Silentio

End of an Era As We Know It

2009-01-24T18:35:00.002-05:00

In a bid to shake things up a bit in my life, as well as to consolidate some of the other blogs I help maintain, I've decided to relocate my personal blogging (such as it is) over to WordPress. Silentio will still survive for the time being, mostly because I cannot bring myself to destroy five years worth of archives, as embarrassing as some of those posts are; but when I post, which as you know is intermittent at best, it will be over here: More Solito.

One and all are invited to change their bookmarks, RSS feeds, etc. Invite your friends.

A Question for the Ages

2008-11-10T00:37:00.001-05:00

There are a lot of bad end-of-game coaches in the NFL. Andy Reid gave us a display tonight that rivaled himself in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. Now I have to hear for another week that the Giants are the best team in the NFL. Thanks, Coach.

NFL Predictions: Week 10

2008-11-08T17:38:00.004-05:00

First off, to the five of you read my weekly football post, I'm sorry for missing a week. It could not be avoided. I went to Chicago last Friday, so Thursday was packed with all the pre-trip things one must accomplish (buy underwear because you're too lazy to do laundry, etc.), and was nearly too busy during the weekend itself even to set my fantasy lineup. Beyond that, though, I have no excuse at all. I should've posted this week's picks before Thursday's game, but remembered there was a game at all far too late. Between the trip, the conference I attended, the alcohol consumed, the election, the alcohol consumed, and the overall sleep deprivation, I've just been too fried to get much done.

It's a rainy Saturday in Oakland now, though, my belly is filled (note: if you're in the area, the fried chicken sandwich at Bake Sale Betty's is up to the challenge of meeting its reputation), and my mind is sharp. First, though, a peek at last week's picks that you did not get to see. Figures that I'd do well on a non-posting week.

BUFFALO (-5) over Jets (wrong)
Detroit (+12.5) over CHICAGO (correct)
Jacksonville (-7.5) over CINCINNATI (wrong)
CLEVELAND (-1.5) over Baltimore (wrong)
Green Bay (+5.5) over TENNESSEE (correct)
KANSAS CITY (+8.5) over Tampa Bay (correct)
Arizona (-3) over ST. LOUIS (correct)
Houston (+4.5) over MINNESOTA (wrong)
DENVER (-3.5) over Miami (wrong)
Atlanta (-3) over OAKLAND (correct)
GIANTS (-9) over Dallas (correct)
Philadelphia (-6.5) over SEATTLE (correct)
INDIANAPOLIS (-6) over New England (wrong)
Pittsburgh (+2) over WASHINGTON (correct)

With that out of the way ... onward ho! to the picks!

CLEVELAND (-3) over Denver (WRONG)
I don't think anybody could've anticipated Cutler throwing for nearly 450 yards. Though we should've anticipated the Browns blowing another lead.

ATLANTA (-1) over New Orleans
New Orleans has to win a game on the road eventually, but nothing stops the feel-good Atlanta Falcons from defending their home! Not even a 'roided up Saints team.

Tennessee (-3) over CHICAGO
I watched much of last week's bizarre Detroit-Chicago game at a sports bar in downtown Chicago. I've nothing against the Bears, but I did find myself rather offended, as a non-partisan football fan, that they were able to come back and win that game. It was worth it, though, to hear the horror and jeers when Rex re-entered the game. Does any other city have such a complex relationship with their QB? Maybe Philly & McNabb, but I think most of us can agree that's more irrational than complex -- insert obligatory wife joke here.

DETROIT (+6.5) over Jacksonville
It might be a little unfair to pick on Jacksonville, given their horrendous loss to the Bengals last week, but who will be surprised if they do the same thing on the road against a Detroit team whose most lop-sided loss in the past four weeks was eight points?

MIAMI (-8.5) over Seattle
Miami has to be the quietest playoff-contending team right now. The AFC East is ripe for the taking ... in an epic struggle between the Jets and Miami. God. What a weird year.

Green Bay (+2.5) over MINNESOTA
I still cannot figure either of these teams out. Despite the fact Minnesota won last week and Green Bay won, I kind of feel like Green Bay has its act together more. Grant looks to be getting healthy -- he had a very frisky 4.6 yards p/carry average against a very stingy Tennessee defense -- and you just never know when either Driver or Jennings can burn you long. Their defense just needs to show up, I think, make a couple of stops, and let the passing game pick apart Minnesota's very shaky secondary.

NEW ENGLAND (-3.5) over Buffalo
That Buffalo bandwagon is looking very deserted right about now, and I don't think it's just because it's nearly winter. I'd like to see them right the ship, and what better game than this one, when their back is firmly against the wall and on the verge of a third straight divisional loss. Ordinarily I'd pick the hungrier team, but it's just become a foregone conclusion in the league that Bellichek does not lose two straight, ever.

St. Louis (+8) over NEW YORK (JETS)
The new coach smell in St. Louis seems to have faded considerably, and the Jets seem primed for a really cheap cover ... but I simply cannot resist the points.

Baltimore (-1) over HOUSTON
All of a sudden Baltimore is relevant in the AFC again. How time flies in the NFL. With Big Ben hurting while Pittsburgh plays Indy this week, a win over Houston would give Baltimore the same record as their rival with one more head-to-head match-up. "Chance for the playoffs" trumps shit-stained pride.

Carolina (-9) over OAKLAND
Thank you, Raider Nation, for not selling out McAfee, or whatever that place is called now. Thank you, for the wonderful prize of not having either your pride and joy OR the 49ers sully my television screen on Sunday. Bad news for the rest of the country: the 49ers are playing on Monday night. HA! Welcome to my world!

PITTSBURGH (OFF) over Indianapolis
Gambling is turned off here because of the mystery of Big Ben's injury status. I'm not sure it matters, actually. With as erratic as Manning has been so far, does he stand a chance against Pittsburgh defense? Indy fans, cover your children's eyes. It could get brutal.

Kansas City (+15) over SAN DIEGO
I actually think LT runs wild here and KC gets blown out, and might even be inclined to throw this game into a two-team teaser. But as a stand-alone handing over of fifteen points, no. Kansas is just feisty enough to make this potentially interesting.

PHILADELPHIA (-3) over New York (Giants)
Let me go on the record, if I haven't already, that I still do not believe in the Giants or Eli Manning. Philly is getting healthy. If they stay so, they will be a team to be reckoned with. The only concern is that they've no proven go-to wide receiver -- well, that, and a bruising short-yardage guy. DeSean Jackson has moments, but he's too streaky, and the streaks have become fewer with each passing week it seems. I'm betting, though, that this week the Eagles take a step back into full-blown NFC relevance. They have enough balance, though, with a healthy Westbrook that they could stretch the Giants' unremarkable secondary.

ARIZONA (-9.5) over San Francisco
The Bay Area's gift to the rest of the country! Maybe Mike Singletary will get so frustrated at Kornheiser that he'll banish him to the locker room, too.

Last week: 8-6
Season: 63-63-5

Open Letter To Al Harrington

2008-10-30T01:47:00.003-04:00

Dear Al,

When you demand a trade publicly, it's normally not a good idea to go out on opening night and suck harder than a porn star with asthma.

Mixed emotions after the game. I didn't think they'd even compete with New Orleans, and certainly never envisioned them leading by one with less than thirty seconds to play. The defense was, at times, actually existent. Maggette brought a nice slashing style of play that was a refreshing change of pace from last year. Not sure how long they'll be able to rely on Jackson at the point. Why Nelly came to this same conclusion with less than twenty seconds, and then decided he'd put in DeMarcus Nelson (their new undrafted (whoo!) rookie point guard, who had played all of five minutes tonight before his strange appearance at the end of the game), I really don't know. For all of the good things I saw, and I did really enjoy watching them play tonight, many of the same problems as last year exist. Nelly still doesn't trust his entire team, really only playing about seven tonight, and wears out those he does. (And, yes, Al, obviously you are among the "trusted ones" -- why else would you be given the last-second three despite the screams of horror from every Warrior fan watching the game?)

Oh well, on to Toronto!

NFL Predictions: Week Eight

2008-10-25T12:48:00.006-04:00

I'm really not at all confident in this picks. If I had to pick the quality of my picks I'd go REALITY (-14) over Brad's Predictive Powers.

Tampa Bay (+2.5) over DALLAS
I think most people just assumed the Dallas collapse would be in their first playoff game. Maybe they're just trying to get it out of the way early. So early, in fact, that they miss the playoffs, and don't have to worry about choking it away. As for Tampa Bay, they're not pretty (their kind of offensive balance rarely is), they couldn't cover against Seattle at home, and I really shouldn't trust them on the road, but there's really no reason they can't whip up on a a Dallas team that has completely lost its way. Expect big things from Antonio Bryant.

Washington (-7.5) over DETROIT
How many times can one person keep taking Washington to cover a big spread, and always come up short? Good on you, Detroit fans, for not selling out Ford Stadium. More fans of bad teams need to do this. Stop rewarding bad behavior!

MIAMI (+1.5)over Buffalo
This seems like a classic trap game to me. Miami isn't half bad, and we're still unsure whether Buffalo is anything more than half good. I'll be cheering for them, but it seems just the kind of divisional game that Miami wins.

St. Louis (+7) over NEW ENGLAND
Here's my reasoning here. Nobody expected St. Louis to be as bad as they were the first five six weeks of the season. Nobody thought they'd be good, mind you, but they had some offensive weapons. Those weapons are finally starting to come into their own a little. I don't buy New England's blowout against Denver, who played some of the most inept football of the season. NEW ENGLAND (-7) over St. Louis

Just learned that Steven Jackson isn't playing today. No confidence at all that the Rams can continue their winning ways without him.

San Diego (-3) over New Orleans
The Saints already had enough excuses for losing this week, between the "we were playing in London" and "Reggie Bush is injured," but they apparently felt they needed a third one with the steroid scandal. Both teams need this win badly. I just don't see where New Orleans gets it points, other than maybe a breakout game (finally!) for Colston.

New YORK (JETS) over Kansas City
The Chiefs are feeling good about that enormous contract they gave Larry Johnson a couple of years ago, aren't they? Surely they have to be considered one of the most frustrating teams to be a fan of. A class act like Brett Favre can't lose a game like this. Christian Okoye has called him and given him hints on how to beat the Chiefs.

PHILADELPHIA (-9) over Atlanta
This line seems high at first, until you realize that Atlanta hasn't really played that well on the road -- their game at Chicago being the exception. Philadelphia is a completely different team when Westbrook is in the game. Their defense is more fierce, their offense more crisp. If he is in fact healthy, Atlanta won't be able to handle them. If it's a close game, though, young Matt Ryan has shown that he has tricks up his sleeve and will do more than cover.

Arizona (+4) over CAROLINA
I like this Arizona team. At some point they have to pull out a compelling road victory. Carolina is just the kind of team to serve one of those up on a platter. I'm not as prepared as I was a couple of weeks ago to crown Carolina the team to beat in the NFC.

BALTIMORE (-7) over Oakland
Young JaMarcus & his corp of pretty good runners has not yet faced a defense like Baltimore. Barring a Flacco a few untimely Baltimore turnovers, always a possibility, I've no clue how Oakland even moves the ball to get into field goal position. McGahee owners should get to rejoice two weeks in a row.

JACKSONVILLE (-7) over Cleveland
The only threat here is that Jacksonville overlooks this game in anticipation of their epic showdown with the Bengals next week (followed, incidentally, by Detroit). Take heart, Colt fans, they're bound to sleep on one of these teams.

HOUSTON (-9.5) over Cincinnati
Speaking of Cincinnati, they're in need of Daunte Culpepper right about now, no? With Palmer out for the season, how else do they win a game?

New York (Giants) (+3) over PITTSBURGH
A couple of factors working against Pittsburgh here. In addition to their injury problems, esp. at running back, Pittsburgh is in a position that they can drop a tough game and still be okay. The Giants have a two-game lead over Washington, but they need a nice convincing win to get the bad taste of the Cleveland game out of their system. Right now, nobody is really scared of them anymore. Beating up on San Francisco meant nothing. More just seems on the line for them here.

SAN FRANCISCO (-5) over Seattle
West Coast football has been pretty dire out here this year, but the drama has been wonderful! First, you had the wonderful Lane Kiffin-Al Davis saga. Was sad to see that end. Then you had the 49ers take down Mike Nolan. Well, more precisely, you had Mike Nolan being the classiest guy in the organization and say, "Hey, if you're going to fire me in two weeks, just fire me now!" And they did. And thus begins the Mike Singletary-era. It will be a very short era indeed if they can't get beat Seattle. I'm going out on a limb, given the epic numbers he put up last week in Tampa, but Seneca Wallace just wouldn't scare me much. The one thing Seattle has going for it is that San Francisco (esp. J. T. O'Sullivan) cannot hang onto the football -- they've a -8 in turnovers. The bad thing for Seattle: theirs is -6.

Indianapolis (+4) over TENNESSEE
Everything points toward a convincing Tennessee win this Monday. This is why I'm taking Indianapolis. It being so close to Halloween, it only seems appropriate that Indy play this week's living dead zombie that won't go away. They need this game way too much to drop it.

Last Week: 6-8
Season: 48-51-3

Train Wreck

2008-10-22T01:09:00.002-04:00

I don't normally jump on little gaffes politicians make, not even when they're funny, but this is one of the best ever.

Next Up . . .

2008-10-21T23:16:00.004-04:00

There have been a lot of "other shoes" dropping in the economy lately. But there is one that is Yao Ming-sized: credit card debt.

Welcome to the next crisis. (Link 1) (Link 2)

Those arguments I've seen in other quarters that the absence of bread lines and the fact that Americans can watch football on plasma screens that project a clearer image than their eyes actually allow -- and, oh look, because of this the economy keeps growing, like clockwork, like nature -- proves the stagnation of real wage growth isn't a problem, those arguments are increasingly worth about as much as the balance transfer check I just filled out.

But don't fret, they'll always have their moralistic appeal to greed as the primary culprit (if we were all but a little more responsible, Bank of America couldn't take advantage of us like they do!). Why admit a systematic, materialistic deficiency when an abstraction alone will do the trick?

A Bright Spot of a McCain Win

2008-10-19T12:00:00.004-04:00

. . . . the Bay Area will suddenly become affordable, if all the good-hearted liberals around here are sincere in their conviction to move to Canada. I'm a get me a Marin county mansion!

Pass the A-11

2008-10-18T13:43:00.004-04:00

I first heard about the A-11 offense a couple of weeks ago, in a very short, very cryptic report on the local news about about Piedmont High School's football team. I didn't really follow up on it, though. T he New York Times did for me.

Steve Humphries, the assistant, had an idea: What if the offense featured not one quarterback but two? Not bad, Bryan said, but things would really get interesting if all 11 players were potentially eligible to receive a pass.[...]

Piedmont’s basic A-11 formation calls for a center flanked by two guards, who are essentially tight ends. Two quarterbacks, or a quarterback and a running back, line up behind the center, with three receivers split to each side. [...]

Prior to each Piedmont play, only the center initially goes to the line of scrimmage. The two “guards” and the split receivers each stand one and a half yards off the line. Then, just before the ball is snapped, Piedmont shifts into formation for the signaled play. With this simple movement, the possibilities for eligible receivers become dizzying.

Intriguing, no? If only my high school's team had been this interesting.

Here's Piedmont in action: (note: you'll probably want to watch w/ the sound muted or low)

NFL Predictions: Week Seven

2008-10-17T01:22:00.005-04:00

I'm not sure I'll top my predictive powers last week. Or, more optimistically, I'm starting to get a feel for these teams and what to expect out of them. The one thing that has become clear, though, is that we know more about how bad the bad teams are than how good the good ones are. More about that in the picks . . . .

BUFFALO (-1) over San Diego
Definitely and obviously one of the harder games to pick. If you have money, stay the hell away from it. We know neither of these teams is awful, but we've still no clue at all if either are good. It's pretty amazing, though, how quickly everybody jumped off Buffalo's bandwagon after they were destroyed in Arizona, even though they had the heart-and-soul of that team knocked out of the game. Nobody even bothered to amend their judgment when Arizona proved against Dallas that, at least at home, they're a damn good football team. And yet now, San Diego beats the Retirement Village Patriots, and they're hitting their groove? I'm not so sure. Plus, San Diego was absolutely awful the last time they hit the East Coast. They win this week and I might start getting some confidence in them.

CHICAGO (-3) over Minnesota
Because both of these teams are so delightfully mediocre, I think we have a pretty firm idea of what they're going to be about the rest of the way. They'll play good teams tough, and get beat by inferior teams. And when they play one another, all bets are off. Chicago has to want a little redemption against the Minnesota, after Peterson embarrassed them last year on their home turf. Plus, and it's weird to even think this, Chicago would actually seem to have more offensive efficiency. But, really, who knows. Might be a wonderful 15+ point game for the kickers.

Pittsburgh (-9.5) over CINCINNATI
After spending years watching Bengal football, I know one thing ... the Steelers own the Riverfront. It seems like it's a home away from home for them, in terms of their sheer domination down there. If they were playing any other team, I might go for the underdog -- arguing that there might not be a real sense of immediacy for the Steelers, considering their dominance in that division right now. They hate the Bengals too much, though, to let up. This one gets ugly early. Palmer will be breathing a sigh of relief from the sidelines.

KANSAS CITY (+8) over Tennessee Tenessee (-8) over KANSAS CITY
I just deleted a paragraph about how Tennessee walks all over Kansas City, and will probably regret doing so, but decided that this game kind of screams out as a potential upset. Or at least as a potential scare. Sure, Kansas City has the league's worst rushing defense, but Tennessee's running attack (even w/ Chris Johnson) isn't what it was with Vince Young. And surprisingly enough, the KC secondary isn't half bad: they've only given up five passing TDs so far. Plus, doesn't it just make sense for the another AFC South to give the Colts a chance to rip the stake from their own heart?

I completely forgot last night that Larry Johnson is suspended. No chance in hell they pull this one off without him. Pray for Tony Gonzalez this week.

Dallas (OFF) over ST. LOUIS
The line is turned off here because nobody knows if Romo is going to do his best Steve DeBerg impersonation. Either way, it really shouldn't matter. How hard is it to hand the ball off to Barber and let him wreck havoc? Dump the ball to Witten eight to ten times. Hit T.O. about four to six times. How has this turned into rocket science all of a sudden for the offensive geniuses at Big D? BTW ... the solution to their growing problems with T.O. is clear: hire Charles Haley to scare him straight.

MIAMI (-3) over Baltimore
I'm still not sold on Miami at all, and do not think they'll cause the same kind of problems Indy did last week against Baltimore. Baltimore is 2-3, but their three losses are against three of the best teams in the league (Tennessee, Pittsburgh & Indy). And yet, they still can't score, no matter who they play. Miami, at the very least, has shown some creativity in all of their games. The AFC East's standing really could be pretty interesting by the end of this weekend.

NEW YORK GIANTS (-10.5) over San Francisco
If SF can figure out a way to protect O'Sullivan (which they've not yet shown they're capable of doing), they could make this one interesting. O'Sullivan will make a couple of plays, but he'll make more bad ones. Welcome to 49er football. Let me say something about the Giants. I can't remember if I said it before, but I never once so far have said, "The Giants are the best team in football." In fact, it really kind of infuriated me that people seemed so set in that belief. They may very well get things together, but the only win that really impressed me was against the Redskins. The rest of their games were against the worst of the worst. Eli is still erratic. Plax is a ticking time-bomb. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of a fluke Super Bowl champion. Just not doing it. But yeah, they should cover this week.

New Orleans (+3) over CAROLINA
I went out of my way to praise Carolina last week, and then they went and looked absolutely awful on the road against Tampa Bay. Now, of course, Tampa Bay is pretty good, but looking that bad is still pretty inexcusable. They're facing a worse defense, but a considerably better offense. New Orleans just seems hungry to me, and not winning in fluky ways. If anything, their losses have been fluky. They just seem more "there" than Carolina right now -- esp. with corp of receivers they have (bolstered even more by Colston's return). I normally do not excuse the lack of a conventional running game, but right now in non-playoff football, it may not matter all that much. (Incidentally, Reggie Bush made me wonder recently why so few teams allow points for kick return TDs. I can see not allowing yardage points -- I was in a league that did that once, and we ended with Dante Hall as the number one WR -- but some kind of reward for kick returns seems fitting, esp. for players like Felix Jones and Bush, who also contribute offensively.)

HOUSTON (-8) over Detroit
Houston may be shit-stained to me, but Detroit is outright shit.

Indianapolis (-1) over GREEN BAY
Indianapolis just knows how to win games even when they're not playing like they'd like. Green Bay, not so much. Green Bay can't do well the one thing Indy can't stop: the run. And Indy's pass defense will burn you if given the chance. Green Bay is just not a tight enough unit to survive Indy's opportunism. They make you pay for your mistakes ... and Green Bay is not yet a mistake-free football team. Indy makes their fair share of mistakes, too, of course, but I've just not seen that killer instinct in the Packers. If anything, I've seen the exact opposite.

OAKLAND (+3) over New York Jets
I've no reason for this pick at all. It just seems like one of those random scores you see, pause a second over, and move on. I mean, really, would it shock if you the Raiders had a random win against Brett Favre? The Jets could win this game by forty, and we still wouldn't know if they're any good. They could lose by ten, and we still wouldn't know if they're bad.

WASHINGTON (-7.5) over Cleveland
I'm not yet ready to concede that Washington is awful after one horrible performance in St. Louis. Really, you're almost invited to overlook the Rams. It's probably bad for the Browns that they beat the Giants so badly last week -- now nobody will be sleeping on them. I'd love to see Cleveland turn it around. Braylon Edwards has been sitting on my bench the past couple of weeks, and I'd love to have cause actually to play him. But, I found their success last week a little dubious. One ... you simply cannot win with that many false-start penalties. Well, they obviously did win, but the football gods will not tolerate it on a regular basis. Two ... for some reason the Giants just stopped using Jacobs, despite the fact he was getting close to six yards a carry against Cleveland's not-so-good run defense. I don't think Zorn will make that mistake with Portis, who has suddenly turned into a fantasy monster. (If I can just get him and Westbrook on the same page, I'll cruise through the rest of my season.)

