At the time of their founding, both parties were rising to a necessary call that forever determined the course of United States history.
Today, the Democratic Party is held together and defined by the Democratic National Committee. They write the platform for this party, and anyone who has read that platform can testify that it is atrocious, idealist, and illogical. It's not that the ideas presented in the party platform are terrible, but its that their method of execution is. The Democratic Party makes such an effort to protect the middle class, that they risk destroying it through their own efforts. Increasing taxes on large corporations, making it more difficult to outsource labor, and making the practice of granting CEOs large bonuses when they're operating bankrupt companies can only serve to hurt our national economy. If you don't believe me, then ask what talented CEO would try to save a company that was in trouble if they were guaranteed no bonuses for doing so? What company would set up business in the United States if they would be presented with barriers to outsourcing and an increased tax burden? Then ask yourself, what would that do to the workers of America?
This is, of course, grossly oversimplifying the Democratic party, and only one minor critique.
The Republican Party, these days, seems to be focused on the opposite plan. They wish to deregulate nearly every industry, but provide large tax breaks to only the wealthy and large corporations. These tax breaks, of course, are funded by cutting public programs. Under the Reagan Administration, you may recall that school funding was cut to such a point that school bands and football teams needed to start looking for corporate sponsorship. Their idea of fighting a war against Terrorism is to turn the United States into a surveillance state, and threaten to invade every nation that speaks a harsh word to us.
If you're like me, you find yourself asking why either of these parties have any support. One wants to prevent businesses from firing people at any cost, the other wants to reward businesses that fire people in hope they'll have enough money to hire them back. One wants to see that free healthcare is only provided to those who have demonstrated economic need due to severe poverty, the other would like to see the entire country foot the bill for everyone who has cancer. One thinks the path to a strong nation is sending our troops to the other side of the country to overthrow a government and police a people who never wanted us there, the other believes that we should stop research and close our military bases.
There is only one fact that we can turn to in all of this, and that's that over the past twenty years, the GOP has utterly failed to do anything positive for this nation. We know their policies, we know their practices, because we've seen them all enacted. Whenever the GOP gets control, things always get worse. The GOP can't do anything major without some kind of scandal involved, with the exception of George H.W. Bush. Under the Reagan Administration we hung our Marines out to dry in Lebanon, sold weapons to one of our promised enemies and used the profits to fund a revolution in a democratic nation, ensured that a fundamentalist government that would later strike us a devastating blow would come to power, and somehow elected a Republican for the third term in a row afterwords. Under George Bush we've had the Patriot Act, economic crisis, gas crisis, a war with a nation based on false pretense, torture, and illegal surveillance.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton had two scandals, both of which completely unrelated to how he ran the country. Under Clinton our country delivered a balanced budget, assistance in war-torn nations with UN support, and built the framework for both the largest economic upswing and crash we've ever seen.
It seems that no matter how silly the DNC platform looks on paper, the Democrats do it better. It seems that no matter what the GOP thinks, they've been thoroughly proven wrong, whereas the DNC platform has never been fully tested.
The real truth is, though, that both party platforms are nothing more than pandering to the electorate. Very little unites the people in these parties, and the people who compose them span across the board in both liberal and conservative directions. The parties exist much as a pimp does, to sell you a person who will provide you with what you ostensibly need. They do not currently do anything else.
It's time for a new party, one that actually matters. In the meantime, vote Democrat. It's time for the Democrats to show us how thoroughly they can fail, we already know how much the GOP can. Perhaps when we've seen just how terrible both parties are in recent memory, people will finally tire of them.
In our great nation, we only have two parties that have any power. The DNC (Democratic National Committee, or Democrats) and the GOP (Grand Old Party, or Republicans). Each of these parties was founded very long ago on very different platforms than they have today. Oddly, contrary to one's expectations, the Democratic Party is far older than the Republican Party.
The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others as a counterparty to the Federalists. As soon as our nation was founded, there were some who immediately wished that the power of the federal government be increased, despite the fact that one of the founding principles of our nation was that of the independent State (ie: The United States). The people who believed that were believed to be in control of the Washington cabinet, and certainly John Adams was among them. The victory of the Jefferson campaign was the first major victory for the Democratic Party.
The Federalists faded almost as quickly as they had come around. The party died out, some of its members literally, in the wake of the war of 1812. They were replaced with a party that reminds us frequently of the UK, and more often of business interests, the Whig party. This remained the power structure until the issue of slavery divided the nation in the 1850s. The foundations of the GOP came as a result of the fact that most Democrats were pro-slavery and enough Whigs were to split from each of their parties to form the new Republican Party. The first President of this party, you may well know, was Abraham Lincoln.
