A friend of mine recently got pregnant because she's been taking ambien for insomnia; one of the occasional side-effects of ambien is performing complex activities while sleep-walking--people on ambien have been known to cook, clean, and have conjugal relations, as she did with her boyfriend, and next thing she knew she was missing her period. I've read on-line of people distressed because they were having unknowingly cheating on their spouses while on ambien, and didn't know how to explain it without sounding like a total schmuck. As one advice columnist pointed out, we now have a drug that allows one to cheat on one's spouse and maintain plausible deniability. When did the future become the present?
xkcd comic also recently pointed out there are now fleets of robot drones patrolling the skies of afghanistan--when did the future become the present?
When I was driving along the Colombia River last week, I saw electric windmills lining both the Oregon and Washington river banks for miles. When did the future become the present?
My computer science phd roommate told me that every year since 2002, the human race creates more information than all the information combined that has been created since the dawn of recorded history. We now have computers on our phones, mini phones that fit in our ears, a bill to legalize pot in California, and lazer surgery to cure blindness. When did the future become the present? For crying out loud, we have a black dude with a muslim name as President of the United States of America.
I guess I always figured that I'd know the future had become the present once we had moonbases and hover boards (five years, you hear me Back to the Future Part II, you hear me? You have five years to deliver!), but without any of us really paying attention, the future rolled over into the present.
And more signs Grad School has infected my thoughts: I recently watch the old "Menagerie" episode of "Star Trek," and found myself struck by its Cartesian and Post-Structural themes. And last time I rewatched "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn," when Kirk's son says "But good words; they're where ideas begin," I found myself thinking, "well, my, that's a very structuralist statement to make, followed by the thoughts, "What's happening to me?! HOWAAAAAAARD!"
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Glenn Beck is a Fascist
I've long believed that we accuse in others what we ourselves are most guilty of. (I also hold to the the corollary, that we praise in others what we most value about ourselves; you can tell a lot about a person by their insults and their compliments).
That having been said, it has come to my attention that Glenn Beck categorically lumps all "progressives" together as fascists, and has even taken to referring to his political opponents as a malignant cancer threatening the very survival of America.
The grade-school refrain "Takes one to know one" aside, I find this dehumanizing reduction of all who think differently than one's self troubling; it is not the language of reasoned discourse, it is not the language of democracy. It is the language of a tyrant calling for ideological purity; it is the language of the dictator calling for the destruction of his enemies; it is the language of genocide. Classifying one's opponents as a disease is how the Hutus macheted the Tutsis in Rwanda; it's how Milosevic rallied the Serbians to slaughter the Albanians; and of course it's how Adolph justified the gassing of six million Jews.
Now, if Mr. Beck disagrees with President Obama, "progressivism," and everything they stand for, (and disagrees loudly at that), it is of course his right as an American. I in turn disagree with almost everything he says, but I would never deny his right to say it. But his denying of personhood (and therefore human rights) to half of America does not extend the same courtesy. It violates the spirit of the Constitution; it's everything he claims to oppose; it's Orwellian double-speak; it's un-American.
That having been said, it has come to my attention that Glenn Beck categorically lumps all "progressives" together as fascists, and has even taken to referring to his political opponents as a malignant cancer threatening the very survival of America.
The grade-school refrain "Takes one to know one" aside, I find this dehumanizing reduction of all who think differently than one's self troubling; it is not the language of reasoned discourse, it is not the language of democracy. It is the language of a tyrant calling for ideological purity; it is the language of the dictator calling for the destruction of his enemies; it is the language of genocide. Classifying one's opponents as a disease is how the Hutus macheted the Tutsis in Rwanda; it's how Milosevic rallied the Serbians to slaughter the Albanians; and of course it's how Adolph justified the gassing of six million Jews.
Now, if Mr. Beck disagrees with President Obama, "progressivism," and everything they stand for, (and disagrees loudly at that), it is of course his right as an American. I in turn disagree with almost everything he says, but I would never deny his right to say it. But his denying of personhood (and therefore human rights) to half of America does not extend the same courtesy. It violates the spirit of the Constitution; it's everything he claims to oppose; it's Orwellian double-speak; it's un-American.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care (can we just pass it already??)