TAMPA BAY (-10.5) over Seattle
Ugh. Flex scheduling cannot come soon enough. Come on ... I live in the Bay Area, so I get stuck with at least two awful games in the day already. Monday night is ruined by the asshats on ESPN. Sunday night is supposed to be the highlight of my day. Not only will this be an awful game in terms of real football, can you think of a game that has less fantasy implications? Earnest Graham ... Warrick Dunn (maybe) ... Engram ... and who else? Poor Seattle. Maybe you should've kicked the football team out and kept the Sonics.

Denver (+3) over NEW ENGLAND
I reserve the right to change this pick sometime Friday afternoon/evening. I need to check up Denver's injury report. But really, I have a hard time seeing how this isn't kind of a replay of last Sunday's game against the Chargers. Marshall and Royal owners' eyes should be lighting up at the prospect of 40-yard bomb after 40-yard bomb.

Last week: 9-5
Season: 42-43-3

On Recent Developments in the Market

2008-10-13T18:18:00.005-04:00

Huh ... all these years I was told socialism was not only un-American, bad enough, but that it was bad for business too.

Now, of course, the charge led by Gordon Brown to nationalize banks isn't socialism per se. Oh, but it is entertaining to poke fun at the free-marketeers. One thing to recall when you hear them say, as you certainly will if you are apt to listen to them at all, that the market's rise today (& likely beyond) is an indication that the economy's fundamentals are and were strong, and that all we ever need to do is wait for the bull market to return, is that the floor of this particular fall was established primarily because of governmental action. The "invisible hand," as it were, did not sprinkle its faerie dust and save the day here.

It is, in part for this reason, that it is wrong to assert that because the bull always wins it is somehow a more natural state for the market than the bear. Capitalism does what capitalism must do to survive: if that means incorporating aspects of socialism and/or authoritarianism (e.g., China), it will. That the speculative market craves profit and growth, and a non-speculative economy requires them, and that they will forcibly (if necessary) adapt in such a way to make this happen, is not necessarily the stuff of nature. Continual growth is, rather, the stuff of viruses and cancers, not the natural workings of a healthy body. The market, rather, and by that we must include governments, whose stake in the market is as speculative as any individual or hedge fund manager, responds to the natural -- that is to the vicissitudes & material limitations of time, death, and decay -- and evolves accordingly. The way in which it evolves, however, is not necessary. THAT it evolves can perhaps be said to be "natural" . . . into what it evolves and by what it means, not really. Adaptation and evolution are not singular narratives that explain after the fact how we got to where we are now and forecast where we are headed, as though there were no other courses possible. Rather, to speak of adaptation and evolution is to reflect on the full range of possibilities before us at any time, and to realize that possibilities (that are being) embraced are no more natural than those that were (or are being) rejected or ignored.

Owning up to the unnatural element of nature, as it relates to the market, seems essential in actually coming to grips with its declines and keeping its rises in perspective. More importantly still, it reminds us that thinking otherwise is not only acceptable but fundamental to the processes of nature.

NFL Predictions: Week Six

2008-10-11T13:08:00.002-04:00

I've thrown out my back and I'm battling a day-long bout of the hiccups, so I've been a little too miserable to post my picks. There's a bit of respite now, so I'm going to take advantage of the window. Here you go . . .

JETS (-5.5) over Cincinnati

If Palmer was playing, I’d take Cincinnati here in a heartbeat, and even advise you to grab Chris Henry. The Jets passing defense is atrocious, after all, and the Bengals were due one break-out game. Good thing I didn’t write this up last night like I normally do. Palmer is now a Friday scratch, the Bengals are stuck with Fitzpatrick, and the Jets are off to the races with a blowout win.

ATLANTA (+3) over Chicago

Chicago has been a weird team to watch. They seem, at times, really intimidating and decent. And then, if you watch closely enough, they look really soft and mediocre. Atlanta is not as bad as we want them to be. I think they scare the NFC South this week with a nice win.

INDIANAPOLIS (-4) over Baltimore

I’m all over the place with this Colts team. I really have no clue what kind of shape they’re in. Granted, they should not have covered last week. And, granted, they should not have beaten the Vikings either. BUT … they did! We can bitch and moan about the cheapness of the wins all we want, but until that stake pierces the heart the vampire he’s still dangerous. I’ve no doubt that Baltimore’s defense will cause a lot of problems, but I have just as little doubt that their offense will make just enough mistakes on their own side of the field to give the Colts a chance at the end to pull out another cheap cover. This will result in me & everybody else writing off the Colts, and then watching them knock make the playoffs as a wildcard and knocking off the AFC West champion in the first round.

Carolina (+1.5) over TAMPA BAY

I’m starting to like this Carolina team. I see them winning this one, and still nobody paying attention to them. They’ll drop a few along the way, but they’re nothing to stop them from peaking at the right time of the season and running through the playoffs. They are solid on both sides of the ball, especially on defense, and give me a reason (barring injury) their offense won’t get better as the season progresses.

Detroit (+13) over MINNESOTA

Maybe this is why that ex-goalie shot himself in the face. He looked at his tv listings and saw he was going to get stuck with this crap-fest. I don’t blame him. I really hate this game. Hate it even more that I feel like I have to take Detroit. I don’t trust Minnesota to score thirteen against LITERALLY the worst defense in the league. At some point the Lions have to find some element of pride, right?

WASHINGTON (-13.5) over St. Louis

Washington, on the hand, I’m learning to trust.

NEW ORLEANS (7.0) over Oakland

Oakland could have some success against New Orleans’ defense. They run the ball pretty well – and this should be bolstered by Fargas coming back. And Russell is competent enough to complete passes if you give him time (much like Frerotte did on Monday against the Saints). So, this game could be closer than what one might expect. But in the end, the Saints just have too much firepower. Even if the Raiders get an early lead, as they’ve been doing all season, I see no reason that the Saints can’t reel off seventeen straight in the second half. Not to mention this is basically a must-win for New Orleans.

Miami (+3) over HOUSTON

For a long time, I’ve been kind of infatuated with the Houston Texans. Really, for no reason at all. Sort of like obsessing over the really plain-looking girl in the office. The one who is never flirtatious. Who never dresses provocatively. Who has been married faithfully for ten years and has four kids. And is likely a Mormon. Really, just let it go. What transpired last Sunday against the Colts was a bit like learning that the object of your office obsession was actually one of the stars of 2 Girls 1 Cup – you just didn’t realize it because at work she wasn’t cover in shit. Likewise, now, the Texans will never but be shit-stained to me.

Jacksonville (+3.5) over DENVER

Let’s see … Denver’s defense is awful. Denver’s offense is playing without Royal and Scheffler. And yet at 4-1 are sitting pretty in the AFC West. Meanwhile, Jacksonville is coming off a tough loss to Pittsburgh, and has everything to lose by losing this week. I’ll go with the desperate here.

Dallas (-5) over ARIZONA

There are going to be a lot of people taking Arizona here, I think. They’ve seen the Cowboys stink it up the past couple of weeks, and they’re worried about “America’s Team.” Oh dear, they’re not even the best team in the NFC anymore, we’re told. This may be so, but Arizona is the all-time king in suckering people into overestimating their potential. A bit like, say, Arizona’s most famous politician, no?

SAN FRANCISCO (+5) over Philadelphia

Word has come down today that Westbrook is out. Philly is not just a different team without Westbrook … they may actually think they’re playing a different sport. It’s something to behold, actually. Plus, again, San Francisco is not nearly as bad as what we think they are. They’re bad, don’t get me wrong. But they’re getting close to that coveted “competently bad” tag. I am a bit worried, though, that Sullivan might not make it out of this game alive.

Green Bay (+2) over SEATTLE

Green Bay is suddenly as crappy as Mike Holmgren is fat. I did not see this coming. I thought they’d have a nice bounce-back win last week against Atlanta, but that defense of theirs stunk it up once again. If they do so again, this time against a worse offense, then they’re really toast. This game is not worth watching, listening to, watching recaps of, thinking about head of time. I feel dirty for even writing about it.

SAN DIEGO (-5) over New England
The conventional wisdom is that anytime Norv Turner gives Bellichek five points you take the points and run. Maybe I should, considering San Diego's deer-in-the-headlights game last week in Miami. I think they throw a wrinkle in what we think we know, though, and win convincingly this week.

New York Giants (-7.5) over CLEVELAND
I'm clearly not ready for a world in which Eli Manning is better than Peyton Manning. That must explain my present condition. At least you East Coasters have a reason to go to bed early on Monday.

Last week: 5-7-2
Season: 33-38-3

Where's the Chimney?

2008-10-07T01:54:00.004-04:00

I first heard about rooftop gardens when I was living in Cincinnati a couple of years ago. Apparently, against all odds & expectations, the Dept. of Architecture (I think) at the Univ. of Cincinnati is actually one of the trail-blazers here. It's good to see that city leaders are actually getting behind the idea.

Don't count out the Queen City. In many ways, I miss her dearly.

. . . . I could really go for some Camp Washington Chili right about now.

NFL Predictions: Week Five

2008-10-03T00:59:00.010-04:00

(Home team in caps.)

GREEN BAY (OFF) over Atlanta
Will he play, or will he sit? This isn't just a question that Green Bay fans are asking of Aaron Rodgers, it is something I've been asking of my fantasy team since he left with a gimpy shoulder last week. I've no clue about the severity of the injury, let alone the pain he's feeling, but it's hard to see him sitting. Seeing him do well, on the other hand, is different.

Tennessee (-3) over BALTIMORE
Damn you, Chris Johnson! I sat him last week, reasoning that he'd have a hard time getting much done against the Vikings' front line. One quarter in, and my decision had already cost me a win. I'm not making the same mistake this time around. Baltimore's defense is looking as good as it ever was, but I think a little caution is merited -- esp. when playing against what is quickly becoming a Tennessee juggernaut. Thus far, Baltimore has faced the likes of Jamal Lewis and Rashard Mendenhall. This week, I think ... I hope ... Johnson exposes them like he did Minnesota.

San Diego (-6.5) over MIAMI
This San Diego team is like most of Leonardo DiCaprio's latest movies. Flashy lead actor that everybody thinks actually has legitimate chops, but nothing I'd ever spend money to see. Have you seen the preview of his new one with Kate Winslet? It looks like Mad Men, doesn't it -- except for the minor detail that the movie looks like a bayonet to the balls. The problems are legion -- a slow-starting LT, and a woeful defense. LT owners, take out, he rewards you this week. The stats behind Miami's defense lie. As for the defense, I do not see Ronnie Brown replicating the performance he had against New England. Without that, I'm not sure Miami can keep up. This game, I think, will tell us a lot about what we can expect out of both teams the rest of the way. I could be saying that, though, because it's one of the games I'm stuck with out here and desperately need a reason to care.

HOUSTON (+3) over Indianapolis
I really can't be picking against the Colts, off a humiliating loss two weeks ago and a bye last week, can I? Oh, wait, I guess I did. Houston has some things working in their favor. Slaton appears to have the goods to do the kind of things the Colts cannot stop; Schaub actually plays pretty well at Houston; and Houston's WRs are more competent than they're given credit for being. Indy could very well gut out a win here, and nobody would be surprised. From what I can tell, unlike the rest of the league, nobody in the AFC South is actually afraid of the Colts. They may not know too well what it's like to beat the Colts in the grand scheme of things, but they do know they're beatable in the regular season. This is why Indy's divisional games are often so entertaining.

Seattle (+7) over NEW YORK GIANTS
Have you heard The Roots' "Birthday Girl"? There are hundreds of reasons this song shouldn't work on me. It comes at the end of one of the hardest-hitting CDs in recent memory, filled with brilliant social commentary and incendiary lyrics ... and absolutely doesn't fit the tone of the album at all. More importantly, it features the lead singer of Fall Out Boy. A damnable offense normally. And yet, somehow, it works. It all works. It's not a great song, but it makes me laugh every time I hear it. The moral: sometimes in life the recipe doesn't tell you whether the dish will be good. I've said some harsh things about Seattle this season, and I think it's been with good cause. But this week, against the Giants at home (always a scary prospect for Eli), I think Seattle surprises a few people here.

Washington (+6) over PHILADELPHIA
I don't get how Philly is favored by this much. Did Vegas not watch the Dallas game? Or maybe they assume they only won because Dallas decided to play with one hand tied behind their back -- a like McCain, I think, in choosing Palin. Either way, Washington seems really disrespected here. They deserve our respect, if but for a week.

CAROLINA (-9.5) over Kansas City
Kansas City comes back down to earth this week. Carolina isn't a great team, but they don't do anything badly either. Denver had a stupid loss coming. It was no indication of life in the Chiefs. Big week for owners of Panther players, I say.

Chicago (-3) over DETROIT
I think I've said it here. And if not, I should've. Chicago is going to be a tough out all year. Even in comes where they should win, like this one, I think they'll make it tough on themselves. Orton has shown, though, that he punishes you if can't bring any pressure. And as luck has it, 'can't bring any pressure' is what Detroit's defense yells every time they break huddle.

DENVER (-3) over Tampa Bay
So begins the quick jumping from the Bronco bandwagon. Not so quickly, people. THe AFC West is still wide open. This is going to be one of those games that slips through the cracks for casual football fans. But I think it is also one that a lot of people will be switching to via DirectTv. Tampa Bay is a curious team. So far, they seem to have an ability to play up or down with whoever they're playing. I expect much the same on Sunday. They have just enough juice to stick with Denver's defense if it turns into a shoot-out, and just enough defense also to turn it into a ugly slug-fest. Denver puts them in a bind, though, because they can thrown AND score points. It could be a replay of Tampa's first week loss to New Orleans.

Buffalo (+1) over ARIZONA
Buffalo just wins. It's rarely pretty, but have they given us any reason to pick against them yet?

Cincinnati (+17) over DALLAS
Just on general principle, I can't pick somebody -- esp. not this weird Dallas team -- to cover a spread this big.

New England (-3) over SAN FRANCISCO
I realize I'm picking against a lot of home teams. That doesn't bode well for my record. Oh well, that's already going to hell anyway. There is one good thing about having SF games on my tv each week. It's always fun to see QBs get crushed on nearly every play. With luck, J. T. Sullivan may soon replace David Klingler as the QB I've seen sacked most.

JACKSONVILLE (-3) over Pittsburgh
Both of these teams have an uncanny ability to disappoint opposing fans. Your team is on the verge of pulling off a nice win, and yet they always find a way to rip your heart out. Interestingly, they also have an uncanny ability to have their own hearts ripped out. Neither team goes into that good night quietly. This one will not be pretty. In fact, it could be three-and-a-half boring quarters, followed by a late flurry. I'm taking Jacksonville only because they're healthier.

NEW ORLEANS (-3) over Minnesota
The curse of Daunte Culpepper endureth!

Last Week: 5-8
Season: 28-31-1

Safe For Work Porn

2008-09-27T15:03:00.001-04:00

I'm posting this on the weekend, so you won't have to determine whether it is in fact safe for work.

NFL Predictions: Week Four

2008-09-26T01:35:00.004-04:00

An unexpected blogging hiatus this week cannot deter me from my football picks! The need my bad picks, I told myself, like McCain needs an international crisis. Who am I to deny you the medicine for what ails you?

(Home team in caps.)

San Francisco (+5) over NEW ORLEANS
Maybe I'm turning into a Bay area homer with my picks, but I can't resist taking the 49ers on the road. They've already endured the insanity of playing up in Seattle. The only thing marginally frightening about playing in New Orleans is a broken levee or two. Offensively, New Orleans has an edge -- with the belated arrival of the Reggie Bush-era. But, because the 49ers actually field something that resembles a defense, I don't think the different is as big as you might immediately think. I'm not overly confident in this choice, since despite its statistical strength SF's defense is still giving up quite a few points, but it's one I'd regret not stepping out on.

Arizona (+1.5) over NEW YORK JETS
This game may very well tell us whether the balance of power has shifted to the NFC, after years of AFC domination. It's hard to say for sure, but Arizona's defense actually looks to have some spunk to it. Certainly more fire so far than Miami's. Consider this: the fact the Jets have played only one team with a legitimate passing attack (San Diego), they rank 21st in passing defense. Boldin and Fitzgerald could drop them a few more spots down before the week is through.

CINCINNATI (-3.5) over Cleveland
I'm not giving Cleveland anymore credit. If they can't get anything going there, Anderson is going to be another highly-paid backup QB. I didn't watch a second of their game last week against Baltimore, and still can't fathom how they were beaten so badly. A lot of what ails the Bengals will be solved if they can keep Chris Perry on track. That inability of that defense to prevent a big play at a big moment, though, has been a downfall for years. If anything can shake up Cleveland, if but for a week, it's this game. Braylon Edwards owners, don't give up on him just yet.

Green Bay (+1) over TAMPA BAY
Tampa Bay is a capable team. But they really shouldn't be favored in this game. Losing to Dallas last week should not be a big set-back for Green Bay. They're still the class of the NFC North. They're still loaded offensively. And Dallas was clearly had its A-game going. Not to mention Ryan Grant was still not 100%. From what I understand, he's nearly there now. With a play-action option comes the deep threat that is Greg Jennings. The only problem with Green Bay, so far, is its defense. The playmakers on each of the teams they've faced have gashed them in a bad way. With that in mind, Earnest Graham owners, take heart. He should bounce back from his horrible showing in Chicago.

CAROLINA (-7) over Atlanta
I can't figure out this Carolina team. They have played a hell of a schedule so far, and come out 2-1. Not bad. But the numbers have not been sources of confidence. Not to mention their atrocious record of covering spreads at home. That said, I think this is the week Delhomme and Steve Smith really get to shine, and Michael Turner gets reminded once again that running against Detroit and Kansas City is a very different thing running against a quality defense.

TENNESSEE (-3) over Minnesota
This should be a really fun game for people like me who love defense over offense. The balance of Tennessee's defense so far is almost as shocking as the imbalance of Minnesota's. I foresee good games for Bironas and Longwell here.

JACKSONVILLE (-7) over Houston
Jacksonville's offense should basically come in with the same game plan as last week against Indianapolis. Run. Houston has been woeful so far -- giving up around 170 yards p/game on the road. I'm really intrigued to see if Slaton can pick up where he left off last week, against a worst defense. But, even if he does, like last week, it just won't be enough. I see Houston playing scrappy, keeping it close for two-and-a-half quarters, and Jacksonville's two-headed running attack wear them down.

Denver (-9) over KANSAS CITY
Buffalo (-8) over ST. LOUIS
Not much to say about either of these game. Both Denver and Buffalo have their problems, but KC and St. Louis, both with newly installed backup QBs (because, yeah, Bulger was the cause of that trainwreck) seem as capable against them as Sarah Palin was when interviewed by Katie Couric.

San Diego (-7.5) over OAKLAND
I'd love to take Oakland at home. Not because I'm a fan -- but only because it would add another level of fun to the whole drama playing out here, between owner & coach, fan & owner, organization & media. Really, it's a delight. San Diego, however, is going to beat the holy hell out of them this week -- and for a brief moment, we'll remember how bad they are on the field.

Washington (+11) over DALLAS
It seems like a no-brainer to pick Dallas, I know. I really should, too. It just seems too easy to do so. As good as they are, Dallas still is pretty bone-headed. And I really could see them somehow sleep-walking into a divisional game after a big win last week. Plus, I grew up a 'Skins fan, and even now that I've grown out of that phase of my life, I can't yet go against them against the 'Boys. (BTW ... I read Boys Will be Boys this week. Brilliant book. Buy it. Check it out. Steal it. Whatever. If you're a fan of football, you'll love this book.)

Philadelphia (-3) over CHICAGO
Chicago's defense is no slouch, but Philadelphia's is something to behold. I like the Bears, but I see Orton making one too many mistakes here, and giving a weakened Eagle offense just enough leverage to get by. This is, however, a bigger game for the Bears. A statement game, saying that the opening win against Indy wasn't a fluke. (My hypothesis: it wasn't a fluke -- Indy is actually that mediocre right now.) It pains me, but I might have to sit Westbrook for this one. This is probably the game I'm most excited about this week.

PITTSBURGH (-5) over Baltimore
Parker out. Big Ben's nursing a gimpy shoulder. Pittsburgh offensive line exposed by Philadelphia last week. Baltimore, against all odds, actually looking good on both sides of the ball. But in the end, I've picked against Pittsburgh way too many times, only to see them defy my expectations. Plus, it's Flacco's first encounter with a Pittsburgh crowd. That doesn't bode well, no matter the injuries for the home team.

Last week: 6-10
Season: 23-23-1

NFL Predictions: Week Three

2008-09-19T13:39:00.006-04:00

(Home team in caps.)

TENNESSEE (-5) over Houston
The Chris Johnson-era (or, maybe even more precisely, the Albert Haynesworth-era) of the Titans would seem to hold a lot more promise than the Vince Young-era. I'd like to see Young back out on the field and doing well. I'm not enjoying his collapse. If Houston can get anything going on the ground with Slaton & Green, this one could prove interesting.

Arizona (+3) over WASHINGTON
It's weird to think, but I actually trust Arizona more than I do Washington. Plus, Boldin is playing out of his mind right now. Go with the hot hand.

Carolina (+3.5) over MINNESOTA
All hail Gus Frerotte and Bernard Berrian, saviors of the Twin Cities! Yeah that makes sense. Remember how I said last week Jacksonville was a formerly underrated team that is now overrated. Minnesota is just instantly overrated. Hope you're in Barry Sanders Five, Adrian Peterson, 'cause he'll be counseling you on putting up amazing numbers for a crappy-to-mediocre team for most of your career.

ATLANTA (-5.5) over Kansas City
I hope there's a good NASCAR race on instead for those of you stuck with this one. Good week to start Turner & Norwood, though, if you have them in your fantasy league. The Chiefs' run defense is non-existent.

NEW ENGLAND (-12.5) over Miami
The Patriots are back, apparently. At least this is what ESPN tells me. My first reaction to this line was, "No fucking way." My second reaction was, "Well, maybe." My third & final reaction, "It is Miami, after all."

Oakland (+9.5) over BUFFALO
I like Buffalo a lot. And I think they win this game. I just think this line is a little inflated. I don't think Buffalo will ever go up enough that Oakland will feel compelled actually to start passing the ball. If they continue to grind it out with Bush and McFadden (I know, it depends on McFadden's health), Oakland should keep this one reasonably close. Enjoy the Raider sideshow, Buffalo -- it'll take your mind off your own issues.