The foundations of each party were differences of opinion from previously existing parties. The Democrats, originally, were a party that was chiefly interested in the rights of individual states to determine their own destiny. The Republicans, initially, were composed of people who were against slavery and so strongly for national unity that they took us to the bloodiest war in United States history to preserve it. At the time of their founding, both parties were rising to a necessary call that forever determined the course of United States history.
Today, the Democratic Party is held together and defined by the Democratic National Committee. They write the platform for this party, and anyone who has read that platform can testify that it is atrocious, idealist, and illogical. It's not that the ideas presented in the party platform are terrible, but its that their method of execution is. The Democratic Party makes such an effort to protect the middle class, that they risk destroying it through their own efforts. Increasing taxes on large corporations, making it more difficult to outsource labor, and making the practice of granting CEOs large bonuses when they're operating bankrupt companies can only serve to hurt our national economy. If you don't believe me, then ask what talented CEO would try to save a company that was in trouble if they were guaranteed no bonuses for doing so? What company would set up business in the United States if they would be presented with barriers to outsourcing and an increased tax burden? Then ask yourself, what would that do to the workers of America?
This is, of course, grossly oversimplifying the Democratic party, and only one minor critique.
The Republican Party, these days, seems to be focused on the opposite plan. They wish to deregulate nearly every industry, but provide large tax breaks to only the wealthy and large corporations. These tax breaks, of course, are funded by cutting public programs. Under the Reagan Administration, you may recall that school funding was cut to such a point that school bands and football teams needed to start looking for corporate sponsorship. Their idea of fighting a war against Terrorism is to turn the United States into a surveillance state, and threaten to invade every nation that speaks a harsh word to us.
If you're like me, you find yourself asking why either of these parties have any support. One wants to prevent businesses from firing people at any cost, the other wants to reward businesses that fire people in hope they'll have enough money to hire them back. One wants to see that free healthcare is only provided to those who have demonstrated economic need due to severe poverty, the other would like to see the entire country foot the bill for everyone who has cancer. One thinks the path to a strong nation is sending our troops to the other side of the country to overthrow a government and police a people who never wanted us there, the other believes that we should stop research and close our military bases.
There is only one fact that we can turn to in all of this, and that's that over the past twenty years, the GOP has utterly failed to do anything positive for this nation. We know their policies, we know their practices, because we've seen them all enacted. Whenever the GOP gets control, things always get worse. The GOP can't do anything major without some kind of scandal involved, with the exception of George H.W. Bush. Under the Reagan Administration we hung our Marines out to dry in Lebanon, sold weapons to one of our promised enemies and used the profits to fund a revolution in a democratic nation, ensured that a fundamentalist government that would later strike us a devastating blow would come to power, and somehow elected a Republican for the third term in a row afterwords. Under George Bush we've had the Patriot Act, economic crisis, gas crisis, a war with a nation based on false pretense, torture, and illegal surveillance.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton had two scandals, both of which completely unrelated to how he ran the country. Under Clinton our country delivered a balanced budget, assistance in war-torn nations with UN support, and built the framework for both the largest economic upswing and crash we've ever seen.
It seems that no matter how silly the DNC platform looks on paper, the Democrats do it better. It seems that no matter what the GOP thinks, they've been thoroughly proven wrong, whereas the DNC platform has never been fully tested.
The real truth is, though, that both party platforms are nothing more than pandering to the electorate. Very little unites the people in these parties, and the people who compose them span across the board in both liberal and conservative directions. The parties exist much as a pimp does, to sell you a person who will provide you with what you ostensibly need. They do not currently do anything else.
It's time for a new party, one that actually matters. In the meantime, vote Democrat. It's time for the Democrats to show us how thoroughly they can fail, we already know how much the GOP can. Perhaps when we've seen just how terrible both parties are in recent memory, people will finally tire of them.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Polkadot Persuasion: A Few Unimportant Things
I'm starting to really like writing total crap in different styles. I'm thinking maybe I should start a crap poetry blog too; so I can pretend like I know how to write it and--hopefully--fool others into thinking so.
Anyway, among other projects that I have going on, I've recently found myself quite entranced with Project Euler. I haven't worked with difficult math or programming problems that weren't essentially text processing or automation in years. I'm debating whether or not I should do the Project Euler stuff using a language I'd like to learn instead of a language I already know. So far I've only knocked out three problems in Perl, but it's more fun than I really think it ought to be.
Yo La Tengo played at McCarren Pool yesterday, the last of the so-called Pool Parties. These parties were great. You take an abandoned public pool that's dry and filled with weeds and graffiti, clear out the weeds, add some porta potties, and put in a big ass stage. If you then throw in a few slip and slides, some beer tents, and a dodgeball championship you have a rockin' good time on your hands. Previous acts played included I'm From Barcelona, TV On The Radio, The Breeders, Blonde Redhead, The Hold Steady, Liars, and many more. I'm going to catch Sonic Youth there this weekend as well.