Guys: the current Health Bill makes no provision for govt run healthcare--not even a public option. If you like your private plan, not only does no one make you leave it, but nothing replaces them; the only Americans getting govt-run insurance will continue to be vets and congressmen.
So what does this bill do? The bill prevents insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It keep rates from soaring. And if you max out your deductable, medicaid is made available to save you from bankruptcy and certain death.
To the 46 million Americans w/o healthcare, including all those with pre-existing conditions and facing bankruptcy, it's just what the doctor ordered. Literally. It's no more "socialist" than the police, the military, and the fire dept (which are also govt-run and tax-payer funded). It's not Stalin, it's not Hitler, it's not even Canada. (And let's please have some respect for the victims of the Holocaust and the Holodomor by not comparing Nazis and Soviets to health reform.)
Whatever else may be your critiques of the Obama administration (and there are plenty of valid ones), these most basic reforms should have been made years ago.
So what does this bill do? The bill prevents insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It keep rates from soaring. And if you max out your deductable, medicaid is made available to save you from bankruptcy and certain death.
To the 46 million Americans w/o healthcare, including all those with pre-existing conditions and facing bankruptcy, it's just what the doctor ordered. Literally. It's no more "socialist" than the police, the military, and the fire dept (which are also govt-run and tax-payer funded). It's not Stalin, it's not Hitler, it's not even Canada. (And let's please have some respect for the victims of the Holocaust and the Holodomor by not comparing Nazis and Soviets to health reform.)
Whatever else may be your critiques of the Obama administration (and there are plenty of valid ones), these most basic reforms should have been made years ago.
Friday, March 12, 2010
yet another defence of literary studies
The ability to write and communicate clearly, as well as read analytically, are of course valuable skills in no matter which career one pursues, and English classes teach exactly that. But that doesn't necessarily justify why literature itself should be studied. Why even have literary analysts then?
Why, precisely because they exist--Literature indeed doesn't grow crops, feed the poor, or build armies, so why on earth have so many people, of all the things they could spend their lives doing, put themselves to the great pains and expense of producing literature? What does that say about us psychologically? What is it about creative, artistic enterprises that makes life worth prizing?
No writer writes in a vacuum, either; they are products of their time, culture, economy and circumstance. What then does their writing then say about their period of history? From a sociological-anthropological perspective alone, literature is a veritable gold-mine of data, individual case studies collected and passed down through the ages. We'd be foolish not to study it.
Literature is produced in writing, and words (either written or oral) are representations of our thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Come to think of it, nothing we perceive is communicated directly to us, but is all mediated through representations, symbols, and senses, all perceived and filtered through our imaginations and systems of representation. What, then, does literature tell us about the way in which mankind experiences reality itself?
Why, precisely because they exist--Literature indeed doesn't grow crops, feed the poor, or build armies, so why on earth have so many people, of all the things they could spend their lives doing, put themselves to the great pains and expense of producing literature? What does that say about us psychologically? What is it about creative, artistic enterprises that makes life worth prizing?
No writer writes in a vacuum, either; they are products of their time, culture, economy and circumstance. What then does their writing then say about their period of history? From a sociological-anthropological perspective alone, literature is a veritable gold-mine of data, individual case studies collected and passed down through the ages. We'd be foolish not to study it.
Literature is produced in writing, and words (either written or oral) are representations of our thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Come to think of it, nothing we perceive is communicated directly to us, but is all mediated through representations, symbols, and senses, all perceived and filtered through our imaginations and systems of representation. What, then, does literature tell us about the way in which mankind experiences reality itself?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Egad!
The following are words I believe should re-enter American English vernacular:
I shall add more in the future.
- Trousers
- Egad!
- Holy Mackeral!
- Gadzooks
- That's swell
- She's got quite a set of gams
I shall add more in the future.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
They're all Italians, for crying out loud!
For whatever reason, all Roman epics--even American produced ones--seem to by law be required to be staffed with British actors. But given that Britain was a Roman colony, even then was filled with Gaelic-speaking Celts, and that the Germanic tribes that eventually settled Britannia and formed the basis of the English language were never under Roman control, why on earth is the British accent privileged in Roman flics? Logically, since Rome is in Italy, shouldn't they all be speaking in Italian accents?