NEW YORK GIANTS (-13.5) over Cincinnati
This week, two friends of mine have been negotiating a trade: Wes Welker for T.J. Houshmandzadeh. Neither are putting up stellar numbers. Despite the fact the Bengals are 0-2, I still see more upside for Housh. Just not this week.

CHICAGO (-3) over Tampa Bay
Brian Griese returns to Soldiers Field. The drama! How did this not make primetime? Fortunately for fantasy owners, Joey Galloway is likely out. So, you won't have to deal with the heartache/headache that is the decision whether he's worth starting.

DENVER(-5.5) over New Orleans
Another fun one in Denver. I really could see this going either way. Possible let-down game for Denver. And who knows what you're ever going to get with New Orleans. Denver's defense is really awful, so Brees & Bush could make enough plays. But Denver's offensive attack is scary. I think they're a little like the Bengals from a few years ago. Watch out your knees, Jay.

SAN FRANCISCO (-4) over Detroit
This game represents, in full, why I want to move away from the Bay Area. Well, that and the $2000 rent. This comes down to the 49ers defense. They can't stop the run: but Detroit has nobody to run. The 49ers have a pretty good pass defense: and Detroit has a trigger-happy QB prone to throwing untimely interceptions. Oh, and while I'm dishing fantasy advice, Gore should have a nice week.

SEATTLE (-9.5) over St. Louis
You really have to feel for Seattle sports fans this year. So many of them hoped this would be a nice send-off year for Mike Holmgren. I never quite understood the optimism, or the random Super Bowl picks by a few national commentators. Their offense's shining star right now is Julius "I peaked way too soon" Jones. The defense should win this one, possibly with another couple of TDs. If you got 'em, start 'em.

Indianapolis (-5) over Jacksonville
One of the hardest games this week to pick. Jacksonville is still without Jerry Porter (surprise, suckers -- a number two receiver, at best, anyway), their remaining wide-receiving corp is comprised mostly of number three receivers, their offensive line is in disarray, and I'm running more on a Sunday than Jones-Drew and Taylor combined. BUT ... Indy's offensive line is possibly in even worse shape, they're without Bob Sanders, and Marvin Harrison couldn't win a footrace with Jeff Saturday. So, I don't know. Indy still has Manning. Manning hates to lose. And I can't imagine they start 0-2 at their new building.

Cleveland (+2.5) over BALTIMORE
I basically see Cleveland's offensive problems being parallel to Cincinnati's -- they can't get much worse, but they could get a lot better. Not necessarily to the heights they've been in the recent past. But to a level they win games they should win. For examples, games against Baltimore. The question I've yet to hear is how much longer before Brady Quinn makes an appearance -- in a game, not on the cover of Out.

PHILADELPHIA (-3.5) over Pittsburgh
Philadelphia is one ugly botched hand-off away from being the most impressive team in the league. More importantly, I'd like to thank the three people who drafted ahead of me for allowing Brian Westbrook to fall into his allotted spot on my fantasy team roster.

GREEN BAY (+3) over Dallas
This is a wonderful way to cap what should be a great Sunday of football. You might not like Dallas, but they put on a hell of a show, don't they? (Not to mention, they make great material for a book.) It didn't hurt them last week, but Ryan Grant's hamstring injury could this week. The euphoria of the moment, playing Dallas at Lambeau during primetime, could be enough though to make a young man forget his pain. That and some of Favre's old painkillers. More than anything else, I'm not sold on Dallas' secondary, and Green Bay still has the best wide receiving corp in the business. Slow T.O. at all, a bit like Philly did in the second half on Monday, and you're golden.

New York Jets (+9) over SAN DIEGO
San Diego is the hard luck story of the first quarter of the season. I know they got screwed, but it's not as though they didn't have a chance to stop the two-point conversion. Of course, San Diego has no defense, so this is obviously asking too much. The worst thing about the Denver game ending the way it did is that for the rest of the week we only heard about the referee, and not Antonio Cromartie. Cotchery, Coles, & Stuckey have to like their chances anytime they find themselves anywhere near him. Hard to see how Favre doesnn't pick San Diego team apart?

Last week: 7-7-1
Season: 17-13-1

Wall Street: We're Saved From Economic Doom!

2008-09-19T12:00:00.000-04:00

.... or are we??

Good Question

2008-09-18T01:46:00.012-04:00

From Steve Benen:

Let's also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He's been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He's been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He's been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He's been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He's been confused about Iran's relationship with al Qaeda. He's been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to "President Putin of Germany." All of this incoherence on his signature issue.

I'm curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?

I think an intellectually honest person would agree that if Obama had made these same mistakes he'd be labeled "clueless" on foreign policy. So, why the double-standard?

Good question.

Of course, we know the answer. As we rehearsed a few weeks ago, McCain has an adult perspective on these matters. Free pass for the adults when they flub details.

6 A.M. Anger

2008-09-18T01:46:00.010-04:00

Why the fuck would a landlord put a smoke detector that repeatedly screams a high pitch, dog-depressing beep when the battery is a low in a place that a tenant cannot easily get to it without a 30-foot ladder? WHY? WHY???

"My problem child"

2008-09-18T01:46:00.006-04:00

I caught the History Channel's excellent documentary From Peyote to LSD when it first aired back in April, and have since then, from time to time, thought that I should look and see if it is streaming online anywhere. As luck would have it, it is.

Normally, I'm the first to laugh at the idea of middle-aged white guys embracing shamanism. I worked for one of these guys last year. The mental image of him shirtless, with no doubt expensive paints adorning his pot-belly (with the all the significance squiggly lines can convey), is burned into me in such a way that I can only describe it as horrific. Be that as it may, the peyote cult is still really fascinating. If you agree, or if you want your disbelief challenged, this documentary is a brilliant way to spend 90 minutes of your life.

George Saunders Will Save Us

2008-09-16T15:55:00.004-04:00

Man, that post last night was kind of depressing. Apologies. It'll never happen again. Until it happens again.

In the meantime, we still have George Saunders to keep us sane.

So, when Barack Obama says he will put some lipstick on my pig, I am, like, Are you calling me a pig? If so, thanks! Pigs are the most non-Élite of all barnyard animals. And also, if you put lipstick on my pig, do you know what the difference will be between that pig and a pit bull? I’ll tell you: a pit bull can easily kill a pig. And, as the pig dies, guess what the Hockey Mom is doing? Going to her car, putting on more lipstick, so that, upon returning, finding that pig dead, she once again looks identical to that pit bull, which, staying on mission, the two of them step over the dead pig, looking exactly like twins, except the pit bull is scratching his lower ass with one frantic leg, whereas the Hockey Mom is carrying an extra hockey stick in case Todd breaks his again. But both are going, like, Ha ha, where’s that dumb pig now? Dead, that’s who, and also: not a smidge of lipstick.

A lose-lose for the pig.

There’s a lesson in that, I think.

Minor Details

2008-09-16T03:00:00.006-04:00

I find myself dwelling tonight on the minor details of memory. Instead of sleep, I recall the bench where, each morning, I come with the dog. She likes to sit here, and does not seem to mind my company. The benches here at that hour are generally wet with dew and/or the spray of the sprinklers. We sit here, sometimes for up to thirty minutes, and occasionally watch the fog sneak above and below, and sometimes between the highest and lowest points of, the nearby bridge that connects Oakland to Alameda.

If a cloud can be construed to appear vaguely as something lifelike--a cat eating a dog bone, a dog with a boner, or a man peeing onto a leaf--then fog is a bit like its Golemesque cousin. Its lifelike qualities are more than appearance. It feels organic in a way that we would probably not allow other atmospheric phenomenon. Fog seems in a way closer to being "real"--or, at the very least, hiding something real.

In popular imagination, fog is the precursor to doom that clouds rarely are, despite the fact clouds are far more likely to bring destruction. Maybe this is because of fog's immediacy, its closeness, the fact that we can sometimes touch fog and shudder at the ghostly fingers we imagine on the verge of meeting ours.

Not long ago, I found what fog is hiding. I took a long drive along the northern California and Oregon coast. At some point, I forget where, I encountered a beach unlike one I'd ever encountered. The sand was littered with death: driftwood, vacated shells, dried seaweed, and the trunk of a tree. The ocean was situated behind a smoky layer of coastal fog, peeking through occasionally, and then hiding again as though a shy child. It all smelled and sounded like a beach, but it looked as though the staging of the apocalypse.

If in fact history did end there that day, inside the fog, and everything beyond it been a hellish nightmare, much would be explained.

"It got to the point of ejaculation.”

2008-09-12T13:20:00.009-04:00

Bill Simmons mentions this in his Friday column, so I would imagine you're likely to hear more about the public-masturbatory exploits of former 49er & Cowboy Charles Haley over the next couple of days. Because the site Kissing Suzie Kolber will almost certainly receive a substantial uptick in its traffic, on account of people Googling "Charles Haley penis," I thought I'd just post a direct link for the chosen few who frequent this here den of ill repute.

UPDATE: Another great Charles Haley story has come to my attention via a friend of Silentio, about a reporter who just happened to cover football in San Francisco and Dallas during Haley's decade-long reign of terror. I really regret not going to journalism school.

NFL Predictions: Week Two

2008-09-11T14:41:00.008-04:00

I totally forgot to blog about my Week One picks. You'll have to take my word for it that I went 10-6. I missed on Jacksonville-Tennessee, New York (Jets)-Miami, Pittsburgh-Houston (STUPID!!!), Detroit-Atlanta, San Diego-Carolina, and Indy-Chicago. To be fair, I shouldn't be credited with getting the New England-Chiefs game right, but it reverted to a Pick 'Em on Yahoo when Vegas couldn't get enough people to bet on Kansas City (even after they were getting nearly seventeen points). I'll take it though.

From here on out, I'll post weekly picks on Thursday. Feel free to abuse me on my stupidity before and/or after the games have been played.

(Home team in caps.)

DETROIT (+3) over Green Bay
I'll concede that I'm pretty iffy on this pick. I liked what I saw out of Aaron Rodgers on Monday -- so much so that I ditched Carson Palmer and picked him up instead. But, I think they've a few things working against them this week. Not only are they coming off an emotional win, Ryan Grant is nursing a tweaked hamstring, and I think Detroit is due a couple more TDs than they could manage last week against Atlanta. They're a bad team, sure, but that offense should be better they showed.

New Orleans (PK) over WASHINGTON
New Orleans won the best-played game last week, so they should be rewarded at least a little bit of credit. Washington, on the other hand, is due nothing after their stink-bomb performance against the Giants. Even without Colston, I think New Orleans has enough offense to pull it off on the road.

CINCINNATI (-1) over Tennessee
How can I do this? Cincinnati was absolutely awful. They didn't get shell-shocked like the Raiders, but I think they might've been worse. Whereas Tennessee beat the Jags into the ground. And it's not as though playing at Paul Brown Stadium is a huge advantage for the Bengals. BUT ... they have a certain something whenever it comes to playing Tennessee. Palmer could very well make me regret not having him on my fantasy team this week. Plus, who knows what Tennessee will get out of Haynesworth, who apparently rubbed dirt on his concussed brain last week and finished the game. We saw last year what happens to the Titans when he's not in. (I'm avoiding saying anything about Vince Young, because I think Jason Whitlock deserves the final word for now on him. The great thing about Whitlock's column is that it demands you think about it, rather than begging you to agree or disagree instinctively. That doesn't happen too often in sports writing.)

KANSAS CITY (-3.5) over Oakland
I foresee a full-blown meltdown in Oakland after this game. Kiffin is the first coach fired this season. Damon Huard will shock us all with his efficiency, and may very well fool somebody in your fantasy league to pick him up.

CAROLINA (-3) over Chicago
We'll know if Chicago's defense is for real again after this game. Carolina's offensive unit is just a lot more with it right now than Indy's -- they held their own against a dinged up SD defense, but one that is still pretty good. Two in a row on the road from Orton is asking too much. If Carolina wins this, the rest of the NFC will immediately pay attention. Steve Smith's return awaits.

New York Giants (-8.5) over ST. LOUIS
Wow. St. Louis was spectacularly bad against Philly. I don't think they will be THAT bad this week, since the Giants likely don't have the same kind of firepower as Philly. But, it won't be pretty either. St. Louis fans, stay home so your city isn't stuck with this one on their tv! As a Bay Area fan, I know all too well the evil that is the shitty sold-out NFL game.

Buffalo (+5.5) over JACKSONVILLE
Now, I'm not all-in with Buffalo. (Unlike my friend up in Buffalo who sees them winning TWO Super Bowls this year, to make up for the sins against them.) Seattle, though, is set to be VERY bad. Buffalo did to them last week what you're supposed to against bad teams: beat them within an inch of their life, and be sure to take out their remaining wide receiver. Jacksonville, on the other hand, looked lost in week one. Granted, they always look kind of lost against Tennessee. But they gave off the vibe of a team that used to be underrated and very quickly became overrated. Kind of like Nicole Kidman as an actress. Give them a couple of weeks without their starting offensive line, Jones-Drew's requisite six weeks to get going, Jerry Porter's lifetime of unrealized potential, and they'll be back among the ranks of underrated soon enough. Just in time to take Buffalo's place.

MINNESOTA (+2) over Indianapolis
Indy fans, I know you're saying, "He just hates us." But you have to believe me, I really wanted to take you in this game. But, consider this. Minnesota had a shot to win on Monday in Green Bay, despite Tarvaris Jackson's horrible performance and a fairly underwhelming defensive display. What happens when they're playing at home against a really dinged up team whose timing is way off? It's really hard to see Indy go 0-2. But, if there is a year for it to happen, it is this year. If Indy scores ten points early, though, Minnesota's toast.

San Francisco (+7) over SEATTLE
God, I hate that I'm going to be stuck with this game on Sunday afternoon. Anyway. I saw today that Peter King is picking Seattle to win this one 40-17. Now, I can see picking Seattle to win. They're playing at home after all, and a contest between two shitty teams can often be settled by the home-field advantage, but 40-17!!!! How in the hell will Seattle score 40 points? Is Julius Jones going to have a career day? -- if so, that's 150 yards and two TDs. Where do the rest come from? San Francisco is pretty bad, true. And, yes, they're still starting Jack Quinn's Bar & Grill. But they weren't as bad on Sunday as a lot of people say. Well, okay, strike that, maybe they were -- but why does Seattle's badness get a free pass? Maybe I'm just responding to King's prediction here. A TD win over SF doesn't seem unrealistic. But, screw it. I'm sticking with it.

TAMPA BAY (-7) over Atlanta
ARIZONA (-6.5) over Miami
HOUSTON (-4.5) over Baltimore
Nothing to say about any of these three. I'll be stunned if Tampa Bay doesn't cover. Considerably less so if Arizona doesn't against Miami. And legitimately haven't a clue about the third one. Flip a coin -- it'll probably be more interesting than the game.

DENVER (+1.5) over San Diego
I know they were playing Oakland on Monday, but Denver actually looked really good. See my rationale for picking Buffalo for why I think this shouldn't be counted against them. San Diego is without their defensive leader. LT has a bum toe, and will soon have a sore thumb from biting it to suppress his tears. Philip River is in frat boy grudge mode against Cutler. I think they're due for self-combustion in Denver, thus continuing their streak of being awful in September and scaring us all in December.

NEW YORK JETS (-1.5) over New England
I think I'm supposed to pick New England to overcome adversity and piss off the whole of America by still being good even without Tom Brady. I'm not seeing it. The Jets weren't great last week, but they were serviceable. Plus, they'll be pumped up for this game in a way that nobody is against Miami. No storybook ending for New England and its "I'm not a QB but I played one for the New England Patriots" QB this week.

CLEVELAND (-6) over Pittsburgh
This is probably the pick I'll regret the most. I never pick Pittsburgh to win, and they always do. But, Cleveland HAS to be better than they played last week. Don't they? I think I'm hearing "No" from the majority of you. Well, at the very least, they want to repay the Steelers for thumping them in Cleveland last year. Yeah, that's my justification for this stupid pick.

DALLAS (-7) over Philadelphia
This game is so good. It's just too bad that it's stuck with those ass-hats from ESPN calling it. They will destroy what is otherwise a perfect match-up. I'll be cheering for Philly, but think Dallas is just too complete a team right now. A little concerned about Barber's health. But not enough to think they don't cover.

Sarah Palin ♥ Rapists

2008-09-11T12:47:00.001-04:00

I know it is sexist to criticize Sarah Palin's actual policies. She is irreproachable. So, I won't say this as a criticism, but merely as an observation.

Sarah Palin loves rapists.

The Renewed Mind is the Key

2008-09-10T14:34:00.001-04:00

This is just stunning. Absolutely stunning.

John McCain ♥ Pedophiles

2008-09-10T14:17:00.002-04:00

Why does John McCain want to protect children from knowing the difference between good touches and bad touches? What does John McCain have to hide here? I understand the need to shore up his credentials with the crucial NAMBLA constituency, but this seems a little too open. Or is America ready to make this a truly historic election, between a black man and a pedophile?

My friends, I think not. As a friend of Silentio just said to me via IM, Obama's most suitable response to this is (in light of the duplicitous turn McCain has decided to take his own campaign): "John McCain: Wrong to be in a room alone with your prepubescent daughter. Wrong for America."

Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness of life

2008-09-08T17:30:00.001-04:00

Reformed Maverick

2008-09-08T01:05:00.003-04:00

This is well, good, and hilarious .... but, where Brando's fall from grace was greeted by laughter, McCain's fall may well be greeted by an inauguration. Give the people what they want, I guess.

Now, we can laugh at this all we want, but as has been the lesson of this blog for years, The Onion is right:

Smiling Now Primarily Used To Communicate Anger

The smile, a facial expression traditionally used to convey joy, pleasure, or amusement, is now mainly used to suppress rage, according to a five-year study released Monday by the Countenance Institute. "More than 85 percent of smiles are involuntary responses to mounting anger," the study read in part. "In addition, the length and intensity of these smiles directly correspond to the amount of anger the smile is concealing. A smile that lasts less than two seconds represents just a passing annoyance, while a smile of four to eight seconds indicates a genuine hatred for its target." The study noted that individuals smiling for more than one minute while nodding and baring their teeth are most likely preparing to kill the person they are smiling at.

“I’m a radical, but I hate radicals. I’d forget the revolution over a glass of wine.”

2008-09-05T01:36:00.004-04:00

There's a really fine article in The Believer about the life & times of Emanuel Haldeman-Julius. If you don't know what that is, you're in good company. In the '20s, Haldeman-Julius set up shop in Girard, Kansas, and through his insanely popular "Little Blue Books" mail-order business contributed to the town's bizarre notoriety as a hotbed of socialism and radicalism.

Initially called “The Appeal’s Pocket Series,” individual titles sold for twenty-five cents. From the beginning of his publishing project, Haldeman-Julius made an effort to promote controversial rationalist and sex-education writings not available from other outlets. At a time when many working-class Americans didn’t finish high school—let alone attend college—his books aimed to inform, provoke discussion, and promote independence of thought. Many of the books were public-domain reprints of classics, which included “all the famous authors from Aesop to Zarilla”—though he also hired freelancers to write original books, often on political or how-to topics. Protofeminist Margaret Sanger, for example, was recruited to write about birth control (a taboo subject at the time). Sherwood Anderson contributed short stories, and Theodore Dreiser penned How the Great Corporations Rule the United States. Scores of lesser-known writers weighed in on various other topics, from Great Pirates and Their Deeds to How to Make All Kinds of Candy. An atheist himself, Haldeman-Julius made it a point to publish excerpts from sacred books as well as tracts on skepticism. “I am against all religion—I think the Bible is a dull book,” he later wrote. “Yet I print the Bible, and in the face of an appallingly low annual sale I keep the book in the series. I do this out of stubbornness. I am determined, because I know I am prejudiced against the book, to give it more than a fair chance. Could supporters of the Bible ask any more of one who does not like it?”

There's more where that came from in the article, you crazy radicals!

A Tip of the Hat

2008-09-05T00:49:00.004-04:00

I'm late linking to this, but I've only recently come out of blogging hibernation. (That's right, if you haven't noticed, tell your friends, Silentio is open for business again. The whore is ready for one and all ... at the same time.) My friend Adam has co-written a splendid post on The Dark Knight slamming the argument that the movie is a paean to militaristic neo-liberalism, insisting instead that the anarchic Joker is the true hero. Also, this is one of the few instances where the comments supplement a blog post and make it even better.

On the Radio

2008-09-03T18:41:00.005-04:00

Slavoj Žižek is in town this weekend, and found time for an interview on KQED. Really timely stuff -- on Obama, Batman, Kung-Fu Panda, flash mobs, and even Burning Man. For those interested, it can be heard here.

Wednesday Apocalypse Watch

2008-09-03T14:12:00.004-04:00

First, a little mood music.

"We could very well be in that quick slide downward in terms of passing a tipping point," said senior scientist Mark Serreze at the data center in Boulder, Colo. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now."

NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally added that within "five to less than 10 years," the Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer.

"It also means that climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are predicting, and nobody's really taken into account that change yet," he said. (courtesy, LA Times)

How To Survive The Republican National Convention

2008-09-02T22:05:00.008-04:00

If you're like me, you are a glutton for punishment and will inevitably find yourself watching some of the Republican National Convention this week. Now, we each have our own reason for subjecting ourselves to this -- morbid fascination, liberal hope to understand, etc. -- but none of us will be able to survive without proper precautions. In addition to copious amounts of alcohol and/or mind-altering substances, one also needs an appropriate soundtrack. You will need something that will at first blush harmonize with and be approprite to the drone of the speakers, and thus not immediately overwhelming, but will ultimately turn everything on its head and make the time you invested in watching not an entire waste of time. The drugs and alcohol will do most of the heavy lifting here, but appropriate music that does not kill the buzz helps. Tonight, I'm experimenting with La Monte Young's Eternal Music. Feel free to join me:

Part One

Part Two

This is What American Democracy Looks Like

2008-09-02T16:00:00.005-04:00

(via Rushkoff) I have to first mention that I’m wasn’t at the DNC protests nor am I going to the RNC protests. I’m staying in DC doing media support and jail support from afar. I went to NYC for the 2004 RNC protests and I was, in the following order, beaten with a nightclub, wrapped in a giant orange net by the cops, set on fire (swear I’m not making that up), beaten again, arrested, put in a cage, hit by a cop car. So I’m taking it easy this time around.

The protests at the DNC are being organized under a couple of different umbrella groups. Broadly, it includes everything from progressives to anti-authoritarian radicals, with a lot of students and youth under 30 and vets.