The reason I bring this up is that they're not doing it anymore. The City of New York, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to spend millions of dollars turning the former unused public pool into a...public pool. They're going to renovate it and turn it into a big modern public pool monstrosity that, let's face it, no one is really ever going to use. Williamsburg and Greenpoint are populated almost exclusively by young white people these days, many of them hipsters. These fashion-conscious trendy people are not the kind of people to go spend the day at a public pool that kids pee in. Sure, the kids will get to use it and that's great, but even the Red Hook public pool isn't used heavily. The Pool Parties, which happen every Sunday during the season in which the pool would be open, draw a huge crowd and everybody enjoys themselves and has a good time. As a paid concert venue, it's great. It's outdoors, large, and provides a large space for enjoying shows that is a luxury in a city this dense.
Unfortunately, it seems that the City of New York doesn't realize that a large public music venue in the center of one of it's trendiest neighborhoods might be a better thing than a public pool. Everyone likes a pool, and everyone likes free things, but that empty trashed pool has seen more use in the past two years than it's probably seen since 1940. It's not sickening, but it is sad to see something that so many people enjoyed getting shut down so a city can spend millions of our tax dollars turning it into something that far fewer people are going to enjoy.
On the other hand, as the popularity of the Pool Parties has increased, so have the lines. The crowds have grown progressively and the event, like the neighborhood it borders, has taken an elitist tone. If McCarren Pool were to stay around as a venue, either the Pool Parties would eventually become a shadow of the greatness that they were, or end up being cancelled altogether. It was inevitable really, but it shouldn't be inevitable with a price tag.
Anyway, among other projects that I have going on, I've recently found myself quite entranced with Project Euler. I haven't worked with difficult math or programming problems that weren't essentially text processing or automation in years. I'm debating whether or not I should do the Project Euler stuff using a language I'd like to learn instead of a language I already know. So far I've only knocked out three problems in Perl, but it's more fun than I really think it ought to be.
Yo La Tengo played at McCarren Pool yesterday, the last of the so-called Pool Parties. These parties were great. You take an abandoned public pool that's dry and filled with weeds and graffiti, clear out the weeds, add some porta potties, and put in a big ass stage. If you then throw in a few slip and slides, some beer tents, and a dodgeball championship you have a rockin' good time on your hands. Previous acts played included I'm From Barcelona, TV On The Radio, The Breeders, Blonde Redhead, The Hold Steady, Liars, and many more. I'm going to catch Sonic Youth there this weekend as well.
The reason I bring this up is that they're not doing it anymore. The City of New York, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to spend millions of dollars turning the former unused public pool into a...public pool. They're going to renovate it and turn it into a big modern public pool monstrosity that, let's face it, no one is really ever going to use. Williamsburg and Greenpoint are populated almost exclusively by young white people these days, many of them hipsters. These fashion-conscious trendy people are not the kind of people to go spend the day at a public pool that kids pee in. Sure, the kids will get to use it and that's great, but even the Red Hook public pool isn't used heavily. The Pool Parties, which happen every Sunday during the season in which the pool would be open, draw a huge crowd and everybody enjoys themselves and has a good time. As a paid concert venue, it's great. It's outdoors, large, and provides a large space for enjoying shows that is a luxury in a city this dense.
Unfortunately, it seems that the City of New York doesn't realize that a large public music venue in the center of one of it's trendiest neighborhoods might be a better thing than a public pool. Everyone likes a pool, and everyone likes free things, but that empty trashed pool has seen more use in the past two years than it's probably seen since 1940. It's not sickening, but it is sad to see something that so many people enjoyed getting shut down so a city can spend millions of our tax dollars turning it into something that far fewer people are going to enjoy.
On the other hand, as the popularity of the Pool Parties has increased, so have the lines. The crowds have grown progressively and the event, like the neighborhood it borders, has taken an elitist tone. If McCarren Pool were to stay around as a venue, either the Pool Parties would eventually become a shadow of the greatness that they were, or end up being cancelled altogether. It was inevitable really, but it shouldn't be inevitable with a price tag.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Abortion: Bloggable Subject?
A woman who discovered she is pregnant is blogging the whole thing on tumblr. She calls the project What To Expect When You're Having An Abortion, and I think it's pretty cool of her. I mean, not necessarily the abortion part (hello charged subjects), but the fact that she discovered that there are no non-hysterical non-pro-life accounts of abortion on the internet and decided to talk about her own.
Good on her.
Good on her.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
What God Hates
This just in: among things that God hates, and this time according to google and not Fred Phelps, we can now include shrimp, ireland, amputees (!!!), sweden, a coward, and furries.This made me curious about a few things, namely, other things that other incarnations of God might hate.
I was wondering what Jesus and maybe Allah would have hated on.It turns out that Jesus isn't a big fan of zombies, which is funny, considering he was the first one. Jesus also seems to dislike figs and, predictably, dislikes sin.