Seriously, I would pay hard-earned money to see a Roman epic full of Mario bro. accents, with lines like, " 'ey! Its-a Julio Caesar! He's-a takin' the-a Roman senate, eh?"
"I-a came, I-a saw, ands I-a conquered, amiright?"
"Its-a da gladiata's, no? 'ey, you-a gladiata's, all yous abouts to-a die we's-a all salute you, eh?"
"Keep-a da carpe diem, amiright fellas? Live-a da life, enjoy your day, eh? make-a the most, it's-a lata' then you think, no?"
This goes for Christian epics, too:
"Hey, yous-a be da Christ, da king a-the Jews, no?"
Ok, I'll stop now before I start blaspheming.
Seriously, I would pay hard-earned money to see a Roman epic full of Mario bro. accents, with lines like, " 'ey! Its-a Julio Caesar! He's-a takin' the-a Roman senate, eh?"
"I-a came, I-a saw, ands I-a conquered, amiright?"
"Its-a da gladiata's, no? 'ey, you-a gladiata's, all yous abouts to-a die we's-a all salute you, eh?"
"Keep-a da carpe diem, amiright fellas? Live-a da life, enjoy your day, eh? make-a the most, it's-a lata' then you think, no?"
This goes for Christian epics, too:
"Hey, yous-a be da Christ, da king a-the Jews, no?"
Ok, I'll stop now before I start blaspheming.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Book of Mormon--philosophically sound! Who knew?
My atheist roommate attended a debate last Saturday, wherein a prominent secular-humanist first lectured on how to discourse civilly and work with people one disagrees with (he said the key isn't to find common ground, but rather to frankly and honestly acknowledge the irreconcilable differences--an idea I've heard before, and that I think I agree with), and then debated a local Philosophy Prof./Presbyterian Preacher on the subject of whether or not morality is possible without God.
My roommate told me he didn't like the preacher's stance that all morality originates with God, because that would mean all morality is only as good as God, and is therefore also arbitrary and capricious. I then remembered Alma 42:25, which reads, "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justive? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God," which implies that justice does not originate with God, but rather is a principle God Himself must conform to just to be God (and likewise, by extension, if we are to be as God, must likewise conform to justice), and if he does not possess justice then he loses his Godhood. Joseph Smith himself, in "Lectures on Faith," states that God possesses, as opposed to originates, every good and correct principle. My roommate told me he likes that idea a lot better, and consequently respects Mormons that much more.
So, the Book of Mormon--philosophically sound. Go figure!
But more importantly, it is true, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
A purely epistemological concern, to be sure--that's why Joseph Smith didn't blame anyone for not believing his story; one can't take his word for it, but have the religious experience on one's own. If one doesn't have the experience, than one cannot be expected to conform to it.
And before I forget, it was Russian formalist Viktor Shklovsky who stated that the function of art is to defamiliarize the familiar (and thus by corollary familiarize the unfamiliar), an idea I'd heard and of all the definitions of art's nature is the one I think I agree with most, but I was never sure who said it.
My roommate told me he didn't like the preacher's stance that all morality originates with God, because that would mean all morality is only as good as God, and is therefore also arbitrary and capricious. I then remembered Alma 42:25, which reads, "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justive? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God," which implies that justice does not originate with God, but rather is a principle God Himself must conform to just to be God (and likewise, by extension, if we are to be as God, must likewise conform to justice), and if he does not possess justice then he loses his Godhood. Joseph Smith himself, in "Lectures on Faith," states that God possesses, as opposed to originates, every good and correct principle. My roommate told me he likes that idea a lot better, and consequently respects Mormons that much more.
So, the Book of Mormon--philosophically sound. Go figure!
But more importantly, it is true, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
A purely epistemological concern, to be sure--that's why Joseph Smith didn't blame anyone for not believing his story; one can't take his word for it, but have the religious experience on one's own. If one doesn't have the experience, than one cannot be expected to conform to it.
And before I forget, it was Russian formalist Viktor Shklovsky who stated that the function of art is to defamiliarize the familiar (and thus by corollary familiarize the unfamiliar), an idea I'd heard and of all the definitions of art's nature is the one I think I agree with most, but I was never sure who said it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