The conditions were pretty poor. The police had also erected a mini-Gitmo of free-speech zones–protest pens–into which to corral the bulk of demonstrators and any kind of activity was almost immediately curbed. The other major problem was that there was effectively zero press coverage, even among liberal bloggers. I spent my week seeing liberal blogs excitedly gush about what was going on inside the convention and rail about Republican radicalism of the last eight years while I was cradling a phone in my hand listening to friends tell me stories of being beaten up a couple of blocks away.

That lack of coverage in a lot of respects really emboldens the police and allows them to get away with just about anything, aside from it absolutely impoverishing our ability to engage in a reasoned analysis of how power works and whether the Democrat vs. Republican frame actually depicts anything even close to reality.

And, speaking of police brutality, it’s pretty notable that they’ve been consistently targeting press. There was a documented incident where an ABC news producer was knocked down and arrested trying to get footage of delegates and donors. The police also detained and seized the equipment of the Glass Bead Collective (a well-known indymedia group). There was also the knocking down and detainment of a Code Pink member–probably the worst bit was seeing her get shoved down, the footage then cutting to her being interviewed by journalists, and then the cop walking up and grabbing her in the middle of the interview and dragging her off.

But that kind of one-time sensational pushing doesn’t really capture the full scale of what was going on. Marches were immediately surrounded by walls of police, people were told to leave, and then they weren’t given any exit to leave and those who tried were arrested. There was a 100+ person mass arrest after the police simply decided that a large group of people milling about looked “suspicious” and were carrying rocks (which were never found, naturally), a convergence space was raided, and vehicles were simply stopped and searched and equipment was seized.

My connection to this is that I’m part of DC Students for a Democratic Society, which is part of the national Students for a Democratic Society organization. We’ve become known for an event called Funk theWar, which is a Reclaim the Streets style event–we like to call it a Militant Mobile Disco, and we’ve been called “suburban terrorists” by a couple of right-wing writers, which is offensive as we all live in DC. A good chunk of people in my chapter and a lot of people in SDS went to the DNC and are also going to the RNC protests.

I have to note though that this hasn’t stopped with the end of the DNC. In the Twin Cities, where the RNC is taking place, there was a massive raid on a convergence space with all inside (several hundred) detained in handcuffs (including a four-year-old) for hours simultaneous to a raid of three private homes around the area and then a raid on the base of I-Witness Video, a documentary outfit that specializes in recording incidents of police brutality and proved instrumental in getting people’s charges dropped after the 2004 RNC. The police called the whole thing a “criminal enterprise” and a handful of individuals have been charged with “conspiracy to riot”, but no evidence has actually been found as far as anyone can tell.

I’m gonna cut this short because I’m going on a bit, but I think one really important thing comes out of this and this is really what I feel like you’d be interested in: What the police are doing here isn’t stopping the demonstrations. They’re getting us to change the frame of discussion. Since these raids started, we’ve all switched from talking about the war, about capitalism, about the system, and about what we want in place of all this. We’re now talking about police brutality and we’re all getting a certain amount of titillation out of that. But it effectively completely sidelines why my friends are out there on the streets and why they’re willing to risk being beaten and arrested. Police action against doesn’t just shut down our march or cast a chill over organization activity–-it helps us forget why we’re fighting and that scares me more than anything else. I saw the same thing happen to the anti-globalization movement after 9/11 hit and I hope we’re strong enough this time around to inoculate ourselves against this sort of attack.

The last paragraph strikes me as off the mark a bit. The police action may "sideline" why the protesters choose to on the streets, but it actually illustrates all too well why more of us should be on the streets. Police violence is not a distraction. It is, in fact, the very embodiment of that against which the protesters fight. Here is exemplified the violence that sustains and perpetuates the status quo; when its ever-present gestures of defense are betrayed as aggression and projection of power at all costs. We are distracted most when it is ignored.

Four Increasingly Esoteric Thoughts About Politics

2008-08-29T19:59:00.011-04:00

§ 1: Picking Sarah Palin strikes me as a very poor decision. A lot of people are calling it savvy (a PR term for "cynical"), but I think that given a little time it will prove very clumsy. Of course, Obama & co. have to tread gingerly when they assail her lack of experience, but this doesn't mean they can't exploit it. As a presidential candidate, Obama has plenty of chances to convince people that he is ready -- he will either do so or he won't. Palin doesn't really have that luxury. Not only will she not get the same amount of media coverage to make her case, having to make the case at all unavoidably reminds people why it is an issue in the first place ... because McCain is older than the dirt that makes up more dirt. Does he seriously want his age & health to be in the back of people's mind, especially as they watch videos of Obama playing hoops and lifting weights? (Maybe if McCain's captors in Vietnam had served more arugula he'd look more lively and vivacious.) Of course, what do I know, Palin may well poach scores of female Democratic & independents voters who (a) are vehemently opposed to abortion (even in instances of rape & incest), (b) are against gay marriage (& health benefits for the domestic partners in same-sex couples), (c) don't care about getting equal pay as a man (unless, that is, she is determined to convince McCain otherwise on this), (d) hate polar bears, and (e) think that human activity has nothing to do with climate change. Oh, and how can I forget, independent women who, like Palin, thought Bush was too moderate and supported super-isolationist Pat Buchanan during the 2000 general election. Barring that, at least she'll be the Far Right's seasonal pin-up girl. Welcome to your base, Senator McCain.

§ 2: After watching Obama's speech last night, I really have a hard time seeing him lose the election. While I've not drank the Kool-Aid on him, and still support him for naively Leftist reasons, I simply cannot envision a defeated Obama. (Note: In the event of a McCain victory, it's so much that I'd be disappointed -- I'm far beyond that at this point. Simply speechless.) He is successfully speaking to the country's better angels, and this might be one of the few times in recent history that the country is open to that. Maybe this is due in part to the crises of climate change and economic decay, to the dread that we are most threatened by those things we cannot help but create. While I don't necessarily put a lot of hope in Obama & co. leading the way on adequately addressing these issues, I do think there is a certain power in a promise believed -- even when that promise is a half-truth (at best). Obama's claims of being post-partisan should be believed, I say, if only because doing so, against Obama's intentions surely, creates a kind of hyper-partisanship, which in effect opens the way to a kind of revolution in the way we as a people set priorities and/or cast our attention.

§ 3: When a lot of people read something like that last sentence, they instinctively and dismissively think I'm describing a utopia, and point out that what I'm arguing for leads to gulags and mass executions. And I say, yes, it can and has. The better angels of our nature rarely win out for too long. But we appeal to them not because they are safe, but because the failure to do so causes us to forget and/or repress the revolutionary kernel of our being: the possibility of creating ourselves as something different. The betrayal of the Other in ourselves, e.g., the rejection without question or pause of a new set of possibilities that do not map out onto the contours of our country's prized pragmatism, is perhaps more destructive than even our persecution of the Other "out there" -- the one(s) we believe threatens us. The latter is deadly, but (typically realized in retrospect) impotent and pathetic. How can one faithfully identify foreign threats when one is not willing to identify the fundamental threat one poses to oneself? Who should trust such a person?

§ 4: We Westerners are a depraved people, for whom our politics are well-suited. This is why many of us say we're more interested in the strategy than the policy, and why one can watch 24-7 cable news coverage of politics and never hear a discussion of what a policy actually means (only how it sells!). But if the religions across the world teach us anything of value it is that redemption or enlightenment emerge only from the depths of our depravity. Would that this be true, and for a moment our depravity got us somewhere productive.

Hopelessly Out of Touch

2008-08-21T17:56:00.004-04:00

It's been out over a year now, but I finally got around to listening to M.I.A's most recent CD, Kala. I wasn't blown away by her first CD, but, holy crap, this one is good. I downloaded it a couple of nights ago, and Ireland & I have been dancing to it ever since. She is preferential to "Bamboo Banga", and insisted I upload it immediately. I, on the other hand, am quick to admit that I like the very radio friendly "Paper Planes," too.

Time For The Grown Ups To Be in Charge

2008-08-19T16:50:00.004-04:00

Sen. McCain, we're told by a lot of people in the media, is a serious politician and thinker of foreign policy. So goes the mythology, he has been battle-tested, knows when war is necessary and when it is avoidable, and thus offers this country a steady mind in the face of crisis. He is, in short, an adult with adult perspectives on adult problems, and we can know we're safe under his watch.

And maybe this is true. I know of adults who are scared to let their kids play in the front yard, after hearing of a kidnapping two states to the west of them. I remember a church trip to Kings Island being canceled on me, due to the worries of adults, because another church had a catastrophic bus accident a couple of weeks earlier. Adults are afraid of their children seeing a woman's nipple on television, for fear of the questions it brings up about the human body. What about the children, adults squeal! Will somebody think about the children?!

Similarly, McCain manages to see every international problem as a world-historical threat that can only be faced with brave rhetorical bluster and mature displays of reactionary power. Of Hussein's occupation of Kuwait in 1990, McCain declared "the peace and security of the world for future generations [demand] that the world community act decisively to end the Gulf Crisis now." Four years later he described North Korea's nuclear weapons program as "the most dangerous and immediate expression" of "the greatest challenge to U.S. security and world stability today," warning that "there can be no serious doubt that our vital national interests are imperiled." Five years later, another crisis: "America's most important values—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under vicious assault by the Milosevic regime." What was needed: "an immediate and manifold increase in the violence against Serbia proper and Serbian forces in Kosovo," including mobilization of "infantry and armored divisions for a possible ground war." And, of course, who can forget the War on Terror: "the transcendent issue of our time" -- "a transcendent struggle between good and evil. Everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here." And more recently, with the situation in Georgia, Russia is exhibiting its desire to "restore the old Russian Empire."

And so goes the storyline, complete with its very serious adult themes, that is McCain's grave vision of international relations. Hyperbole is the name of the game. It's the stuff of grown-ups and maturity.

Obviously, I'm just too young to understand.

Obituary

2008-08-17T20:56:00.002-04:00

Sadly, Napa/Solano Counties' Times-Herald has realized their mistake and removed this obituary. But, there is enough circumstantial evidence to make me think it is in fact a real one.

Dolores Aguilar
1929 - Aug. 7, 2008

Dolores Aguilar, born in 1929 in New Mexico, left us on August 7, 2008. She will be met in the afterlife by her husband, Raymond, her son, Paul Jr., and daughter, Ruby.

She is survived by her daughters Marietta, Mitzi, Stella, Beatrice, Virginia and Ramona, and son Billy; grandchildren, Donnelle, Joe, Mitzie, Maria, Mario, Marty, Tynette, Tania, Leta, Alexandria, Tommy, Billy, Mathew, Raymond, Kenny, Javier, Lisa, Ashlie and Michael; great-grandchildren, Brendan, Joseph, Karissa, Jacob, Delaney, Shawn, Cienna, Bailey, Christian, Andre Jr., Andrea, Keith, Saeed, Nujaymah, Salma, Merissa, Emily, Jayci, Isabella, Samantha and Emily. I apologize if I missed anyone.

Dolores had no hobbies, made no contribution to society and rarely shared a kind word or deed in her life. I speak for the majority of her family when I say her presence will not be missed by many, very few tears will be shed and there will be no lamenting over her passing.

Her family will remember Dolores and amongst ourselves we will remember her in our own way, which were mostly sad and troubling times throughout the years. We may have some fond memories of her and perhaps we will think of those times too. But I truly believe at the end of the day ALL of us will really only miss what we never had, a good and kind mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. I hope she is finally at peace with herself. As for the rest of us left behind, I hope this is the beginning of a time of healing and learning to be a family again.

There will be no service, no prayers and no closure for the family she spent a lifetime tearing apart. We cannot come together in the end to see to it that her grandchildren and great-grandchildren can say their goodbyes. So I say here for all of us, GOOD BYE, MOM.

Seems like it would've been cheaper to just send in 'Rest in Peace, Bitch.'

Messiah Remix

2008-08-15T15:27:00.001-04:00

An Open Letter

2008-08-11T11:58:00.002-04:00

Dear Senators McCain & Obama,

You're both celebrities. You're both filthy rich. You're both ego-maniacs. You're both creations of the media.

You're both unable to live up to the expectations your followers place upon you. You're both unwilling to be the radical reformers you describe yourself as.

You're both crippled by your party. Obama, by Clinton. McCain, by Bush. You're both incapable of fully escaping their dead weight.

Both of your presidencies will in all likelihood be faced with challenges that will either merely ruin or fully devastate your hopes for a legacy worth remembering.

Both of you should know better. Neither of you do.

Your country deserves no better.

Sincerely.

Pervy Olympic Lounge Lizards

2008-08-08T17:46:00.003-04:00

This post may be from way back in 2003, presumably due to its link to this picture, has brought hundreds of people to Silentio over the course of the past day. I've no clue what search terms people are using in Google Images, but I can only imagine they, like most of you, are sorely disappointed by what they find here. Nevertheless, welcome anyway.

Some Weekend Reading

2008-08-08T12:28:00.000-04:00

Get your printer ready, or if you prefer, just take the laptop to the toilet with you, because I have here for you some great weekend reading. If you're at all interested (or involved) in, or simply curious about the marijuana industry, you simply have to read David Samuels' essay in The New Yorker "Dr. Kush: How medical marijuana is transforming the pot industry."

Note to self ... begin seeing a therapist immediately about anxiety, and a doctor about stabbing pains in my eyes.

I Love Mad Men

2008-08-07T17:14:00.004-04:00

Another week nearly expired. All we need is the weekend to officially snuff it out, like a pillow over a face. It's been a few weeks now since I returned from Belgium, and it's pretty remarkable how one eases back into the rhythms of a nearly forgotten life. Namely, that of the constant reminders of one's unemployment. I sometimes rather wish K. would berate me for my inability to get a job ... to hold some obvious grudge. At least then, I could direct my self-defensive anger at her. But, alas, no. Much worse when the constant reminders come from within. When they impose one layer of guilt for not having tried hard enough to remedy the situation; and then more layers still when the previous layers of guilt were not enough to shame you into finding a job. Around and around it goes.

Fortunately, I've discovered people more sad than I am: the main characters of AMC's magnificent show, Mad Men. We finished watching the first season last night, and I think I can say that on the merits of that season alone it has entered top tier of 'must see shows'. I'm really taken by the show's painstaking attention to detail -- with respect both to its sets and its characters. It's nice when a show doesn't even pretend to show you somebody as 'good', 'bad', or 'in-between'. The categories, as for most people in our lives, are neither necessary nor possible. (Even the loathsome Pete!) Most captivating for me is the depiction of heartbreak, especially in the marriage of Don & Betty Draper.

In this clip, from the season one finale, Betty confesses what we've known from the first episode. And I won't lie, I get a little dusty watching it.

The woman who plays Betty here plays this perfectly, and really exposes a level of raw emotion not seen since Carmela Soprano. Betty impacts me more, though, because of the level of pity I feel for her, which I never really achieved for anybody in the Sopranos.

In the next clip, superstar ad man Don Draper buys into his own sales pitch for Kodak's new slide projector, and it is mesmerizing to watch unfold.

The timing here is rich. And like Don says at the beginning, it walks a tight rope between being potent and being too sentimental. But something about the use of silence, punctuated with the clack of the projector. It just says it all ... about both the hope for something better with his wife and kids, and the regret that its not what it once was.

Not saying I relate to this or anything, at least not on the dramatic level on display here. Just saying, there's a ring of truth to it. And insofar as this is the case, maybe the healthy relationships, whatever that means, are the ones least true to life as we know it.

The Return

2008-07-21T12:39:00.004-04:00

Is there anything better than returning from a long trip and being greeted by an excited dog? Some might say children, I suppose. But not having one of my own, and not entirely excited about the idea of having one anytime soon, a dog will do. I wish I'd taken a picture of her face when I showed up at the neighbor's house.

Anyway, we're back, and I already miss Belgium. Or maybe I just miss the cheap beer. Or, maybe still, the fact that K.'s parents paid for all of my beer. One really must love enablers! I've posted several of these already, but the remaining photos of my adventure in beer (and at least one other intoxicant) while in Belgium can be found here.

Postcard van West Vlaanderen

2008-07-17T10:34:00.009-04:00

Cheers, from the Sint-Sixtusabdij van Westvleteren. Now considered by many alcoholic authorities as the best beer on the planet, the monks recently got with the program a little and realized they could make a bit more money from their most famous product -- though, after eating what seemed like two pounds of it, I can testify that their paté is just as much reason to visit.

The pick-up site looks like a drive-thru, but it is far less convenient than one might think. To get a crate of 24, and you're only ever allowed one crate p/month, you have to call months in advance to make a reservation. Actually, you make a reservation for a reservation, because you have to wait several days or weeks for a return call, indicating when you should come by and what will be available. Even then, when your appointed day arrives they may not even have the exact variety you were dead set on drinking -- choices being, the 'blond', the '8' and the '12', all of which, I can attest, are exquisite and worth all manner of hardship to acquire. Upon receiving your share of that which can only be called happiness, use it wisely, the monks then make you promise not to re-sell it, which of course you do with haste. Or, so it seems anyway. In Brussels, I saw a crate of 24 being sold near the Grand Market, for nearly seven euro a bottle.

Or, you can do like me, visit the abbey around lunch, enjoy a meal with two '12's and one '8', two pounds of paté and fresh bread, one heaping helping of ice cream made with their beer, and then stumble around the 7 km walking-path whilst belchy and bloated. Soon thereafter, I found the skies darkened by clouds and night, my sense of consciousness fading, stinking of beer, cheese, and the marijuana one inevitably happens upon during such events, listening to the Saxophone Summit and Wayne Shorter Quartet at the Gent Jazz Festival.

It was, I suppose, like any other day in Belgium. But a special one all the same. I will miss my second home.

Still Good To Be In Belgium

2008-07-02T15:48:00.005-04:00

It's Good To Be Back in Belgium

2008-06-30T05:09:00.004-04:00

"A Necessary Political Decision"?

2008-06-20T18:11:00.008-04:00

It's a very intriguing question as to whether Clinton is at all tempted to tweak Obama's nose and come out guns a'blazin' against the pretty atrocious FISA Compromise he supports. I doubt most people give a crap about FISA, but hardcore Democrats do, and it is certainly a chance to throw out to them a token "I told you so." If she could be instrumental in shooting it down, as doubtful as that is, she would not only be able to illustrate the hollowness of Obama's control over the party, but do so in such a way that he couldn't really cry foul without alienating his supporters (most of whom now are rationalizing the decision as "a necessary political decision," "the smart political move," etc.). Of course, this is a moot point if Clinton supports the compromise. But I honestly don't see any reason she'd feel inclined to do so, unless she is particularly convinced of its necessity.

A Theology Post!?!

2008-06-20T02:29:00.004-04:00

Lately I've been revising an essay of mine that addresses the differences between “righteousness” and “justice.” For most readers of Paul, the difference would appear mostly cosmetic. I've latched onto a contemporary analogy, though, that I think might be helpful in showing a distinction at issue that makes a significant difference.

Consider one of the most important economic issues facing the globalized economy today, debt. In the event of a crisis, whereby there is a person or a country whose credit is overextended, the normal response is to tweak the existing structure that imposes and enforces repayment, normally through some kind of legal reform or economic refinancing. The upshot is a realignment of one’s position with respect to the existing economic and legal structure, but not a complete reassessment of its legitimacy. This is generally comparable to how most traditional conceptions of righteousness is understood to work in, say, The Epistle to the Romans. If we were to extend the analogy, justice would then correspond to wholesale, worldwide debt forgiveness. The results of debt forgiveness are, in terms of the existing structures of political economy, unthinkable (and, inasmuch as the results are thought at all, with the probable collapse of present markets, economies and currencies, even horrific). Which is to say, because debt forgiveness and justice cannot in any way be made to square with the existing legal and economic order, neither can the results of their occurrence be fully anticipated or evaluated. This seems really striking to me, and ultimately very significant for a conception of theology that actually informs one's political disposition.

Depression Lurks! Pop Links!

2008-06-19T20:32:00.003-04:00

In a bid to ward off depression, I've spent the last part of my afternoon listening to jingle-jangly pop by the New Pornographers. I just thought I'd share.

In Love Again

2008-05-30T19:43:00.005-04:00

Over the past couple of months I've strayed from my original love, cinema. The whore that is TV has become more attractive lately. In the past few months, K. and I watched the final seasons of The Wire and Curb Your Enthusiasm, watched all of Deadwood, Freaks & Geeks and Tom Goes to the Mayor, and then got caught up on Weeds and Dexter. We decided to wait for season three of Weeds to come out on DVD, rather than downloading it. That gave us a few weeks to kill, since it's not due out until June 3.

The break has been a good thing. It forced me to reevaluate my relationship with the whore. She's a firecracker in bed, sure, but like Chris Rock said, "new pussy can't read!" She is, in short, not my true love. This is where the metaphor ends, of course. In the real world, if I returned to my wife, carrying the stink of cigarettes, whisky & whore, I'd be thrown out without so much as a counseling session or a goodbye. Fortunately, the world of metaphor is more forgiving, and cinema took me back with open arms.

On Monday, K. & I celebrated the death of US veterans (wait... that doesn't sound right) by watching Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A good friend of mine sums up Judd Apatow quite well: "Making misogyny hip again." He's not far off. The women of Apatow's world are really unfortunate. They are, for the most part, pretty, so they have that going for them. But they are also ultimately subject to the judgment and whims of the men, in whose world they just happen to inhabit. For a while, I thought FSM would be a bit different in this regard. Early on the lead character is exposed as unenviable and pathetic, and completely oblivious to his ex-girlfriend's attempts to improve their relationship. Granted, she leaves him for a vacuous rock star ... but, in the scheme of things, pairing up with the rock-star/sex-god at least makes sense. Pretty, professional women don't normally stick with doughy losers who do nothing but sit at home in their sleep clothes and watch TV (note to self, keep a divorce lawyer on retainer). And yet, by the end of it, she has become the villain, mostly for reasons that elude me. After realizing she does in fact still love (or at least miss) her old boyfriend, Sarah Marshall is referred to as "Hitler," and "the Devil" by the ex. Worse still, she never gets in a word otherwise, and is ultimately lampooned in the credits. What began as the most hopeful of the Apatow projects, in terms of its view of women, is finally its most harsh. Other than that, the movie is pretty hilarious. Seriously. I did enjoy it.