Allah, on the other hand, seems to be pretty chill.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Another New Microblog
Yet again, a disclaimer-worthy microblog: Emotional Vomit.
Once upon a time I used to write over on livejournal. It seems, upon reflection, that all I ever did there was perpetuate stupid memes, write self-centered essays about the state of my life, and compose long diatribes of emotional vomit. It wouldn't be exactly fair if I said the livejournal community, at large, perpetuated these stereotypes. I moved on to myspace a few years later, and continued this same silly trend. A girl that I met described all blogging as "emotional vomit." These days that is clearly no longer the case, but at the time it seemed to be true more often than not. It didn't stop me.
A few years later, it all came to bite me in the ass. I had written a lot of very public things about some very personal parts of my life. I had been vague, where necessary, but the overall impression that anonymous visitors would garner of me was primarily a negative one. I seemed unstable. I was unstable, but there was no reason for other people to know that about me. I discontinued the practice, vowing that everything I ever wrote online again would only be something I would be proud to have my name and photo attached to in a large national publication. I don't seek that kind of recognition and still prefer to be mostly anonymous in my blogging habits, but I no longer spew forth emotional vomit.
Well, at least I didn't, until today, when I was feeling bitter.
There is a certain therapeutic edge to writing about oneself--egoblogging, if you will--that can really help when one is feeling overcome by negative emotion. I used to use livejournal and myspace for this on the regular basis, and it was partially the reason that I appeared to be completely insane when one would read my posts. Nothing was ever written when I was feeling positively, and it showed. I have recently decided to pick the practice back up, but hopefully do it with a bit more style and panache than I had previously given it.
I'm not exactly proud of the results, but it's a different approach than I've taken before. Now I try to write from the perspective of the pure emotional state, and try to converse with that state using my more rational self. That little crappy first blurb was a lot harder to write than I would have thought, but I feel a hell of a lot better for having written it.
All of that said, this new blog really requires a bit of a disclaimer. I overemphasis the emotions and let them go a bit past the point that I actually feel them. If you're somehow offended by that, great. If you think something is written about you, it's not. If you think it's inspired by you, it's not. It's inspired by the emotion and nothing else.
Damn, it feels good to be unleashing the demons once again.
Cry havoc, and let slip the blogs of hell!
Once upon a time I used to write over on livejournal. It seems, upon reflection, that all I ever did there was perpetuate stupid memes, write self-centered essays about the state of my life, and compose long diatribes of emotional vomit. It wouldn't be exactly fair if I said the livejournal community, at large, perpetuated these stereotypes. I moved on to myspace a few years later, and continued this same silly trend. A girl that I met described all blogging as "emotional vomit." These days that is clearly no longer the case, but at the time it seemed to be true more often than not. It didn't stop me.
A few years later, it all came to bite me in the ass. I had written a lot of very public things about some very personal parts of my life. I had been vague, where necessary, but the overall impression that anonymous visitors would garner of me was primarily a negative one. I seemed unstable. I was unstable, but there was no reason for other people to know that about me. I discontinued the practice, vowing that everything I ever wrote online again would only be something I would be proud to have my name and photo attached to in a large national publication. I don't seek that kind of recognition and still prefer to be mostly anonymous in my blogging habits, but I no longer spew forth emotional vomit.
Well, at least I didn't, until today, when I was feeling bitter.
There is a certain therapeutic edge to writing about oneself--egoblogging, if you will--that can really help when one is feeling overcome by negative emotion. I used to use livejournal and myspace for this on the regular basis, and it was partially the reason that I appeared to be completely insane when one would read my posts. Nothing was ever written when I was feeling positively, and it showed. I have recently decided to pick the practice back up, but hopefully do it with a bit more style and panache than I had previously given it.
I'm not exactly proud of the results, but it's a different approach than I've taken before. Now I try to write from the perspective of the pure emotional state, and try to converse with that state using my more rational self. That little crappy first blurb was a lot harder to write than I would have thought, but I feel a hell of a lot better for having written it.
All of that said, this new blog really requires a bit of a disclaimer. I overemphasis the emotions and let them go a bit past the point that I actually feel them. If you're somehow offended by that, great. If you think something is written about you, it's not. If you think it's inspired by you, it's not. It's inspired by the emotion and nothing else.
Damn, it feels good to be unleashing the demons once again.