After that, I had to make amends for a glaring oversight. Somehow, I'd never seen The Hustler. I didn't even have a full grasp of its plot, and thus had no expectation of how pitch-black dark it is. Yikes. This is not, it turns out, the Rocky of pool. Can anybody play the super-talented but desperately flawed character better than Paul Newman? He thrives in these roles. The message is simple and plain: win or lose, your reward for participating in the rat-race is destruction. Have fun, though!

Last night was the best of all. K. didn't get much out Blast of Silence, but my God it blew me away. It was like watching a fully Americanized version of Godard's Breathless -- and, indeed, better than Breathless. In fact, by all rights, it should have heralded a New Wave contemporary to that in France. Now, that could've been interesting. Anyway, short assessment, it's really hard to go wrong with assassins during Christmas. Throw in the existential anxiety of wanting a silence one can never have, from one's first to final breath, and you have a great movie. Plus, a guy gets killed with an ax.

Tonight ... it's Kiss of Death. I've nearly forgotten the whore entirely.

The Remix

2008-05-15T14:46:00.003-04:00

You've surely seen the video of Bill O'Reilly's meltdown on his old show Inside Edition. Me, I prefer the Remix.

Wow

2008-05-14T12:34:00.002-04:00

For those who've missed the "Play off the Playoffs" so far:

Over the Mountain

2008-05-11T22:56:00.001-04:00

Happy Mother's Day!

Being a Fan

2008-04-16T16:19:00.003-04:00

It's been a long time since I've been a true fan of any one team, no matter the sport. The closest woudl be when I grew up in Lexington, Kentucky and cheered for UK basketball. Even then, though, I always had a sense that we'd really lost a sense of perspective. The zeal of the UK fan was that of a fundamentalist, which one can only truly appreciate after you leave the blue-blooded confines of Lexington and witness it from a distance. In fact, during in college, I ended up developing a special kind of hatred for the UK basketball fan, watching them be too obnoxious in victory (as though THEY had earned the glory) and too vindictive in defeat. I think this experience really warped my sense of sports enjoyment, to the point that I became a lover of sports without any real allegiance.

Sure, while living in Cincinnati I became partial to the Bengals, but this was always more sympathy for the hometown team than real fandom. Their playoff run in 2005 was more of a shock than a thrill. And yeah, I have a definite soft-spot for the Reds, having gone to their games since I was a boy, and will still even go to their games when they visit the West Coast, but I've never been completely sold-out on them either. I couldn't put name to face for 85% of their present roster.

Just prior to my move last April, I told a co-worker that I was going to start cheering for the Golden State Warriors. I'd long wanted a NBA team to rally around, they were lovable underdogs, and since they played in a terrific Western conference I'd get a chance to see a lot of quality teams play in my new backyard. To my surprise, upon my declaration, they went on a winning streak to end the 2007 regular season and squeaked into the playoffs. (I was still in Ohio at this time and thus didn't actually get to see this surge, but instead followed it with growing interest via box scores. I later learned this sixteen-game stretch is where the Warrior mystique truly came alive in popular NBA legend. Plenty of good YouTube videos to be seen chronicling their rise.)

The 2007 playoffs kicked off while K. & I began our epic seven-day trip across the country. While on the road, we watched the Warriors split the first two games in Dallas against the Mavs. I was impressed, but I wasn't hopeful. A number-eight seed simply doesn't win in a seven-game series, I explained to K. Something happned in Game Three, though. I remember watching it from our hotel room in Monterey, balancing an over-priced room-service hamburger on a napkin, and witnessing the strange synthesis of crowd and team at the Oracle Arena. I wasn't there, but I knew there was a "moment" happening -- one of those things that all sports fans watch sports for. This is where the regular script is thrown out and replaced with something infinitely more significant, even when it means your team doesn't win. Maverick fans loathe the Warriors, but I think they have to admit something special happened during that series. Golden State went on to win the series in six games, and though they lost the next round to the Utah Jazz, my absolutely arbitrary decision to become a fan had been solidified.

In many ways, I realize this may qualify me as a world-class bandwagon jumper ... but, I can deal with this aspersion of my character. Bandwagon or not, this has been the first full season of my being a true fan. I've not only watched a good 95% of their games, I've brooded mercilessly when they lost and cheered triumphantly when they've won. K. & I have hours-long discussions about playoff possibilities. She has consoled me mid-game when all hope looked lost; and I've counseled her from the brink when our team has let another eighteen-point lead dip to two. And even now, instead of looking for a job I'm reflecting on who they should draft.

With the joys of being a fan, of course, are the remarkable lows when things do not work out as hoped. To the NBA's loss, the Warriors were eliminated from playoff contention this week when they got beat by the Suns. It was hard to watch, especially after they were up eleven in the fourth quarter. I was without consolation Monday evening following the game. But as I reflected on this yesterday, I realized that I was entering uncharted emotional territory. I'd simply never felt that invested in a team's win-loss record. I don't know that I'd recommend it as a way of life -- knowing at least one Buffalo Bills fan, I can attest that it likely isn't healthy in the long run -- but there is something to devoting oneself even to a losing effort. There is, I now understand, a communal aspect to being a fan -- of the celebratory cheers and mournful moans held in unison amongst strangers.

Perhaps, in the end, what I disliked about my previous experiences in Lexington was that the fan experience was too individualistic. Maybe things have changed, but at the time UK fans were not feared because they could collectively will a team to win, or because their teams resembled their fans to the point that they were an organic whole, but because of the combined weight of their general animosity toward losing. This just seemed to breed a sense that they were owed success, and resulted in unearned bitterness when it didn't happen. (Just ask Tubby Smith.)

Out here in Oakland, though, it's safe to say that I've enjoyed my experience as a fan so far. I don't think I'm likely to extend it beyond the NBA right now. I have issues with the salary and talent distribution of baseball, so I can't take it too seriously; NFL has really begun to annoy me increasingly; and I've long ago turned my back on college basketball & football. In the ranks of professional sports, nothing comes closer to the NBA right now. I've said this before, but I highly recommend that you latch onto a team during this upcoming post-season -- maybe a young & fun 76er team, or a Hornets team everybody overlooked before the season. It's going to be a helluva ride. Who knows, maybe you'll fall ass-backward into becoming a fan, too.

Job Idea

2008-03-04T17:36:00.003-05:00

After a solid month of full-time (albeit temporary) employment, I am returned to the warm embrace of unemployment. Yesterday, I was able to knock out the final disc of Beckett on Film, read a bit more in Lewis Mumford's The City in History, and cry & moan when the final episode of The Wire didn't appear on On-Demand. In other words, we're back to normal.

Part of this normalcy is for me to fancifully imagine of possible employment scenarios in which I have either the vaguest of interest or most general of skills. Sometimes, it is something as mundane as becoming a librarian; other times, it is as dramatic as returning to the ministry. Each, however, carry within them a sizable educational (and, thus, financial) burden. In order to become a librarian, I would need to complete a two-year Master of Library Science program. To do that on the relative cheap I would need to attend a state university. At present, that means California, a state that already daily manages to kick in the testicular fortitude of our mightest budget.

As for the ministry . . . I am already ordained, but I cannot imagine a scenario in which I could, in good or bad faith, serve in the Christian Church / Churches of Christ. More likely, I would need to change teams, as it were, and pursue an ordination in the United Church of Christ or Episcopal Church. This would mean more seminary education, and, in all likelihood, more student loan burden.

Ideally, I will find something that requires no more additional education. Even more ideal, though, would be something that requires very little effort on my part at all. With this objective in mind, I think I've come up with the perfect solution: providing my services to people who have no friends willing or able to hang out with them.

In a culture of increasing isolation, people often stay at home not because they want to, but because they have nobody to go out with. Be it for lunch, or drinks, etc. I could be that person, for a price. I am a generalist by nature, and can carry my own in almost any friendly conversation. I am opinionated, but also genuinely interested in the perspective of others. I will not quickly agree to what is said, because wholesale agreement is a first-rate conversational killer. I am self-deprecating enough, though, that you could easily dismiss my opinions as those of a crackpot with too much time on his hands. I don't mind sharing my dessert. I become increasingly affable when drinking, and will always recommend very good alcohol. I never win at pool, and I cannot bowl, but love playing anyway. I am, in short, the perfect friend-whore.

I Know Where I Stand

2008-02-29T00:09:00.003-05:00

Today I got my official rejection from Stanford University for a postdoctoral fellowship. I say 'offical' because I've been expecting it for a while. I think at this point it can be safely said that Stanford has completely and utterly rejected me. As of today, I've been turned down by them for three postdoctoral posts, an administrative position that facilitated their Humanities postdoctoral program, two library postions, and a Sports Media job that I once accidentally applied for through their website.

Palo Alto may or may not be the city of the future, but definitely not mine.

On Catastrophe

2008-02-23T19:07:00.003-05:00

I recently finished Thomas Pynchon's Against the Day, and for some reason I found it resonating in weird ways with Cormac McCarthy's most recent novel, The Road. They are, of course, very different novels; and, indeed, were written by very different authors. But I was struck by how each, in their own ways, own up to a world facing catastrophe.

For Thomas Pynchon, the catastrophe (most notably, WWI) has yet to happen, but it looms throughout his novel. Indeed, the full weight of what is to come manages even to pierce the time-continuum and forcibly project emissaries of a futuristic world upended by humanity's self-made destruction. His is a meditation on technological and economic aspirations that instrumentalize individuals, their labor, and most fundamentally, the very core of existence, time.

For Cormac McCarthy, the catastrophe has already taken place. A piercing white light in the distance, a self-made disaster once again, is all that is disclosed about it. The effect, however, is clear—the body itself has become instrumentalized as food for the cannibalistic gangs of survivors.

While both Pynchon and McCarthy offer insightful critiques of the self-destructive tendencies of contemporary culture, they do so most powerfully in their evaluation of human sociality & love. What I found most interesting, though, and given my disposition this is hardly surprising, is that neither are concerned to demonstrate some semblance of hope. Like the great theoretician of catastrophe before them, Theodor Adorno, they do not suggest that relationships, be they familial or otherwise, might save us, either from what comes or what has already come. In many respects, they treat sociality & love like Adorno might aesthetics (music, in particular): as an immanent power trangressive to existing regimes of instrumentalization. This, we should note, despite its fragility, contingency, and transience -- they are, to my reading, both very careful not to idealize love. By all accounts, such love is useless (e.g., in The Road, the father's walking to the coast with his son only extends their being together, not the the hope for their ultimate survival) and/or capricious (e.g., in Against the Day, most noteworthy relationships are at first glance nothing but gratuitous, random sex; not to mention either short-lived or misdirected), but ultimately highlights a level of intimacy that goes against traditional expectations and norms. It is, in effect, out-of-place and/or inconvenient; when it is not doomed to failure, it survives only in misery.

For all of this, and perhaps cause of all this, Pynchon & McCarthy present love as not fully appropriated for profit and instrumentalized debasement. On the contrary, its vagabond, moribund, untenable status are marks of its survival, and of its status as a remnant of what is possible before and after the catastrophe. In this it manages to transcend those all-encompassing powers whose authority extends even to their own self-willed destruction -- that of a world so intent on surviving a certain way that it is willing to kill itself trying, through the ultimately suicidal violence of it means of production (& consumption) and the waging of its wars. In short, Pynchon and McCarthy can be said to intimate a kind of alternative ontology of survival, resistance, and existence: one that cuts across classical individualism and humanism, and brings us closer to the sense of a subjectivity that is a sociality, of a being-with others.

[Cross-posted elsewhere.]

An Election Rant

2008-02-06T01:11:00.000-05:00

Congratulations, California voters! Your retrograde, wistful memories of the 90s, those heady days of a boom economy that sought nothing short of sucking the world's resources dry, welfare cuts, and NAFTA has in all likelihood subjected us to a four or five month contest over whose dick is bigger, Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's. Good times. Let's at least hope that she'll be so busy proving to everybody she's as ready to blow up Iran or Syria as she is to pull troops out of Iraq that she won't have time to spontaneously cry on cue.

Seriously. This country's collective imagination is appalingly dim. Assuming Hillary wins the general election, America is seriously okay with two families churning out four presidents -- in less than a twenty-five year span? And don't give me any crap about Hillary representing sound ideas. She's winning elections because she's a Clinton, plain and simple. Clinton supporters love to give Obama supporters a hard time for the flimsy content of their candidate, and this criticism is fair; but, at least Obama's devotion is based on an infectious personality, not nostalgia. The difference is that Obama is selling himself, or some vision of himself as a community organizer, along with some vague, liberal messianic vision, and Clinton is selling a return to rearguard politics, where Democrats gleefully win their few petty victories, protect abortion with a Supreme Court appointment, etc. Me, I'll take the vague messianism ... because, as seen with Reagan, if people buy into it, it gains a force of its own, and it takes on a life of its own, and it motivates a foundational shift in our conception of politics that I think is necessary.

Now, I'm not saying Obama represents my ideals, nor do I care even to call him "progressive," as I only care about progress to the extent that it actively constructs a future -- not the moving toward a utopic end. His cries of "unity" and such are stirring rhetoric, but it must not be the ultimate purpose. More preferable is the unity of an ecosystem, with its separate parts & species, living and non-living, working together -- and not always in apparent harmony. But an active ecosystem is not one that simply survives; indeed, there may be no such thing. An active ecosystem is built on nothing less than creativity.

I support Obama, and indeed voted for him today, only because I think he is the only remaining candidate capable of constructing a space for a community from whom something genuinely creative might take place beyond (and, perhaps, in spite of) his presidency. Hillary's appeal is to her success, much of it nothing of consequence, as a hard-knuckle liberal who will go toe-to-toe with the dreaded conservatives. It has been fun, but time is running out on this cynical charade that is American politics. I don't realistically see it lasting in its present spectator-sport form another fifty years, and really see nothing to gain in the long-term from the battles. The whole experiment around which it is based, quite literally, is running out of gas.

My hope for a Obama presidency extends beyond what bi-partisan legislation he can ram through on health care. His policies, in all likelihood, would be nothing to write home about. The idea, though, is that all movements have a spark; and they all have a figure around which they initially rally or relate, even if often for no reason that can be rationally argued. In Obama, and at this point, only Obama, do I see a president that maybe, one can but dream, whose personality ignites a desire to re-learn how to build and participate in communities; and, relatedly, to re-train ourselves how to think beyond the material constraints of our resources and environment (these limits will become increasingly obvious, possibly even as early as the first term of the next presidency -- and they represent a reality that, I fear, both McCain and Hillary would rage against militarily); and, in spite of himself, a re-dedication by these communities to re-take & re-vitalize politics as a creative struggle that unites professed Democrats & Republicans only by virtue of extending the horizon of possibility beyond what either have to offer.

Maybe this means Obama, if he somehow won, would have ultimately to sacrifice himself as a politician -- i.e., for his followers to betray him, by believing in him. Maybe so. But, I'm okay with that.

They Wanted It More

2008-02-04T15:24:00.001-05:00

It's a well-worn cliche, but it's definitely true of last night's Super Bowl. The Giants just seemed to want it more. With good reason, everybody is going to focus on Eli Manning's absolutely stunning pass to David Tyree with a minute left. Right now I cannot think of a more exciting sequence in a Super Bowl -- not in my lifetime anyway. The closest I could come up with were from the final minute of Super Bowl XXXIV: McNair's amazing third-down scramble Kevin Dyson reaching for the endzone in the Titans' losing effort against the Rams. Some might cite Joe Montana's strike to John Taylor against the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII, but that drive had the feel of inevitability to it. You trusted Joe (or, in my case, feared him) ... but, Eli Manning?

It shouldn't take too long for the NFL mythologists to come up with a name for Eli's escape & heave and Tyree's catch. That play, in dramatic fashion, typifies the Giants' will to win the game, to make it their own -- to stomp to death the apparent invincibility of the Patriots. Any other game this season, the Pats score that touchdown with less than three minutes, follow it up by getting a fumble or interception, and ice the game with Brady taking a knee (or tossing another touchdown for good measure). Not this time. What else can you say? The Giants wanted it more.

I should've known. The signs were all there from the start. The pass rush that would not stop, for starters. Have you ever seen Brady hit so many times? This side of sleep, and even then I suspect he might be robotic enough to sleep standing, the only time he's been horizontal that much would be during far more intimate moments with Giselle. But then there was also curious play-calling. Quick strikes to Welker were there all game, so I'm not entirely sure why they didn't incorporate more slants like that w/ the other receivers. Or, for that matter, why Faulk can only make a play on third down. Or why they played the first half like it was twenty degrees and snow on the ground. Having said that, you have to credit the Giants' secondary. They played two straight games to perfection -- except for that mess of a Moss touchdown in the fourth quarter. But the decision that I still don't get is why Bellichek went for it on 4th & 13 from the Giants 31 in the middle of the third quarter. A 49-yard field goal in a dome is too long? How many 10+ yard pickups did the Pats have all game, and the odds were good that they'd get one there? The field goal wasn't automatic, sure, but you hit it and Eli's heroics result in an overtime. I didn't understand it then, and I really don't understand it now.

The one sign I didn't realize until after the game, the one that really exemplifies the Giants simply wanting this game more. Early in the second quarter, the Giants' side of the field, Ahmad fumbles the handoff and the Patriots' Pierre Woods falls on it. Any other game this season, the Patriots get the ball and score a crushing touchdown and go up 14-3. This time, by the time the bodies cleared, Bradshaw had regained the ball. In the ensuing melee, Bradshaw had somehow managed to flip Woods onto his back and rip it away. That, in itself, says enough, indeed everything, about the game.

The only lingering mystery is a medical one: who is Tom Coughlin's skin doctor? After their game in Green Bay, I thought he was going to be permanently disfigured by frostbite. Who knew that skin grafts healed so quickly now.

Creepy

2008-02-02T16:30:00.000-05:00

This might be old news to people more YouTube savvy than me. I saw it last year, and it creeped me out. A friend of mine said it best about when he suggested that the only thing that has really changed is that commercials today tend to have a better soundtrack.

West Coast Hoops

2008-02-01T18:31:00.000-05:00

This is a week of confessions. Here's another: I've given up completely on college basketball. I've not watched more than five minutes of a NCAA basketball game this season, and may not even bother with the tournament. In its place, I've discovered the NBA.

If you've not been a NBA fan in the past, I can't blame you. But let me say this -- there's no better time than now to get into it. We're looking at a special era. Two icons in Kobe & LeBron, a renaissance in incredible point guard play (be it Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Baron Davis, or the ageless Jason Kidd), and in teams like the Warriors, Mavericks, Celtics, Suns, Hornets & Trailblazers there is a new-found emphasis on actual teamwork.

A recent West Coast transplant from Ohio, being in a position to reall be a NBA fan is kind of new to me. It was a happy coincidence that K. & I were moving out here right when the Golden State Warriors were making their epic run against the Dallas Mavericks in the playoffs last year. Watching the games from our roadside hotel rooms, eager but unsure of what awaited us in the Bay Area, we knew we at least had basketball to look forward to. The Warriors have not disappointed.

They really are in the best position this side of winning a championship. A good team that can beat anybody on any given night (as witnessed by the spanking they gave the Hornets this week), and even take a series if they're hot, but not a team that anybody expects to say so hot as to win it at all. Expectations are reasonable, and the style of play is balls to the wall fun. I defy anybody to watch the Warriors play and not enjoy themselves. Purists will scoff, sure, as Baron Davis jacks up a three-pointer during a three-on-one fastbreak. But I bet even some of these right-thinking basketball fans would come around to at least appreciating the energy with which the team plays. It helps, too, that they're style of play really lends itself to close games that neither team are ever out of.

For those of you not following but know something about basketball. The West is so tightly bunched up right now, in terms of talent and in the standings, that the addition of Chris Webber to the Warriors is actually expected to make a significant difference. Bizarre. Well, that is until the Lakers trumped it completely, to the point of making the addition of Webber laughable, by trading for Pau Gasol. The only thing to get in the way of the Lakers making the Finals now is Kobe's ego.

Why Theology?

2008-01-31T02:38:00.000-05:00

I've been a professional student of religion & theology since 1993. Nearly fifteen years now. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing in God. I can't put my finger on when, but I am consumed by why.

The short answer: traditional notions of God simply stopped making sense to me. By traditional, I mean that of a transcendent, all-powerful, all-knowing Father. As I explored alternative notions of God, first through Buddhism, and then through radical Christian renditions that identified the Father as dying with the Son on the cross, I at first tried to equivocate when people asked me if I still believed. "Sure," I'd say. "Just very differently." Anymore, I'm not sure answering in the affirmative is at all helpful. Any explanation I offer will be involved and require lots of patience on the part of the curious, to the point that I suspect most would just say, "Why didn't you just say 'No'?" So, for all intents and purposes, no, I don't believe in God.

I repeat: I don't believe in God.

And yet, I must confess, it is still hard to write that. This is not because of some residual nostalgia. I do not sometimes wonder, "What if all my evangelical friends are right." I do not, when I think about death, experience fear because of the anxiety of burning in hell or eternal separation from God. My fear, rather, is one of human weakness -- of not being able to face the end of individuality, the collapsing of consciouness to nothingness; and of not being able to comprehend the complex ecology whereby the individuality of my living and dying unfolds into a ever-expanding network of human and non-human, via the constantly changing kaleidoscope of memory, the process of physical decay in which my body literally feeds the earth, or the seemingly infinite tapestry of decisions I've made that connect me to this world, and this world to me, even after my dying breath. It could well be said that the welcoming of this weakness is the reason I do not now believe -- though, I would be lying if I said I was aware of this when I first realized I did not believe. (That is the subject of another post, or perhaps even a book -- the evolution of disbelief.)

And yet, it remains hard to confess this. Not because I fear the reaction of others. My mom's reaction, maybe -- less because of what she would say to me, but because of how she would take it on as yet one more thing to worry about. She is a smart woman, I tell myself. She must know already. Or, like many from my past, suspect it, but wish to think otherwise. After all, the lies we tell ourselves about others sometimes make for the most polite conversation.

No, it remains hard to confess my disbelief in God because I do believe in miracles. Which is to say, I believe in acts of love and heroism. I believe that you do not get simply what you see, and that what you see is what you get. I believe there is more to a body than even the body knows. There is more to the individual, to the body-politic, to the universe untold than its constituent parts -- not that something divine transcends or permeates these parts, that there is anything BUT finite parts, but that the parts themselves are more than themselves. I believe that this is the stuff of creativity -- the creation of potential and possibility and power. The capacity not simply to change or evolve, to become something else, but the capacity to become something more, something that explodes from within expectations fashioned by past use, present desire, and future profit. Indeed, where these expectations alone explode beyond themselves.