Cry havoc, and let slip the blogs of hell!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Geopolitik: The Georgian Issue
I'm really irritated about all of this Russia vs. US posturing as a result of the Georgia "invasion," so I'd like to clarify what happened for the idiots out there. Granted, this is from my own limited understanding, and I'm sure it will anger and disappoint those looking for more, but I'm trying to make this simple for the kind of people who don't read good:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think that Russia is looking like the bad guy. Even if they are the bad guys overall, it's not because they're being overly aggressive and expansionist. The only reason you could construe them as being bad guys is that they responded to a situation that might have been resolved with a limited application of force with overwhelming force instead. Well, that's what you get when you piss off a country that is several orders of magnitude more mighty than you are.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that the Georgians brought this on themselves, being unable to control their own troops and maintain control over their own breakaway provinces. Then they turn around and say "oh, look what big bad Russia is doing to poor little us, stop them!" Georgia is that snot-nosed brat on the playground that starts fights that they can't finish, then goes and tells the teacher that some bully beat them up.
tl;dr: The Georgian government needs to grow the fuck up if they're going to play with the big boys, and everyone else needs to STFU about Russia.
- South Ossetia, a province that has asserted independence from Georgia, accused Georgia of "ethnic cleansing." Stop with the stupid whitewashed terms, it's fucking genocide, ok?
- South Ossetia asked mother Russia for help, in the form of over 20,000 refugees requesting asylum.
- South Ossetia, having already been in talks with Russia related to annexation, received military assistance from Russia.
- The fighters allegedly committing genocide in South Ossetia, predictably, turned out to be Georgian.
- The Russians purged South Ossetia of Georgian military regulars and irregulars which, of course, looks a lot like genocide.
- The Russians noticed all of the fighters were coming from a city just inside Georgian borders, and that there was a massive military presence there that indicated it was a staging area for future attacks.
- Realizing that allowing the Georgians to have a massive staging area right next to the borders of the province they came to protect would be foolish, the Russians launched an assault on Georgia.
- The Russians, successfully, took control of that city.
- Everyone gets pissed at the Russians for invading Georgia, because Georgia has been kissing a lot of ass in the international community; making close ties with the United states and seeking membership in the EU and NATO--traditional opposition to Russia.
- The US is especially pissed, because an occupation of South Ossetia leads to Russian control over a gas pipeline that was built and is owned by US interests.
- Russia asserts a little more control over Georgia.
- More arm waving, shouting.
- Russia makes a deal and pulls out of Georgia.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think that Russia is looking like the bad guy. Even if they are the bad guys overall, it's not because they're being overly aggressive and expansionist. The only reason you could construe them as being bad guys is that they responded to a situation that might have been resolved with a limited application of force with overwhelming force instead. Well, that's what you get when you piss off a country that is several orders of magnitude more mighty than you are.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that the Georgians brought this on themselves, being unable to control their own troops and maintain control over their own breakaway provinces. Then they turn around and say "oh, look what big bad Russia is doing to poor little us, stop them!" Georgia is that snot-nosed brat on the playground that starts fights that they can't finish, then goes and tells the teacher that some bully beat them up.
tl;dr: The Georgian government needs to grow the fuck up if they're going to play with the big boys, and everyone else needs to STFU about Russia.
Things That Are New
I have created a new blog. The google fairies tell me it can be reached at lecherousintent.blogspot.com. I think you'll find it vaguely entertaining; provided you're not somehow morally opposed to writing on the subject of daily perversion.
This brings me to a subject that was covered in a wonderful edition of xkcd, which you can see here:
It's occurred to me, frequently over the course of my short life, that my internet habits will catch up to me in the reality that some call "meatspace." It's already happened a few times, and it's becoming increasingly common for employers to "google" prospective employees--or even current ones. It's even becoming increasingly common for them to fire employees for reasons not at all related to their employment. Arguably, some of the many cases in which this has happened have been reasonable.1 Some have been for people writing content that the company would rather not be associated with while people are in public positions, others people directly criticizing their place of employment. In other cases, the firings have been perfectly good examples of total bullshit. Clearly, I am of the opinion that all such firings are heaping piles of steamy pungent excrement.
I currently write under a pseudonym. I don't really see any reason to cease this habit, and my alternate identity is well known to almost everyone I know. In fact, the very few people in this world who still call me by my given name are either those I work with, family members, or people who I haven't known for a terribly long time. I'm now debating changing this, as I'm starting to believe that the once planned disparity between my online life and my real life is now purely counterproductive.
Once, I was primarily concerned with how others would see me if they could easily find out everything about me. There were a few cases where people I did not know had learned about me via various things they discovered by google or through social networking that led to me being put in a very uncomfortable situation. My writing at the time was primarily emotional vomit, and the impact to my life was primarily social. Right now my real name sits in a kind of google purgatory. The results that pertain to me are so hidden in the noise that it's almost impossible to distinguish the signal2.
I am now aware of how my social and professional life could be affected by people reading what I write. I rarely write anything I wouldn't mind seeing published in a mainstream newspaper or magazine under my name, despite the fact that I write with this kind of faux-anonymity. I am opinionated, cocky, and write about, well, cock. I am unambiguous; I don't feel the need to filter, censor, or otherwise squelch myself. I'm getting to the point where I'm really not sure if I give a flying fuck how the Information Superhighway™3 could potentially cause chaos and strife for my professional or social life if people were to read about me. I would rather not my co-workers read my ramblings about porn or raves about batman, but if they were to do so, how would it potentially reflect upon me? Would they find reason to dismiss me? Would they think less of me? Would they think better of me?
I honestly don't know, what I do know is that employers, primarily, look for people who are fucking boring. People want to see normal when they're looking up a family member or a job candidate. They don't want to see who the person really is, and once upon a time, we had a choice of who we showed our inner selves to. We still do, I suppose, but I'm starting to feel like maybe I should start living my life more as an open book, and less in hiding of my true personality.
We'll see if I decide to make that change.
1There are lots of links there, you should click on them.
2Like a signal nine, for instance.
3It's more like a series of tubes!
This brings me to a subject that was covered in a wonderful edition of xkcd, which you can see here:
It's occurred to me, frequently over the course of my short life, that my internet habits will catch up to me in the reality that some call "meatspace." It's already happened a few times, and it's becoming increasingly common for employers to "google" prospective employees--or even current ones. It's even becoming increasingly common for them to fire employees for reasons not at all related to their employment. Arguably, some of the many cases in which this has happened have been reasonable.1 Some have been for people writing content that the company would rather not be associated with while people are in public positions, others people directly criticizing their place of employment. In other cases, the firings have been perfectly good examples of total bullshit. Clearly, I am of the opinion that all such firings are heaping piles of steamy pungent excrement.
I currently write under a pseudonym. I don't really see any reason to cease this habit, and my alternate identity is well known to almost everyone I know. In fact, the very few people in this world who still call me by my given name are either those I work with, family members, or people who I haven't known for a terribly long time. I'm now debating changing this, as I'm starting to believe that the once planned disparity between my online life and my real life is now purely counterproductive.
Once, I was primarily concerned with how others would see me if they could easily find out everything about me. There were a few cases where people I did not know had learned about me via various things they discovered by google or through social networking that led to me being put in a very uncomfortable situation. My writing at the time was primarily emotional vomit, and the impact to my life was primarily social. Right now my real name sits in a kind of google purgatory. The results that pertain to me are so hidden in the noise that it's almost impossible to distinguish the signal2.
I am now aware of how my social and professional life could be affected by people reading what I write. I rarely write anything I wouldn't mind seeing published in a mainstream newspaper or magazine under my name, despite the fact that I write with this kind of faux-anonymity. I am opinionated, cocky, and write about, well, cock. I am unambiguous; I don't feel the need to filter, censor, or otherwise squelch myself. I'm getting to the point where I'm really not sure if I give a flying fuck how the Information Superhighway™3 could potentially cause chaos and strife for my professional or social life if people were to read about me. I would rather not my co-workers read my ramblings about porn or raves about batman, but if they were to do so, how would it potentially reflect upon me? Would they find reason to dismiss me? Would they think less of me? Would they think better of me?
I honestly don't know, what I do know is that employers, primarily, look for people who are fucking boring. People want to see normal when they're looking up a family member or a job candidate. They don't want to see who the person really is, and once upon a time, we had a choice of who we showed our inner selves to. We still do, I suppose, but I'm starting to feel like maybe I should start living my life more as an open book, and less in hiding of my true personality.
We'll see if I decide to make that change.
1There are lots of links there, you should click on them.
2Like a signal nine, for instance.
3It's more like a series of tubes!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Batman: A Rant and Review
When I was a child, I was fascinated with Batman. Most male children in America go through that at one point or another. All superheros are fascinating to children, but Batman takes a special place in the hearts of many. Recently, I had the joy of attending The Dark Knight with my sister and a friend, and it reminded me of all of the reasons that I loved Batman as a child, and many of the reasons that I have both a love and hate relationship with the fictional character as an adult.
Children who are predisposed to a high level of intelligence are typically maladjusted in one way or another. It is very difficult for a person to raise, care for, or even educate a child who is strong of mind but still immature emotionally and socially. These children frequently retreat into fantasy to explore that which they find frustrating in life. Many children in this predicament find Batman more fascinating than other superheroes, because Batman existed (at least in some incarnations) in a world where superheroes had superpowers. Batman had none, Batman was simply a man who was very good at what he did, and used all the resources at his disposal to do these things well. The message that Batman seemed to present to pre-adolescent children was that, given the right resources, you can become anything you want to. You have the power in you to save the world, to fight villainy, and do really cool things with really cool toys.