I realize this threatens to become New Age mumbo-jumbo, so I'll be more concrete. In thinking things can be different, more than the horizon of expectations allow -- I am not content, for example, with a new president, a stronger Democratic party, a wider social safety net, or universal health care. I will take them all. But they are not miracles. The stuff of theology, as I understand it, of a political theology that matters beyond propping up the moralizing of sex or the extension of militaristic aggression or xenophobic hatred, prevents this from being the horizon, because theology, even without God, is the discourse of miracles.

What kind of a miracle am I talking about? One can only ever venture guesses and estimations, but what about forgiveness of debt ... a worldwide forgiveness whose results we cannot even imagine. It's insane. Horrific, in fact. Economies would crumble, money would become meaningless. In a word, chaos. Miracles, after all, are not always pretty -- they are not always the result of beneficient forces. Debt forgiveness could come through mass legislation, or perhaps revolution; but more than likely through natural forces like environmental collapse. Miracles emerge from the spaces that exceed, but do not necessarily transcend, intention and agency, cause and effect.

What happens after miracles, as we've witnessed in those religions we believe and disbelieve, most of which were themselves borne from miracles, is always unknown and always contingent. To believe in the miracle, though, is not simply to believe in what follows, be it a doctrine or a constitution, but to direct one's attention to what matters: the miracles from which these emerge, which they try to keep from happening again, and to which they ultimately fall. If this sounds a lot like the structure of myth, that's because in a way it is. Attention is paid to miracles in the quality of the myths we create and enact in our daily rituals. The fact that we no longer believes in miracles is indicative of the death of mythology, replaced by the spinning of tall tales and cons.

What I've Been Reading

2008-01-16T14:59:00.000-05:00

I get asked pretty frequently about what I've been reading. I'd like to think this because everybody thinks me to be really well-read, and always seeking to better myself verbally & intellectually. But, the truth is, everybody knows I'm unemployed, and you can only spend so much of your day pouring over Careerbuilder and forging reference letters. Anyway, I've gotten into a really bad habit lately of starting too many books. I have them planted all over the apartment. One in each of the two bathrooms, one next to the bed, a couple on my desk, and one somewhere within groping distance of the couch.

In the upstairs bathroom, I have a copy of Cormac McCarthy's Suttree. Unfortunately, I only ever use the upstairs bathroom to shower and pee. So, I've only gotten through the italicized meditation that takes up three pages. So, no review to offer. In the downstairs bathroom, I generally keep Thomas Pynchon's massive, 1,100-page Against the Day. I'm about halfway through it, and I'm still really liking it. It's definitely not for everybody, so I can't say everybody should dive in. For me, though, I find that I love to sit and read the prose out loud. I've yet to find a dull section, even with the ever-shifting narrative and writing styles. My IM away message is even from it: "It was the U.S.A., after all, and fear was in the air."

On my desk are two books, one I've just finished and the other I've just started. On Monday I finished reading George Monbiot's Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning. I can't recommend this book enough. A very quick read, Monbiot approaches the issue of climate change from a British perspective. Which is to say, he approaches it from a perspective that is a) unafraid of science and b) isn't committed to finding minority voices in the scientific community to call into question generally established findings, contrarian voices who happen to be heavily funded by the likes of Exxon. Monbiot, more or less, in short, takes it as a scientific given that our carbon emissions have the potential to kill a lot of people due to rising temperatures. Instead of making the argument that there is a problem, he describes the actual problem itself. That is, by 2030 the world's temperature will likely have risen 2.3 degrees (celcius) above pre-industrial levels (1.4 degrees above what it is now) -- which is the point at which really bad shit will probably start happening ... granted, mostly to people who are already poor and/or already neglected. This last part kind of gets in the way of his call to arms against global warming: a 90% decrease in Britain's carbon emissions by 2030. He very capably shows how this might be possible, but in the end concedes that the political & psychological obstacles actually to do so are enormous. (This is even more true for the U.S., where a 97% decrease would be necessary.) BUT, in spite of this, it's a really great book. Monbiot offers an enthusiasm and fresh perspective to things, and his cynicism is always tempered by, not really hope, but a willingness to show that there is another way even if we don't take it.

The other book on my desk, which I've only just started, is Philip Goodchild's Theology of Money. For me, Goodchild is one of the best thinkers out there right now. This is a really difficult, often very technical book. But, I think it can be translated, and at some point I hope to do so here. From what I gather, about fifty or so pages in, he is looking at money as the force by which we order and identify our individual lives and our political/governmental entities. Money is not just something that resides in your wallet, or in your bank account -- it is the mediating element of what passes for reality. To change ourselves or our collective will, we have first to identify how money does this. Only then is an alternative even thinkable.

Next to my bed is Donald Barthelme's disturbing book, The Dead Father. I'm only about ten pages from finishing this short book, but I've not really read in bed for a while. Fortunately, it is remarkably easy to jump in at any point, and know exactly what is going on. The title says it all. The father -- God, authority, creator -- is dead, kind of. The process of getting rid of the dead father, however, is a bit more difficult.

And in the living room, Gary Giddins' Visions of Jazz. Basically just a collection of Giddins' essays and reviews about the classic jazz greats, from as far back as the '20s, to more brief discussions of contemporary acts in the early '90s, this book is a nice one to read when I get a chance to load whatever new CD I've discovered, and just get into the vibe of things. I learn something new each time I flip through it.

Oil!

2008-01-02T18:32:00.000-05:00

Oh ... and Happy $100 Oil Day! Celebrate this historic occasion in style.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-02T16:51:00.000-05:00

I've long had a problem with those misguided souls who go on about the world's "overpopulation problem." Mostly, this is a not-so-subtle way of saying that poor people really should stop breeding. Even more misanthropic critics will say, behind closed doors, after a few drinks, that AIDS will sort things out in Africa. Most would cringe at this sentiment, and rightly so, but they would likely not have a solution beyond a mixture of more education and/or liberalization of the Third World. If only we could teach them to become like us!

Unfortunately, the reality on the ground doesn't support this general assumption. In fact, if anything, the reality on the ground exposes the outright flaws both in the assumption and the perspective that came up with it in the first place. First, the assumption that everybody should be like us; and second, the self-perception that our way of life is the prize everybody's eyes should be on.

The fact is, the American dream isn't even a nightmare. No, there's too much that is tangible to it even to sustain that particular metaphor. It is, rather, a bordello fantasy straight out of Ben Franklin's Parisian nightlife. Ah, but here's the thing -- we're convinced that a) the role-play is real, and that the jizz jar bent before us / rancid piece of pulled pork dangling over us really speak in love when they say, "You fuck me better than the rest," and b) that those pox marks on our genitals will heal themselves (and if not, why not, spread the love!). Our national myth of prosperity is a role-play that never stops. We will, we're assured, figure out ways for it to continue -- be it, blindfolds, Viagra, novelty costumes, clowns, ponies and and rubber balls. Oh, and yes, extending the invitation that others can play along!

So, we present the Third World with the Third Way, an illusion of our own illusion, that is, the means to consume as much as we do, if they but embrace democracy and its open markets, and then snicker mightily at the tragedy that the Earth cannot even sustain our own present levels of consumption. To embrace our illusion, and even to openly propogate it, is one thing; but to believe in it is another thing entirely. Such is the damnable offense of religion and marriage and education and liberalism, etc.

So, you're right, Jared Diamond. No, the problem isn't them. The problem isn't the real sex and overpopulation of others -- as patriarchal and problematic as their sex often is. The problem is our wet dream turned real: an erection that never stops at an orgy that never ends. The American way of life, at its finest.

Merry Christmas to Me!

2007-12-29T23:40:00.000-05:00

Christmas isn't really that big a deal in Casa de Silentio. At most, we swap one gift. Normally, we even let the other person in on what the gift will be -- oftimes even buying it while out with them. Last year, for example, we bought each other Sigor Ros concert tickets. This year, things were only slightly different. Different in the sense that K. bought me the gorgeous, framed & mounted concert poster to the left, and I've not yet managed to get her anything. Now, before the ladies go crazy on me here, to be fair, it's not all my fault. For starters, she went on a tear and indulged her every buying whim when we visited L.A. last week, from sweatshirts in Huntington to snazzy hats in Venice Beach -- not to mention a guided tour through Compton. And that doesn't even mention the fajita combination dinner at Chevy's we had on Christmas day. Anyway, by the time I found something tangible from me to her -- *cough* the day after Christmas *cough* -- the online store had sold out. Oh well, if the Jews can hold out using the same oil in the temple for eight days, she can stick with her old, saggy-assed pajamas for another week.

So, yes, Merry Christmas to me.

Also on Christmas, I got a revenge that was one year in the making. Last year around this time, Mr. Aquadoodiloop bested me in the championship of our fantasy football league ... by a half-point! I still remember watching the Monday night Philly game, and seeing Brian Westbrook crank out the final, meaningless junk yards that put him over the top. Shock and rage blended into a fistful of hate, which I kept clenched for a year tighter than a homophobe's sphincter in the Castro. One would think that finishing first in a Aquadoodiloop-less fantasy baseball league would've helped, but no. If anything, I became all the more determined to crush my nemesis. The season progressed to form. He and I remained neck and neck most of the way, splitting the regular season matchups; enduring the scorn of our spouses, who participated in the festivities but despaired of & mocked our fanaticism; and then we each beat back our playoff challengers. The stars aligned for our matchup last weekend, and, I'm happy to report, poetic justice whispered in my ear and promised to make my enemy her bitch. And indeed she did. I beat him by a full point this time around, but that is only because we went without fractional points -- otherwise, the margin would've been roughly the same as last year, this time in my favor. Next year, my friend ... rubber match?

Merry Christmas to me, x2.

Sadly ... not all was perfect this holiday season. Indeed, the sole significant disappointment was so tremendous as to almost ruin it all. To explain requires a little context, but even then I don't expect many to get it. Kenny Rogers Roasters has always held a very special place in the hearts and gullets of me and my friends. In college and part of graduate school, it was one of the few places we could all agree on when posed with the question, "Where you want to go for dinner?" The wood looked at the chicken it had cooked, and saw that it was good. And we loved the wood for this. The wood had little to do with the macaroni and cheese, but we loved the wood for this too. Like all good religious experiences, a little irrational attribution is natural. Kenny Rogers smiled down at us while we dirtied our faces and mouths with his food, consuming his woody goodness, and gazed up at him in admiration for the chicken he'd likely never even tasted. At some point, Kenny Rogers Roasters lost the favor of the American eating public, and it wasn't long before we lost our wood. We were at a loss for a long time. Each of us found our own substitutes, I suppose. Some of us moved on quicker than others. But I liked to think that a piece of Kenny's wood stay with us all.

Like many good things from the college years, I gave up on reliving it. It was not meant to be. That was, until the days just before leaving for my trip to L.A. It was revealed to me from a mysterious ninja from upstate New York that there was one remaining Roasters in the United States, in the Ontario Mills Mall just outside of L.A. My wood had returned, I sang, with vibratto. Sure, it would require a major detour to the east outside of L.A., not to mention venturing into the largest mall west of the Mississippi River just days before Christmas, though happily after the Chanukah rush -- but I didn't care, and I somehow managed to convince K. she shouldn't either. The saintly Belgian agreed to our detour, after taking her for one more trip to her new L.A. landmark, California Donut, and we set off while in en route back to the Bay Area.

If poetic justice smiled on me during fantasy football, cruel heartbreak kicked me in the balls. I should've known. Remember, if you will, the final Kenny Rogers Roasters is in a mall food court. A MALL FOOD COURT! I knew this, but thought, hoped, that the power of the wood would transcend it all ... and, yes, make it all good. Oh, but it was not to be. Kenny was there in name only. There were no pictures. No gold albums. No music. Only the soul-devouring dullness of ... a MALL FOOD COURT. And the food ... well, the macaroni was lukewarm at best (due to the slower than dirt mother or fourteen in front of me), and the chicken tasted as though it had been warmed up with a bathroom hand dryer. A part of me died that afternoon at the Ontario Mills Mall. Maybe a part that should've died when I graduated, alongside the hope for viable employment. The thick fog that haunted the central valley during my drive back to Oakland from L.A. that night was appropriate, that and the smell of a memory's death on my fingers and its taste in my mouth. For those taking notes, it smells like stale dog urine preserved in the fridge and tastes like under-cooked mussels.

But you know, maybe this is okay. Maybe Christmas & New Years is just as much about finally putting something to rest as it is dreaming of something new. Goodbye, Kenny. Finally. Forever. Amen.

The Wire -- Season Four

2007-12-06T01:08:00.000-05:00

I can't remember if I've written about The Wire here. If not, it's been a major oversight on my part. Seriously, if you've not seen this show, do so. Season Four was released on DVD today, and K. & I just made our way through the first disc. A three-hour movie would wipe me out, but three hours into this season and I'm really pissed I don't yet have disc two (hours four through six). I remember one Friday back in Cincinnati, K. & I watched six hours of Season Three in one go. That's pretty unprecedented for me when it comes to tv.

You're not liable to find more captivating characters on tv, and the degree of investment in them is a little unsettling. Three episodes in now, and my heart is already aching for at least two of this season's new characters. And Bodie... poor, stupid, but strangely noble Bodie. I fear he won't make it to Season Five. Such is the life of a street soldier.

Anyway, I repeat. Get this on your queue, buy it used. Get caught up on The Wire.

Hiatus

2007-11-27T13:33:00.001-05:00

This past weekend, I took some mild heat from a friend I didn't even know visited Silentio for not posting anymore. Consider it a hiatus, of sorts, even if I have been blogging elsewhere. You, dear Silentio, are always my first love, though. Even when neglected. Like the slave in my closet. Umm.

This month, as you may know, is National Novel Writing Month. Being basically unemployed, and having completed the writing and publishing projects that had consumed my time for months, I figured I'd give it a shot. My first thought was an epic erotic poem. Not enough epic poetry written these days, and certainly not erotic poetry. In fits and starts, grunts and gasps, I made my way through a series of jaw-dropping stanzas. Write-in participants swooned at the ever-expanding girth of my word count. And then, as quickly as it began, I was finished. Done before the story was. One week into November.

The next week I began a new story. This time, I decided to go Gothic. Conjure up a little modern Poe, perhaps. If we cannot satisfy our readers' sexual appetites, we'll make them curl into a ball on their bed, screaming into the pristine-clean sheets, biting their pillow. The result: a simple story of a preacher who loves his only son, but on occasion beats him silly -- claiming later to be possessed. The son loves his father, believes him and decides that accepting his Satanic beating would be the ultimate act of love for his possessed father. I quickly realized , within a week, there was not 70,000 words to be had in this short story.

The third week I devoted to a a not-so-distant not-quite dystopian future, in which the middle class has not so much revolted as gone insane. Their employers, recognizing the high cost of fuel, and succumbing to governmental pressure to "Go Green," have granted their employees a wish: work from home. The only problem, these same employees, who are no longer able to afford the appearance of luxury promised to them by the late-20th/early-21st century, have become slaves to their suburban homes and the gadgets they've amassed. With no refuge from what they've gathered for themselves, one couple systematically destroys their possessions in increasingly creative ways -- discussing the beauty of burning HDTVs, cooking IPods while they play in their portable Bose players, and disassembling SUVS and using the parts to create a totem commemorating Mammon's death.

But then I decided I wanted to write something socially relevant. So, this week I've poured myself into a writing a screenplay about a chef who loves his food creations so much that he cannot bear to have them eaten. So, in a madcap comedy he has to figure out a way to keep his job as a lead chef by serving somebody else's food. Finally, through a series of hilarious events, he decides to try some of his own cooking. He dies from salmonella-poisoning.

A Movie Review

2007-11-27T13:31:00.000-05:00

‘I knowed you was crazy when I saw you settin’ there. I knowed exactly what was in store for me.’

‘Yes. Things fall into place.’

Beyond the stark and brute depiction of the preparation, explosion and aftermath of violence that makes up so much of No Country For Old Men, there is a much more steady, and more enduringly interesting, reflection on the insanity and inevitability of this violence. Joel and Ethan Coen have never shied from the ironic or insane elements of brutality, as most famously depicted in their contemporary classic Fargo, but never with such exhaustion or nihilism. Indeed, it took the suffocating absence of irony in Cormac McCarthy’s literary vision for them finally to realize despair.

The principle characters of this triangulate tale are introduced quickly. First, the story’s moral conscience and commentator, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. In a wind-swept, weary voice-over he speaks, as though only to himself, of how crime is not what it once was. He no longer understands what he is fighting, and is in fact unsure he wants to. The world, he suspects, is so far gone that to fight against it is to become a part of it; and to become a part of it is to endanger one’s soul. As Bell speaks, the camera pans from the parched Texas prairie to the very embodiment of what he is fighting and fearing, Anton Chigurh.

Fittingly, and in retrospective defiance of Bell’s opening monologue, Chigurh begins the film in police custody. ‘Yessir, I got it covered,’ says the deputy, as he reports Chigurh’s recent arrest to his superior over the phone. Within seconds, however, the deputy is dead, strangled to death by a handcuffed Chigurh. The only facial expression Chigurh shows is that of physical exertion. Beyond that, it is blank. We are thus introduced to a killer who kills not for pleasure or strictly for gain. His is, we learn, a moral conscience of its own—that of a pure activity that requires no commentary. In a world not quite fit for the gods, Chigurh is depicted as the closest we have.

The aim of Chigurh’s activity throughout the film is finding and punishing his own Prometheus, Llewelyn Moss. Moss is a ‘man’s man’. He is rugged: he is an outdoorsman who tracks and hunts wild game; and as observed by his wife, he’s never been known to quit when faced with a challenge. He is human: he loves his wife; and he has compassion for those who are suffering. And most of all, he is decisive. He decides, first of all, to investigate the mysterious scene of a drug deal gone bloodily bad; he decides to take the $2 million he finds; he decides to return to the scene hours later so that he might give water to the sole survivor. All these decisions, and those that follow, set in motion a series of events that inevitably lead to an anticipated climactic encounter with Bell and Chigurh.

The Coens are masters of their craft in telling this story. Many of the scenes are long, but they remain taut and intricate in their details, especially those depicting the cat and mouse chase between Chigurh and Moss. Bell remains on the outskirts of the action, distanced from its immediate tension, but not its effects. Each corpse and clue incites a reflection that confirms his belief that he is no longer cut out for his line of work. Time has, he believes, caught up with him, and the “old ways” and manners no longer hold true. The world is, in effect, damned. And neither the Coens nor McCarthy are interested in redeeming it for us. The world’s damnation is without question. Theirs is, rather, whether this damnation is new, or have we always carried its curse?

What seems to go unremarked in most assessments of No Country for Old Men, be it the novel or the film, is the degree to which this most tragic of questions is explored in a modern, “genre-fiction” rendition of classical tragedy. We have all of the constituent structural parts: a monologue/prologue; an actor-chorus, or amoibaion, who comments on the action mostly from a distance (i.e. Sheriff Bell); an episodic story paced by Bell’s “choral” reflections/stasimons; and even a multi-layered, epiphanic exodus. Of course, unlike classical tragedy, our encounter with these elements is in all likelihood initially unnoticed; or where it is noticed, especially during Bell’s extended debate with his mentor on lost innocence and present depravity during the post-climactic denouement of Chigurh’s stalking of Moss, it is easy to overlook the complexly tragic implications of what is happening in the midst of this apparently conservative reminiscing of a bygone era.

The Coens set all the converging pieces in motion with delightful, expert pacing, and as we see Bell approaching the scene, we already know that the violence that propelled the players forward is not far behind. Up to this point, we have been given very little indication that the Coens are going to really push the crime genre beyond itself, and thus beyond the description and depiction of the insanity at our violent, damnable core. And yet, here, the tragic content of No Country for Old Men really takes shape, beyond even the experiments with its form (which the Coens have already used to some degree, though to comic effect, in The Big Lebowski).

In the end, this very violent story is not really about violence—its celebration, its ironic send-up, or even its condemnation. Moreover, and far more provocatively, in placing markedly more emphasis on the immediate results of the story’s climactic confrontation than on the unfolding of the confrontation itself, emphasizes the fact that, for the Coens, neither is this film consumed by a narrative structure that privileges climax. Rather, in the style of a true modern tragedy, violence accompanies and inheres to the decisions made by Moss, to those he appears freely to choose and those set upon him; the climactic, pitched battle we anticipate, in effect, has already been set by the decisions made. It is only now for the players to play their parts.

Where Bell cannot face this, and is compelled instead to look backward, and Moss is fixated on the pure contingency of trying to stay alive, only Chirguh seems to know the truth laid out by the Coens and McCarthy. ‘You know how this is going to turn out, don’t you?’ he asks Moss. Chigurh, the humourless force of nature, compared in the film to the bubonic plague, cannot be placated: ‘You can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you. He's a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that. He's not like you.’ Indeed, on a certain level, it could even be argued that Chigurh does not in fact decide who lives and who dies. Through their decisions, those pre-determined as well as those that emerge purely from chance, death and life are dealt. As such, in the midst of contingency, the inevitability of consequences lurks. Chigurh illustrates this a couple of times, when he flips a coin and places a person’s fate on whether they call it correctly. One central character refuses, arguing instead, ‘The coin don’t have no say. It’s just you.’ But in the final scheme of fate and nature, refusal is its own decision, with its own consequences.

Football Blogging: Week 2

2007-09-17T18:41:00.000-04:00

I wanted to blog every Monday of this year's NFL season, but a somewhat spur of the moment roadtrip to Seattle last week scuttled my plans. I was back late Sunday night, but I was in no shape to assess what had transpired the day before. Plus, I'd only been able to catch bits and pieces of the Bears-Chargers game on the radio. Fortunately, this weekend I was able to be as slothful as I wanted to be. Fresh from the high that was Kentucky's 40-34 throttling of Louisville on Saturday, I sat down Sunday morning very excited.