As I've grown, my fascination with Batman has been less and less focused on the fact that he symbolizes hope and a human capability to overcome his own limitations to become a superhero. I've found myself progressively drawn more into the backstory, into the psychology of Bruce Wayne and his pathological obsession with vigilantism. Anyone who has ever been to college, or dated someone who was a psych major in college, knows very well that people who want to fix other people, or the problems of the world in general, have a large degree of problems with themselves that they do not know how to resolve. Batman is a perfect example of this case. Despite being one of the wealthiest men in the world, a brilliant man with great fortune, influence, and no need to ever lift a finger for anything for the rest of his life if he doesn't want to, Bruce Wayne has chosen to be a vigilante. He, rightfully, believes this to be a result of his own obsession with eliminating the type of crime that lead to his powerless witnessing of the death of his parents at the hands of common criminals.
His lesson was learned early. Wealth and power will not protect you from a madman with a gun. The police can not protect you from a madman with a gun. You can not protect your parents from dying in front of you, because the madman has a gun. Bruce Wayne, fundamentally, is a case of severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is driven, almost entirely, by fear. His power actually comes from his fear. He fights evil so that he, and others like him, will no longer have to fear it. He wears a suit that makes him resemble his biggest irrational fear, becoming the essence of his own fear when he goes to fight crime.
Batman chooses to fight crime, primarily, in the hopelessly corrupted and violent Gotham City. He has deliberately chosen a futile battleground where, despite what he believes of himself, one man simply cannot make a difference. The low-level criminals he takes off the streets are replaced with others. The supervillains he removes are replaced with others. In an effort to kill him, death, destruction, and waste is piled on the city that he has sworn himself to protect. Batman's chosen method of fighting crime is not only counterproductive, but like his fear, his methods force him to embody the futility that he felt when he couldn't save his parents so many years ago. No matter what Bruce Wayne does, he is doomed to forever be living in that moment until he seeks theraputic help.
Aside from Wayne's psychological problems, there's also the matter of his misuse of resources. Sure, being the caped crusader by night and billionaire trust-fund playboy by day is a great way to both hide an alter ego and fund massive insane projects (batcopter, batwing, batmobile, batsuit...etc), but what about the massive power he could wield in a town that relies on two things for its economy, Wayne Industries and crime? It seems to me that, as Bruce Wayne, he could do a lot more to cleanse the city of crime and villainy than he ever could as Batman. The only real strength of Batman as a vigilante is that he can operate outside the law. He doesn't have to concern himself with warrants, collateral damage, the Geneva Conventions, or due process. Yet, since Batman's modus operandi is to not kill criminals, but rather bundle them and evidence of their crimes in care packages to hopelessly corrupt police, he even loses this edge.
Wayne could wield real political power. He could fund police forces and technology to be used on them. He could back helpful initiatives and put politicians and police in his pocket, instead of the criminals', but he does not. Instead, he puts on a cape and a mask and goes around punching people in the face late at night.
Batman is, as most Gotham City police and politicians accuse him of being, a dangerous vigilante. Nothing else. He is always just a hairsbredth away from becoming his nemesis, The Joker.
In that vein, the writing and characterization of Batman and The Joker in the most recent installment of the film franchise, The Dark Knight, is nothing short of genius. Everyone who knows Wayne disapproves of Batman, those who know he is Batman, and those who do not. The lone exception to this case is a police Lieutennant, Jim Gordon. It is not surprising that he approves, since he is the only man in Gotham's Police Department that seems to not be surrounded by corruption and ill will. As a result, Gordon probably feels like a bit of a vigilante himself.
The film expertly explores the fine line between good intentions and their terrible consequences. It explores the psychology of a man who is mad in the purest sense, a man who rejects all order in favor of chaos, a villain who finds crime just as boring as law. The Joker is far more like Batman than Batman will ever admit, and The Joker knows this. The Joker thrives on this.
Aside from the absolutely breathtaking imagery, fight choreography, and aformentioned characterization, I honestly found The Dark Knight lacking in several regards. It is not the best Batman movie I've ever seen, that is still reserved for Batman Begins. What the film lacked was cohesion. It was done in a comic book style that was amazing in its execution, but I don't feel that it translated well to a film narrative. The pace was too frentic, the action had almost no breaks, the longer scenes felt unnecessary, and all of the scenes that could have been longer were cut short as soon as they started to become interesting. It was a film where the scenes that set up the backdrop for the plot were filled with expository dialogue instead of subtle nuance.
Truthfully, I would have found myself disliking The Dark Knight if it weren't for how damnably perfect the portrayal of The Joker was. It was a film that completely failed to make you emotionally invested beyond the surges of adrenaline that the film forces out of you at regular intervals.
Children who are predisposed to a high level of intelligence are typically maladjusted in one way or another. It is very difficult for a person to raise, care for, or even educate a child who is strong of mind but still immature emotionally and socially. These children frequently retreat into fantasy to explore that which they find frustrating in life. Many children in this predicament find Batman more fascinating than other superheroes, because Batman existed (at least in some incarnations) in a world where superheroes had superpowers. Batman had none, Batman was simply a man who was very good at what he did, and used all the resources at his disposal to do these things well. The message that Batman seemed to present to pre-adolescent children was that, given the right resources, you can become anything you want to. You have the power in you to save the world, to fight villainy, and do really cool things with really cool toys.