A few random thoughts from my day on the couch:

Fantasy football owners of Joey Galloway, be very very wary. I've seen this before. He is one of the ultimate in fantasy teases. You bench him, and he ends up torching New Orleans for 135 yards and 2 TDs. You start him next week, and he gets two balls for 40 yards and a fumble. Beware.
Braylon Edwards hasn't been in the league long enough to develop a reputation, but the Browns have. I don't see him doing quite so well against Oakland next week, and I think Oakland will get its first win of the season.
Good people of Oakland, please don't sell out all the Raider games. I really don't want to get stuck with them on my tv every week. It's bad enough I'll have to avoid the 49ers winning ugly every week. Is there a worse looking 2-0 offense?
Speaking of ugly, the AFC West will threaten the NFC North for ugliest (but most competitive) division in football.
I hate to think it, but the Steelers might win the AFC North with relative ease.
I really wish LaDanian Thomlinson had a blog so he had an immediate outlet to whine after every loss.
If the Bengals don't fire Chuck Bresnahan this season, and possibly even Marvin Lewis, two things should happen: a) fans should turn in their season tickets, and b) the first-team offense should refuse to take the field. I love that I actually read some columns talking about the "surprising" Bengals defense stopping the Ravens last week. Back up. Read that entire sentence. They got a bunch of turnovers from.... the offensively inept Baltimore RAVENS. It's shocking that they gave up 500+ yards to the Browns -- nobody knew they were that bad -- but c'mon. Some perspective, please.
I was ready to crown Indy the team to beat after they destroyed the Saints last week. Well, not so fast. Indy is still great, don't me wrong. They look about as good as they were at the end of last season (which, is a couple of steps below where the Patriots are now, but hey!). Beating this Saints team doesn't look to be a big deal right about now. It almost makes me wonder if everybody took it easy on New Orleans last year, via NFL mandate. I'm not saying that people threw games. Save that for the NBA. Just eased back, so as not to blow them out of the water early in the game. Make it exciting in the fourth quarter. If you win in the fourth fine ... but keep it close. Remember, the Saints were a couple of late stops and scores away from a losing record last year. Hmmm.
I was asking somebody before the Chargers game ... why is everybody so big on them? Outside of Gates and Thomlinson, what other weapons do they have? Are any of their WRs even starters in your fantasy leagues -- the true measure of a championship caliber team?
A friend's observation from last night: "John Madden is so precious. Everyone else has reached the point of being so bad, that I actually enjoy him now."
Edgarrin James = comeback season? Great game for him yesterday, and he actually looked nice and fiesty in the Cardinals otherwise abysmal loss against the 49ers last week.
The Houston Texans should campaign the NFL to switch conferences. Who could beat them in the NFC right now?
Quentin Jammer has such a kickass good porn name for such an overrated corner. (Unrelated: Eat My Black Meat 2 on Spice is a little pricey.)
I may not leave my wife for Feist, but I would certainly invite her into the relationship. Interestingly, upon revealing this to a friend with whom I was watching last night game, he pointed out to me that my porn fantasies almost always revolve somebody who resembles my wife. Aww. Love ya, honey!
Not entirely apropos of nothing, during the 49ers-Rams game, the announcers kept using the term "muff," as a kind of shorthand for "muffed punt." I need to rewatch the telecast, but I swear I remember the announcer say, "That's the second muff of the day," "They're all over the muff," and "The recovered the muff." If you're not at least giggling at this, you should not be reading this post.
So, the kid in the new psychadelic Peyton Manning ad ... that's his inner child? Huh? Oh ... and yes, Marvin Harrison in the tank of sharks, clearly some kind of subtle indication of his being kept in the closet because of his homophobic head coach.
Ben Stiller just needs to go away. Maybe he'll learn from Owen Wilson's mistakes. Cut WITH the wrist, Ben. WITH.

A Link

2007-08-16T01:50:00.000-04:00

A little bit lighter on the posting this week. I started a full-time temp. job, and am only just now getting used to the jolt to my regular routine.

I did find the time to read this fabulous synopsis of the current market meltdown, how we got to this point and where it all might be heading & why. Much better than what you're liable to find in most newspapers. It's a bit long, but very worth your time. Surprisingly, even a good many of the comments are worth reading.

The Lighter Side

2007-08-12T18:50:00.000-04:00

I realize I've been a little shrill and alarmist as of late. So, I thought I'd step back from the brink of annihilation. If only for a bit.

Two music-related notes. (1) I recently downloaded D'Angelo's now-rather-old Brown Sugar CD, and I've fallen in love with him all over again. Fortunately, K. doesn't like him AT ALL. All the more for me! For D'Angelo fans, he has a new CD coming out this month, I think. (2) If anybody out there should have a copy of Herbie Nichols' Love, Gloom, Cash, Love, and you're not opposed to making me a copy, I'd be forever grateful. This is a ridiculously hard CD to find in CD shops.

Two links. First, the likely NSFW link -- it's a short piece on one man's sex education in the "Second Life" virtual world. It's not a flawless piece of writing, but if you can't at least giggle at lines like "Within seconds Justyn Jewell was balls deep in Tony's avatar," then you're beyond hope.

Second, it's been while since I've linked to Mark Morford, several years in fact, but last week's column about America's obsession with free shit is spot-on and terrific.

Free plane ticket! Free iPod! Free colonoscopy! Free tank of gas! Free extra set of cheap useless knives when you buy the two other sets of cheap useless knives! Free supersizing of your Coke! Free upgrade to premium membership when you commit to a 10-year contract! Pay no money whatsoever! Seriously! No money at all! All we ask in return: countless, endless chunks of your time, your brain, your intelligence, your health, your soul, your respect for nature, just a little bit of your ability to think and feel and care about the world. Come on now, is that too much to ask?

The Problem With Blame

2007-08-09T16:06:00.000-04:00

I was responding to Gabe's comment to the previous post, and realized it might be fitting just to publish it here instead -- if only to keep up my streak of daily posting this week.

*********
Re: I think the bottom line is what James Kunstler and you have been harping on: we cannot continue to live as we have been living... but we are surrounded by fucking idiots.

What's worse, in my opinion, is that I don't think we can so easily look around and blame the "fucking idiots" for this mess. Consumption, be it the kind that rapes the environment or the kind that ignores reality (i.e., via credit & debt), is now fully engrained & inseparable from our contemporary culture. Which to say, it is almost impossible for most people to do live truly alternative lifestyles, let alone imagine something differently.

For example. One of the things observed about the decrease in gas consumption in California is that it is mostly because of California's wealth. I.e., in a very real sense, they simply can afford to conserve, either by living in urban areas, or buying cars w/ better fuel consumption, etc. For the vast majority of Americans, however, this is almost impossible. They have, for example, accumulated so much shit in their houses that to move to a smaller, urban area would mean they'd have to leave as trash a lot of the things they've picked up along the way -- enormous couches, a tv p/room, rugs fit more for the Tajj Mahal than Maple Avenue, dust-covered treadmills, pool tables, etc.

(And this is to say nothing at all of the neglected urban cores themselves, where we are asking people to move in order to consume less. They have become inhospitable places, due to a generation of poor maintenance, decayed family and doomed communities. Which is to say, it takes more to bring people to an urban area than opening a couple of bars. What's worse, the problems of urban living are mostly correctable for those who can afford it. The moment an urban area is "cleaned up," look around, and you'll likely find it has been "cleaned" of those who are blamed for making it dirty -- the poor, the homeless, the drug addicts. They are blamed for their irresponsible maintenance of their neighborhoods and the the poor stewardship of their exorbitant "government handouts," despite the fact far and away more government money (tax breaks, etc.) were extended toward the suburbanization of American cities than was extended to its core. Ah, but where there is suburban crime & decay, the blame is on video games and violent tv, not irresponsibility.)

There is also, and perhaps more fundamentally, the simple fact that most people shop at Wal-Fart or Shitkea because their budget forces them to do so. We know that we should buy a more expensive toaster or coffee table, or whatever, knowing full well the cheaper good will break down, forcing us to spend more on a litany of replacements every few years than we would on a one-time investment in something of quality craftsmanship, something that lasts. And yet, (a) most of us don't have the money on hand to make that one-time investment, so to buy the nice table means to put it in on the credit card, and thus to pay even more for it because of interest; and (b) if everybody stopped buying the cheap replacement-goods, this country's economy would shrivel & dry up faster than Betty White's vagina. When taken together, it is a powerful one-two punch that keeps us stalled, our imagination racing for an alternative we cannot conceive.

I write all this, hell, I think all this, I know that it comes off as defeatist. But I don't think so. Seeing our world as itself calling for -- groaning out for (as Saint Paul puts it) -- a fundamental change, not a "makeover" fit for ABC and that spikey-haired twat with the megaphone -- is the stuff of religion. The fact that those who consumed by this call, those who groan so often that they are finally ignored, are not always explicitly religious, and that most of those who are explicitly religious do not do so, is an indictment fit for another post.

Under $3

2007-08-08T19:42:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I noticed that for the first time since I've been living west of the Rocky Mountains (only since May, for those of you not keeping score at home), gas dipped below $3 p/gallon. In fact, this is the cheapest gas has been out here since March. And, of course, everybody is thrilled. Especially the analysts, who you very easily beaming with the good news, "Don't worry, people. The worst is over. Our refineries are working at full strength, without problems. The price of gas is no longer related to the price of oil. And besides, even the the price of oil is tumbling after its quick ascent to $78 p/barrel week."

I hate to be so damn depressing, and I know I have been, but don't believe it. Or, if you do believe it, don't sell that Hybrid in your driveway for a new Expedition. A few things to keep in mind: (a) investors stopped their profit-taking, and thus stopping the price plummet, the very moment ConocoPhillips shut down two refineries on the East Coast (it should be recalled, US refineries are held together with spit and paper, and there is no major investment to create any new ones); (b) the price of oil skyrocketed last week even though there was no major disruption like a hurriance in the Gulf or flare-up in the Middle East; (c) the infrastructure of the oil industry, not to mention our levels of consumption, are such that it will not take much of a disruption to diminish the glut of gasoline that is causing gas to be cheaper than oil; (d) those people our newspapers quote as experts in forecasting the future cost of oil & gas have, for the most part, consistently & grossly underestimated their price; and lastly (and most importantly), (e) the price of gas has everything to do with a temporary supply glut -- with maybe a very little related to a slight uptick in conservation (esp. in California) -- NOT because we are producing more oil than we are consuming -- because, quite simply, we're not.

Manstrokewoman

2007-08-08T17:33:00.000-04:00

TI've not seen the British show Manstrokewoman, but by all accounts from friends, and given clips like this, it looks funny as hell:

On A Personal Note

2007-08-07T12:48:00.000-04:00

Most people who read Silentio already know my friends Julia & Pat, and already know about the recent birth of their second child, Conrad. If so, you also probably know about the (hopefully small) drama brewing around this new little one. Whether you do or you don't know them, I would be a very poor friend indeed if I didn't inch out a paragraph of space on my own blog to say to two of my closest friends, Congratulations and Stay Strong.

K. says she might even hold this one. Oh dear, I don't know what that might mean for me.

Who Knew?

2007-08-06T02:17:00.000-04:00

Wow... who could've guessed that an economic boom based on the denial of economic reality and propped up by hallucinogenic induced visions of dancing dollar signs was ripe for a jolt.

Relatedly, this has been making the rounds around the internet since Friday, but I can't help but link to the meltdown of CNBC's market cheerleader, Jim Cramer.

UPDATE: James Kunstler is one of the better popular voices in the growing chorus of people concerned about the present economy and where it is headed -- to what he calls "the long emergency." So, it is only natural that he has a nice bit up today about Kramer's tirade.

Cramer's histrionics were only a few clicks above his normal antics on the "Mad Money" show, but even so, they made a remarkable impression of someone in real, not mock, despair. He mentioned more than once during the tirade that he'd been on the phone all week with other interested parties who were begging him to do something about the rising bloodbath on Wall Street. And by "do something," they clearly meant that Cramer should go on his TV show and make an appeal to Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke to drop the prime interest rate at the Fed's meeting this coming Tuesday -- the purpose of which would be to make cheaper loan money available to the Wall Street players whose investment houses suddenly found themselves underwater in the churning straits off Hedge Fund Island, weighed down by bagfuls of worthless securitized non-performing mortgages.

Personally, I don't quite get how a financial industry based on bad loans would be helped by borrowing more money to bail out a hopelessly unwinding Ponzi loan racket of the type the industry had engineered for itself -- but maybe I'm lacking the gene for financial creativity that the Bear Stearns bonus babies were all born with.

In any case, apropos of Cramer's telephone marathon, one can only imagine the number of cell phone minutes racked up this weekend out in the Hamptons by players trying desperately to finagle their way out of the brutal fact that their firms and funds suddenly lay exposed to the cruel ravages of reality. A lot of catered crab tidbits and mini-quiches must have gone uneaten out along the dunes as weeping men in blazers realized that "marked to market" had come to mean the same thing as "holding a bundle of shit."

Solutions

2007-07-30T01:29:00.000-04:00

The inevitable question that is raised when anybody talks about things like climate change and alternatives to the amorality of capitalism and over-consumption, as I was doing here last week, is Okay, so what do we do about it? Sometimes, this question is asked in all honesty. Yes, I agree. What do we do now? Most of the time, though, it is considered the ultimate rejoinder: All you can do is articulate the problem. I've heard no solutions. There is nothing we can do. So, what to do when there is nothing to be done but continue to do what we have always done, but perhaps a bit more humanely?

Agreed, there is no solution in the sense that we now have a how-to list of ways to save the world. More important than the absence of any how-to, though, is the absence of will. If you talk about this stuff w/ most people, they get exasperated because you've not laid out the reasons and ways we can survive. What they want are ways we can all survive and still lead basically the same life we've been leading. That this is fundamentally opposed to the very critique of consumption never seems to dawn on them. (Example: people who talk about the electric car imagine a very happy world of zero emissions and high mileage, and a new world of economic growth and industrial expansion freed of over-consumpton. The problem with this is the amount of energy/consumption (& cost) needed to [a] completely redesign and rebuild the electrical grid, and [b] to create & maintain the new industrial market responsible for the production & distribution of millions of batteries, is so high, and so immediately necessary, that [at minimum] it will alter the playing field of who can afford to consume what is now even an average amount of resources.) If mathematics and geology are correct -- who can assume these things anymore? -- what is necessary is a fundamental change that not only changes the present, but in effect changes the past decisions that set us on this present path. Nobody wants to hear this, of course. It is the inconceivable.

What is not inconceivable, however, is that there is a solution to our problem. In fact, I think the end result of our consumptive ways is its own the solution. Our path has a terminus. There will be more famine. There almost certainly will be eco-catastrophes. There will be more disease. Lots of people, mostly poor, will die. The middle-class will become incredibly disenfranchised when the protective bubble of credit we've settled in is no longer sustainable, and incredibly dangerous when the reality we kept at bay seaps back into everyday life. The very same rich & famous we gawk at now may actually become the targets for aggression and resentment. And, where do the formerly coddled and now newly disenfranchised go for their succor but either identitarian movements that mistrust strangers and/or the awaiting rhetoric of demagogic religion & politics. All this seems unavoidable to me, and in a certain sense it does "solve" many of our problems -- in an absolutely dire way.

What's more. We are, I believe, beyond the point of stopping this. The most viable response now is to begin preparing ourselves for what comes after. People need to start learning NOW how to live in alternative, less-consumptive ways -- using their hands, learning agriculture, learning how to get by w/out driving, etc. I'm not so naive as to think or imagine a future anytime soon where people worldwide do these things and change our current situation, and reverse the course our history of bad decisions has set us on. But I can imagine our world being changed in such a way that we and our habits are forced to change. Making preparations now is imperative ... not to delay the future, though in some measure it might a little, but to prepare ourselves for its arrival.

The Politics of the Exponential Function

2007-07-24T01:37:00.000-04:00

The ignorance of simple math may very well kill us.

This is the premise of a lecture given by Dr. Albert Bartlett, a retired Professor of Physics from the Univ. of Colorado in Boulder (text, as well as streaming video and audio, can be found here -- highly recommended). The problem, he argues, is a complete ignorance and/or blindness to what exponential growth really means:

Legend has it that the game of chess was invented by a mathematician who worked for a king. The king was very pleased. He said, “I want to reward you.” The mathematician said “My needs are modest. Please take my new chess board and on the first square, place one grain of wheat. On the next square, double the one to make two. On the next square, double the two to make four. Just keep doubling till you've doubled for every square, that will be an adequate payment.” We can guess the king thought, “This foolish man. I was ready to give him a real reward; all he asked for was just a few grains of wheat.”

But let's see what is involved in this. We know there are eight grains on the fourth square. I can get this number, eight, by multiplying three twos together. It's 2x2x2, it's one 2 less than the number of the square. Now that continues in each case. So on the last square, I’d find the number of grains by multiplying 63 twos together.

Now let’s look at the way the totals build up. When we add one grain on the first square, the total on the board is one. We add two grains, that makes a total of three. We put on four grains, now the total is seven. Seven is a grain less than eight, it's a grain less than three twos multiplied together. Fifteen is a grain less than four twos multiplied together. That continues in each case, so when we’re done, the total number of grains will be one grain less than the number I get multiplying 64 twos together. My question is, how much wheat is that?

You know, would that be a nice pile here in the room? Would it fill the building? Would it cover the county to a depth of two meters? How much wheat are we talking about?

The answer is, it's roughly 400 times the 1990 worldwide harvest of wheat. That could be more wheat than humans have harvested in the entire history of the earth. You say, “How did you get such a big number?” and the answer is, it was simple. We just started with one grain, but we let the number grow steadily till it had doubled a mere 63 times.

Now there's something else that’s very important: the growth in any doubling time is greater than the total of all the preceding growth. For example, when I put eight grains on the 4th square, the eight is larger than the total of seven that were already there. I put 32 grains on the 6th square. The 32 is larger than the total of 31 that were already there. Every time the growing quantity doubles, it takes more than all you’d used in all the proceeding growth.

Bartlett then uses the logic of exponential arithmetic to lay out what is wrong with with seemingly innocuous notion that we must always be growing in order to be productive. His analysis of the problem is about as good as you're going to find. Introductory, funny, engaging, and downright chilling when he applies this soberly to our consumptive appetite for energy. In short, his mathematical gaze is to the point: not only is our energy consumption unsustainable (we all know that, right?), but the tipping point is actually right upon us, almost certainly within twenty years. The behooves us to ask, he warns: what will your world look like after the demise of cheap energy?

His only major misstep, in my opinion, is his overriding focus on overpopulation. I don't know. Maybe I'm going to ridiculed for this, but I think this is a potentially very dangerous red herring. Certainly as it is traditionally argued -- and even as Bartlett does here. There is, of course, the mathematical and geographical problem of overpopulation, which will surely lead to a catastrophe. A finite area, such as a city, a state, a nation, or a globe, cannot sustain unending growth. I do not argue that. What Bartlett does, however, and what I find most people do who talk about overpopulation (esp. in the global sense), be they conservative or liberal, is speak fully in the abstract about the problem w/ no real vision of a true solution. What is the typical solution? Namely, education -- be it the conservative vision of abstinence, or the liberal vision of unbridled birth control (or, if they're more "radical," reversing patriarchal hierarchies). Maybe tax cuts for people who stop having kids after one or two. Few, of course, will argue for a mandated systemization of abortion. Even fewer will apply a dark vision that genocide, war, and famine will do our job for us, so perhaps we should leave places like Africa to their own devices.

The problem with this perspective, near as I can tell, is that it assumes a certain equality that simply isn't there. It assumes that we are all individually complicit in such a global problem as overpopulation, in equal measure. Of course, that this perspective results in the Third World getting the stink eye is quite natural, as their populations are exploding far beyond that of the First World, and as such they're clearly not doing their part in this worldwide effort to be smart with Mother Earth. This, though, seems a little convenient.

What is so pernicious about this logic is that the very problem damned by the First World, we who search for the solution overpopulation frantically, is, in fact, caused by the steady march of First World growth. The very thing that now defines the First World! In spite of his absolutely vital critique of this growth, even Bartlett ignores the fact that this philosophy of growth is engrained in the very functioning of the First World. I.e., growth is built into the system in such a way that reality no longer matters -- otherwise, would the fact that advanced western economies are built on debt and credit, the buying and selling of debt unbacked by tangible resources, make sense? There is, I would argue, absolutely no means of reforming capitalism with a little humanitarianism here, and and some compassion there. Our incremental progress that late-capitalism was to bring, at this point, is running perilously close to the end of the cheap and ample resources that brought the First World to its present heights in the first place.

The deficiency of Bartlett's math is that it, near as I can tell, cannot show the socio-economic reality that where there is constant growth, there is also an inevitable decline, in the form of those who do not own the land that produces the goods that churn the wheel of progress. These, rather, are given a different criteria by which to judge their success, versus that of the rest of the world -- their standard of living is judged by comparing it to those who are just as poor or poorer, in such a way that we can justify paying them what amounts to scraps in terms of a First World criteria, because 'it's more than they'd normally get, so they really should be happy.'

And then we have the First World solution to the overpopulation of the very places that it effectively renders, and arguably keeps, poor. (Okay, yes, I realize that China is getting richer; as is India. And while one could argue that this is not likely filtering down to the lowest levels of either society, I would argue that the effects of this growth is built on an ecological and energy-depleting timebomb that extends to the budding middle class of these countries a new kind of poverty, namely, a uniquely modern myopic vision of reality that threatens the very livelihoods that have moved them beyond the slums, and inevitably their lives even to the budding middle-class of these countries. So goes the metaphorical cocktease taking place in emergent economies: the extraordinarily hot virgin (capital) with an inexplicable and incurable venereal disease.) This, despite the fact that where there is poverty, there is typically a population increase -- be it in Africa, or be it in Everwhere Ghetto, USA; as poverty decreases, so does the birth rate -- be it in western Europe or Everywhere Suburb, USA. Where there is poverty, education falls, women's rights decrease, and contraception is less available. We know that social conditions have a tremendous impact on population growth, and yet it is officially a non-starter when one questions the relationship of late-capitalism (which, I say again, is fundamentally indistinguishable from the inexcusably ignorant -- willfully ignorant -- object of Bartlett's dead-on critique). Instead, we mistake the symptom for the disease.

That Bartlett shrinks away from this, to something so abstract as warning us about overpopulation, when the the real problem itself is staring him, us, you & me, square in the face, is telling. It is telling of the disconnect between what we actually know and what we believe to be true.