As I've grown, my fascination with Batman has been less and less focused on the fact that he symbolizes hope and a human capability to overcome his own limitations to become a superhero. I've found myself progressively drawn more into the backstory, into the psychology of Bruce Wayne and his pathological obsession with vigilantism. Anyone who has ever been to college, or dated someone who was a psych major in college, knows very well that people who want to fix other people, or the problems of the world in general, have a large degree of problems with themselves that they do not know how to resolve. Batman is a perfect example of this case. Despite being one of the wealthiest men in the world, a brilliant man with great fortune, influence, and no need to ever lift a finger for anything for the rest of his life if he doesn't want to, Bruce Wayne has chosen to be a vigilante. He, rightfully, believes this to be a result of his own obsession with eliminating the type of crime that lead to his powerless witnessing of the death of his parents at the hands of common criminals.
His lesson was learned early. Wealth and power will not protect you from a madman with a gun. The police can not protect you from a madman with a gun. You can not protect your parents from dying in front of you, because the madman has a gun. Bruce Wayne, fundamentally, is a case of severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is driven, almost entirely, by fear. His power actually comes from his fear. He fights evil so that he, and others like him, will no longer have to fear it. He wears a suit that makes him resemble his biggest irrational fear, becoming the essence of his own fear when he goes to fight crime.
Batman chooses to fight crime, primarily, in the hopelessly corrupted and violent Gotham City. He has deliberately chosen a futile battleground where, despite what he believes of himself, one man simply cannot make a difference. The low-level criminals he takes off the streets are replaced with others. The supervillains he removes are replaced with others. In an effort to kill him, death, destruction, and waste is piled on the city that he has sworn himself to protect. Batman's chosen method of fighting crime is not only counterproductive, but like his fear, his methods force him to embody the futility that he felt when he couldn't save his parents so many years ago. No matter what Bruce Wayne does, he is doomed to forever be living in that moment until he seeks theraputic help.
Aside from Wayne's psychological problems, there's also the matter of his misuse of resources. Sure, being the caped crusader by night and billionaire trust-fund playboy by day is a great way to both hide an alter ego and fund massive insane projects (batcopter, batwing, batmobile, batsuit...etc), but what about the massive power he could wield in a town that relies on two things for its economy, Wayne Industries and crime? It seems to me that, as Bruce Wayne, he could do a lot more to cleanse the city of crime and villainy than he ever could as Batman. The only real strength of Batman as a vigilante is that he can operate outside the law. He doesn't have to concern himself with warrants, collateral damage, the Geneva Conventions, or due process. Yet, since Batman's modus operandi is to not kill criminals, but rather bundle them and evidence of their crimes in care packages to hopelessly corrupt police, he even loses this edge.
Wayne could wield real political power. He could fund police forces and technology to be used on them. He could back helpful initiatives and put politicians and police in his pocket, instead of the criminals', but he does not. Instead, he puts on a cape and a mask and goes around punching people in the face late at night.
Batman is, as most Gotham City police and politicians accuse him of being, a dangerous vigilante. Nothing else. He is always just a hairsbredth away from becoming his nemesis, The Joker.
In that vein, the writing and characterization of Batman and The Joker in the most recent installment of the film franchise, The Dark Knight, is nothing short of genius. Everyone who knows Wayne disapproves of Batman, those who know he is Batman, and those who do not. The lone exception to this case is a police Lieutennant, Jim Gordon. It is not surprising that he approves, since he is the only man in Gotham's Police Department that seems to not be surrounded by corruption and ill will. As a result, Gordon probably feels like a bit of a vigilante himself.
The film expertly explores the fine line between good intentions and their terrible consequences. It explores the psychology of a man who is mad in the purest sense, a man who rejects all order in favor of chaos, a villain who finds crime just as boring as law. The Joker is far more like Batman than Batman will ever admit, and The Joker knows this. The Joker thrives on this.
Aside from the absolutely breathtaking imagery, fight choreography, and aformentioned characterization, I honestly found The Dark Knight lacking in several regards. It is not the best Batman movie I've ever seen, that is still reserved for Batman Begins. What the film lacked was cohesion. It was done in a comic book style that was amazing in its execution, but I don't feel that it translated well to a film narrative. The pace was too frentic, the action had almost no breaks, the longer scenes felt unnecessary, and all of the scenes that could have been longer were cut short as soon as they started to become interesting. It was a film where the scenes that set up the backdrop for the plot were filled with expository dialogue instead of subtle nuance.
Truthfully, I would have found myself disliking The Dark Knight if it weren't for how damnably perfect the portrayal of The Joker was. It was a film that completely failed to make you emotionally invested beyond the surges of adrenaline that the film forces out of you at regular intervals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