Pause the Child Within

2007-07-20T16:57:00.000-04:00

Articles like this one in last week's SF Weekly would not normally be my kind of thing. Sure, I read and thoroughly enjoyed Jeff Euginedes' gender-bending bildungsroman, Middlesex (again, as with The Road, I should note, before Oprah was putting her label on it), and appreciated the fairly thoughtful Belgian film Ma Vie en Rose, but by and large transexual and gender identity issues are not normally on my conversational docket.

What interested me about this article, though, is actually the same thing that drew me into the book and movie -- i.e., the focus is on kids. I lived a pretty benign childhood compared to these kids, and I rarely doubted I was happy as a boy (even when I was once mistaken for a girl because of my adorable curls), but I can resonate with never feeling completely comfortable inside one's skin. I was not (and to a degree, still am not) confident in what I can do physically, which is pretty evident to anybody who has ever seen me try to play a sport of any kind. The physical ability to perform an athletic task (or even an act of physical labor) is there, to some degree, but the confidence necessary to do it is hard to muster. Which is why I feel remarkably good about myself when I do something as mundane as fixing a plug on an appliance; and feel very sheepish when friends ask me to try my hand at, say, blacksmithing, preferring instead to sit by the fire and drink. I'm trying to get better at this, though, because I truly believe a time is coming where the information revolution is not simply not going to open out as freely into a host of opportunities for one like me who wishes to lead a "life of the mind." We are, I suspect, on the cusp of returning to an age in which skilled labor -- be it gardening, blacksmithing, or whatever -- will be valued once again, and the opportunities for intellectual life considerably diminished.

Oh, but crap, I just got distracted -- though I think it is all related to where I'm taking this. For now, though, back to the article. Yes, basically, it's a very interesting story about the recent developments in medication that effectively delays puberty. So, if a girl is experiencing major doubt about her "being a girl," rich parents can insure that her hips won't widen, her breasts won't bud, and she won't menstruate until she's old enough, presumably, to make a more informed and mature decision concerning which gender path she wants to pursue. Same story for boys. (In fact, there is a must-see pictoral progression of photos demonstrating his blossoming into a pretty blonde girl.)

The article itself is interesting enough on its own, but it was made all the more so for me when I read this paragraph:

Few of the transgender adults interviewed for this story said they had the consciousness at such a young age to know what transgender was in the days before Internet communities and Oprah specials, let alone that they would assume this identity. While many concede that kids who receive this treatment will have an easier time in puberty and passing in the years beyond, some question how transitioning so early will change a community where having lived on both sides of the gender line is part of a collective identity.

When I first read this, I took it to mean that some transgender activists were opposed to these treatments, on the basis that the identity of transgender community will be changed. And maybe they are. But now that I read it again, it seems that the use of "question how transitioning so early . . ." maybe points more to simple ponderings about what the identity of the transgender community will look like in coming generations. Either way, it seems inevitable that identity is going to be front-and-center. This, though, just seems fundamentally backwards to me.

It is no secret that I'm not attached to the notion of "identity," and thus do not feel as though the end-all solution for contemporary society is to embrace every new identity that can be imagined or created surgically. The upshot of what I have in mind includes acceptance, but it is not defined by it. It accepts difference, however, not because of a moral imperative, but because the identities that are assumed to lie behind and inform who we present ourselves as simply do not matter. They are as (ultimately) inconsequential as they are inevitable.

I take the position that when/if it is understood that everybody is playing a certain role, which we call an identity, a role that we knowingly either fashion for ourselves or acknowledge has been imposed upon us by history and/or culture (considerably more likely, if we're honest with ourselves), the whole situation in which we role-play is exposed as a necessary fiction. Such a fiction, when we become aware of it as such, is thus open to the thinking of radical change, and to fundamental liberation from the expectations we (and others) have on our bodies and our relationship to these bodies. At first, this comes in the way of imagining a radical change, a seeing beyond what is expected of us (by us and by others), and thus the envisioning of a fundamental liberation from identity. What follows from an imagination unleashed is the democratization of sense and sensibility, and the reminder that our status in the world is a political one. That is to say, democratization is manifest only insofar as there is tension between between ways of conceiving the world, a tension that is in fact the conception of the world -- not merely the proliferation and defense of identity. What follows is a shattering of the mirror, whereby I might look at myself and behold; instead, we have the possibility of finally paying attention to things that matter, things like socio-economic devastation and environmental catastrophe, not to things ephemeral and/or inconsequential, for, like tomorrow, they will take care of themselves w/ or w/out our undivided attention. And in finally paying attention, that is, giving life its due, we participate in the process of creating it anew.

Is Your Life Good?

2007-07-17T13:49:00.000-04:00

As I've detailed elsewhere, I'm currently thinking about the relationship of home, labor, and nature -- namely, the degree to which we might resist their being only commodities of trade. Our communities and bodies, expendable for the sake of productivity; the environment in which these communities and bodies live, breath, love, hate, resist, and dissent, reduced to the limits of our perception and expectation, an object to protect or rape, sometimes both at once, but never to acknowledge with the dignity fitting of an active subject in its own right

I am under no illusion that I'm blazing a new trail of insight and research. I'm comforted by this. I've tilted alone at too many windmills in the past, and am comforted that Im not alone this time. I am, for example, very happy there are people like Bill McKibben out there writing books like Deep Economy and articles like this one in Mother Jones.

If we're so rich, how come we're so damn miserable?

In some sense, you could say that the years since World War II in America have been a loosely controlled experiment designed to answer this very question. The environmentalist Alan Durning found that in 1991 the average American family owned twice as many cars as it did in 1950, drove 2.5 times as far, used 21 times as much plastic, and traveled 25 times farther by air. Gross national product per capita tripled during that period. Our houses are bigger than ever and stuffed to the rafters with belongings (which is why the storage-locker industry has doubled in size in the past decade). We have all sorts of other new delights and powers—we can send email from our cars, watch 200 channels, consume food from every corner of the world. Some people have taken much more than their share, but on average, all of us in the West are living lives materially more abundant than most people a generation ago.

What's odd is, none of it appears to have made us happier. Throughout the postwar years, even as the gnp curve has steadily climbed, the "life satisfaction" index has stayed exactly the same. Since 1972, the National Opinion Research Center has surveyed Americans on the question: "Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" (This must be a somewhat unsettling interview.) The "very happy" number peaked at 38 percent in the 1974 poll, amid oil shock and economic malaise; it now hovers right around 33 percent.

And it's not that we're simply recalibrating our sense of what happiness means—we are actively experiencing life as grimmer. In the winter of 2006 the National Opinion Research Center published data about "negative life events" comparing 1991 and 2004, two data points bracketing an economic boom. "The anticipation would have been that problems would have been down," the study's author said. Instead it showed a rise in problems—for instance, the percentage who reported breaking up with a steady partner almost doubled. As one reporter summarized the findings, "There's more misery in people's lives today."

[. . .]

If happiness was our goal, then the unbelievable amount of effort and resources expended in its pursuit since 1950 has been largely a waste. One study of life satisfaction and mental health by Emory University professor Corey Keyes found just 17 percent of Americans "flourishing," in mental health terms, and 26 percent either "languishing" or out-and-out depressed.

McKibben goes on to detail the research that has concluded that the breaking point of money buying happiness in any given culture is an income of $10,000 per capita.

"As poor countries like India, Mexico, the Philippines, Brazil, and South Korea have experienced economic growth, there is some evidence that their average happiness has risen," the economist Layard reports. Past $10,000 (per capita, mind you—that is, the average for each man, woman, and child), there's a complete scattering: When the Irish were making two-thirds as much as Americans they were reporting higher levels of satisfaction, as were the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch. Mexicans score higher than the Japanese; the French are about as satisfied with their lives as the Venezuelans. In fact, once basic needs are met, the "satisfaction" data scrambles in mindlnding ways. A sampling of Forbes magazine's "richest Americans" have identical happiness scores with Pennsylvania Amish, and are only a whisker above Swedes taken as a whole, not to mention the Masai. The "life satisfaction" of pavement dwellers—homeless people—in Calcutta is among the lowest recorded, but it almost doubles when they move into a slum, at which point they are basically as satisfied with their lives as a sample of college students drawn from 47 nations. And so on.

Think about this the next time you're working overtime in order to pay for that new IPhone you stood in line for an hour to get so somebody, anybody, would notice you with it; or those badass Diesel jeans you saw somebody wearing, and that made them look so happy and alive, so attractive of life.

Who is manning the suicide hotline for an entire culture with a pistol in its mouth?

One More Thing

2007-07-13T17:16:00.000-04:00

Something I didn't mention in the previous post is that, for all my bluster about San Francisco, Oakland and Emeryville (I'll get to Berkeley some other time), I have to admit that the small island community of Alameda, California is pretty insanely nice. Alameda is two islands, but I've actually only been on one of them. The other one houses the Oakland airport, so I can't imagine it's really a place worth seeing unless I'm in transit to someplace other than the Bay Area.

Ah, but the larger island is a thing to behold. A walkable & bikable community that is completely true unto itself. What I immediately noticed was how few chain stores and restaurants there were. Of course, there is a Starbucks -- but on any given night, the independent coffee shop right down the street does just as good if not better business -- and there are a couple of new shopping centers with places like Applebees and Basken-Robbins, these are so exceptional as to almost be appropriate!

Another striking thing is that Alameda's main street, Park Street, actually has the feel of a destination. Here, there are antique shops, bakeries, taquerias, bookstores, coffee shops, all come together without the precious quality that adheres to the main drag a lot of similar small communities (I'm thinking, for you Ohio residents, specifically about Yellow Springs). You'll find streets like this in campus communities, but rarely in old naval towns. I hope that as the rest of the Bay Area fills up and people look for some bit of sanity in Alameda, it doesn't get raped and plundered.

I don't know what the property value for a house in Alameda is. I did read somewhere that most of the houses are being sold to people already living in Alameda. Hopefully, this trend continues, at least for as long as it can. Because the people of Alameda seem to be among the most pleasant of the Bay. If the majority rise above middle class, it doesn't feel like it. I spend a lot of time over there, at their parks and in their shops, and the absence of a rampant pretentious appreciation of (apparent) socio-economic diversity is very welcome.

Of course, I'm still a newcomer. Perhaps all of these initial reflections are so far off-base as to be absurd, and maybe I'll come to realize this in a year. But for now, the fact that I live just over a small bridge from Alameda pleases me immensely. It has the feeling of an unknown gem. Good thing nobody reads this blog. I'd hate to be the one to give it away.

Summary Version

2007-07-13T14:27:00.000-04:00

E-fucking-gads. So sorry, my dear Silentio, you've not been ignored. I check you daily, in hopes that somebody has figured out my login info and posted something meaningful. Every week I sit down with the intention of writing something, doing so, and then closing the Blogger window instead of posting it. I've been in crisis mode for about a couple of months, so bear with me. I didn't really want to put you through that. What then would I have to talk about with those I chat with online?

A summary version of the things I wanted to blog, but never did, is in order.

* * * *

Saw Sicko. It's good, I guess. Well, no, it's good that for whatever reason Michael Moore captures the media's imagination and gets people wondering, Hey, maybe we can do things a little differently and a little better. That's the American way, or at least its hope for itself, a little differently and a little better ... provided it has a huge in-built margin for profit. Anyway, if you didn't know it already, Moore will lean heavily on the French model for health care -- rightly so, it's pretty nice. Don't tell the newly installed French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, though. It'll be fun to watch him try to gut social spending in France in the coming years, in the name of economic prosperity and embracing Third Way liberalism.

* * * *

I'll cut to the chase. I'm not really liking San Francisco. Maybe it's the unemployment, maybe it's the feeling that I'm unemployable. Or, maybe it's the fact that this place is fundamentally over-priced, over-hyped, and over-sold. If you're from here, great. Call it home and love it. If you're not, stay where you are. Make a home and enjoy a community elsewhere. Unless, that is, you want daily to congratulate yourself and your friends on how liberal you are and how backward the rest of the country is. ('Excuse me, Mr. Homeless Man, yes, you can sleep on the front stoop of my million-dollar apartment, and, yes, here's $1, and do you want to sign my petition on a federal law protecting gay marriage? Yay! We're such a happy community here in San Francisco. Oh, and don't piss in the flowers. Do that in Chinatown next time, please.')

Oakland is a bit better, except for the fact that all the sustainable / walkable communities are so fucking expensive. That's also the American way -- one must be able to afford sustainability and good health.

Or, I almost forgot, one can move to a small town just north of Oakland called Emeryville, home to Pixar, which I originally mistook for an enclosed, private garden. In recent years, Emeryville has embraced a bastardized version of new urbanism. The idea as it exists here isn't so much to cut back on suburbanism, or even to create a sustainable community, but simply to get people to live in a tiny town that has no space for rampant suburbanization. What they've done is create a two-or-three block shopping & living district, the ground floor of which functions as a two-or-three block outdoor mall that has two or three floors of apartment space above each store. Here's the thing, though. You're not living above, say, a fruit market, or a butcher, or a hardware store. You're living above The Gap, Abercrombie, Apple, etc. For all the things you need, you'll still need to drive in to Oakland or Berkeley. Ah, but in the event you need a new pair of pants or the new IPhone, they're right downstairs. This is urban progress. It's fucking madness.

* * * *

I really miss an occasional cloudy day. I've not seen a real rain storm since I drove through the Rocky Mountains in May. Every day starting at 3 the sun begins its afternoon onslaught through the curtainless windows of my apartment, shining unabated by clouds onto the tv and computer screen, rendering them useless to human vision, which is fine because I'm a blinded sweaty mess until about 6.30. Every day. I see spots until, and change into a new shirt at, 7.30. I then check the weather report, and see that tomorrow is supposed to be exactly the same, forever, until the end of time.

* * * *

Though I've yet to get anybody in the great state of California, with its robust and promising economy, to even acknowledge the existence of my resume, I was able to get an interview for a teaching job back in England. It went great! Even for a phone interview at 6.30 in the morning, I was really on. My fifteen-minute presentation on 'Developments in Contemporary Theology' was erudite and concise, my answers to their questions were solid, and my questions for them were insightful. Sadly, in spite of this, I didn't get the job, but there were enough practical reasons that this was both a good thing and completely understandable.

A bit less understandable, perhaps, is that a local public library did not rate my four years of library experience and academic research experience even worthy of an interview. I can but imagine that somebody with five years of library experience and two PhDs applied. Or, a dreaded internal candidate. I hate the internal candidate. I curse you all, and hope your company goes out of business in such a horrific way that you've no hope for a pension. Work to 90, you miserable wankers.

* * * *

And lastly, I read Neil Gaiman's American Gods. This is a brilliant book. My wife has been on me to read it for years, fully convinced that I'd love it. I don't think she was prepared for my enthusiasm once I actually did so. I can see actually assigning it, or at least portions of it, should I ever get a chance to teach a course on Religion in America or Survey of World Views. The premise is in the novel's repeated refrain: 'America is no place for gods.' All the ancient gods invoked by America's ancient peoples and not-so-ancient immigrants, they once enjoyed adoration and sacrifice. But no longer. The ancient peoples are dead; the immigrants have been assimilated and forgotten the old ways. The gods originally invoked, be they Norse, or Egyptian, or whatever, they're still around -- they are, however, feeble, and only just getting by on whatever they can get from the few that still remember them. One god, the "all-father" is intent on waging war against the new gods of America, the gods of capital, of media, and industry. Which leads to the climactic battle between, not good and evil, but new and old, a battle that ends suddenly and unexpectedly -- with "the land" getting the final say. Tremendous imagination and insight is at work in this novel, all in a fun and witty story. Very worth your time, even if you're not really into sci-fi fantasy, because the gods know I'm not, and yet I still really dug it.

The War Prayer

2007-05-28T15:32:00.000-04:00

A Memorial Day reflection you're not likely to hear or see on the news, from the pen of Mark Twain:

Cormac McCarthy at Cannes

2007-05-20T03:11:00.000-04:00

I've made no bones about the fact that I was not a big fan of Cormac McCarthy's No Country For Old Men. Increasingly, I'm beginning to wonder if I just am not advanced enough to appreciate it. From the sounds of it, the Coen Brothers might be.

Speaking of McCarthy, I'm really shocked, pleasantly so, that The Road is getting such wonderful press. And not just from Oprah -- which was a development I was not expecting at all. If you've not yet read it yet, trust me, do so.

Religion as an Alternative

2007-05-11T17:26:00.000-04:00

Curtis White has a fantastic two-part essay on "the idols of environments" and the "ecology of work" ([1] & [2]) in Orion Magazine, which by the way is a fairly new online magazine that is well-worth looking through if you're interested in eco-issues. Both parts really hit hard on an issue that is increasingly important to me: religiously re-animating our passion and our relationship with the earth & existence.

White first captured my interest a couple of years ago with his book The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think For Themselves. Since then, he wrote an underappreciated little book called The Spirit of Disobedience [see summary version from last April's Harper's]. I've never blogged about this last book, but it has proven really influential to me in terms of offering me a new grammar to conceptualize the kind of research & work I'd like next to do.

Judging by his essay in Orion, it has also set White's current course. In the second part, he does, I think, have an error. He asserts that humanity is naturally inclined to live in harmony with itself and its environment. I think he is fundamentally wrong here. The history of human civilisation has found it not simply a witness but a cause of an ecosystem's collapse. This is no radical claim either -- just read Jared Diamond's Collapse. Now, this isn't to call humanity a virus, or something dramatic like that. It's an observation, not a moral judgment, that we consistently tame nature to its submission, and in many cases our own demise.

What is a moral judgment is the hope for an alternative. To call for a different & religious way to approach and live within our ecosystems, as White does, should not be framed in some kind of nostalgic or idealistic plea for 'the way things used to be'. It is far less practical than that: its focus is about the way things might be. This was basically the point of my long, likely-ignored post last week about marketable religion. Only when we have figured out a way to think something different (note: not think something differently, which just assumes we see that "something" in a different light), and thus to breach the defining confines of practicality and productivity, is it possible to proceed "religiously". The aim of religion, in this perspective, isn't simply to project imaginative fantasies, but somehow to inspire and organize us to proceed from these fantasies imaginatively.

Sir Charles

2007-05-11T01:58:00.000-04:00

I've been a fan of Charles Barkley ever since he actually made Auburn's basketball team fun to watch back in the early '80s. Even as a nine-year-old I could appreciate the sheer athleticism of somebody so fat -- at one in his college basketball career was weighing 300 lbs, all carried in a 6'4 frame. He, of course, went on to become one of the greatest NBA players of all time. And, in all likelihood, one of the most entertaining.

Fortunately, Barkley has not become an embarassing shell of his entertaining self like Michael Jordan. TNT was very wise to pony up the big bucks to land him on their Inside the NBA studio show, and it is consistently one of the most fun things to watch on tv. I suspect that even non-basketball fans might enjoy it, if only because it's so rare to see people on a live set actually seem to enjoy one another's company and have a good time talking.

For those who do not know him very well, Barkley is the consummate court jester. He is, though, also pretty insightful, as this interview proves. Much of it can be ignored, but he does hit on something in crystal-clear, "blue-collar" language what I think is the fundamental truth about the world today (not just America):

So is that what interests you primarily--economic issues?

America is divided by economics strictly. You know, people always talk about race, and we have racial problems in this country. Of course we do. But the real issue is the rich against the poor. We've got to get poor white people and poor black people and Mexicans [sic] to realize they are all in the same boat. If you in one of those three groups and you are poor, you are going to be in a bad neighborhood, you are going to go to a bad school, and you are going to have strikes against you. You can't commit crimes in good neighborhoods. They will get your ass. Their kids go to private school, or they go to school in a good economic area. But the poor people, they are all in the same boat but they divide you based on race or stuff like that. A lot of these politicians say things like "We've got to stop all these illegal immigrants." I am like, "That is so easy to stop." They are not working for other immigrants.

Has your perspective on these issues changed in the last few years?

Yes, when I realized that rich people will always be rich and the poor people are like crabs in a barrel. They are going to fight with each other, but they are really in the same boat. They want you to argue about gay marriage. They want you to argue about the war in Iraq.

Well said.

A San Francisco Treat

2007-05-08T18:54:00.000-04:00

It's taken about a week, but K., Ireland & I are just about settled into our temporary housing in a Mission Bay community two blocks down from AT&T Park, home of Barry Bonds and the San Francisco Giants. We've washed the miles out of clothes and off the car, and I think we've sufficiently adjusted to the time-zone change.

I am, of course, still looking for a job. The only positive thing about this is that I have time to get to know the city better. Ireland & I, for example, learned very quickly that long walks in the Nob & Russian Hills area are not for the faint-hearted. These hills are fierce!

I've also been able to indulge my budding love of jazz. (Now that I think about it, I don't know that I've broadcast this interest all that much here on Silentio. If you're at all interested, I do so elsewhere every Friday night in my regular feature "Friday Night Jazz".) Last week, I was listening to the radio while idling next to Ocean Beach and was introduced to a San Francisco institution, Uplift! The Music of John Coltrane, a four-hour program on Tuesday afternoons devoted purely to the music of John Coltrane. I was stunned. Four hours!? Even if you're not a jazz fan now, I invite you to take a listen to this program. If Coltrane cannot suck you into the jazz fold, I don't know who can. Click here on Tuesdays, between noon and 4 (between 3 and 7 for you EST people), for the station's streaming broadcast. You won't be disappointed.

Marketable Religion

2007-05-01T13:15:00.000-04:00

There is a general, running assumption that defines our globalistic political economy: if the market tanks, we're all fucked. By 'we', the assumption does not refer to the already impoverished. They are already fucked. All measures to save them now are efforts to assuage the collective first-world conscience. No, by 'we', this assumption refers to the workaday hoi polloi -- those of us with a little bit of 401-K stock, casual day-traders, or even those with no stock at all. The market, so goes the assumption, is so deeply inbedded into our experience of reality that the two are now now fully indistinguishable. When somebody imagines an alternative lifestyle, say, on a commune, most of us conclude that this simply isn't practical. When somebody else suggests that we individually try to 'opt out' of the market, or to 'escape the grid', we're told this kind of singular action isn't productive. Indeed, so goes the trump card, neither are they even feasible, for the market itself makes possible the the existence of its alternative -- even the thought of its alternative. E.g., those Europeans can enjoy their fancy universal health care, we're told, because Americans are the suckers stuck with the market-based health care, where billions of dollars are pumped into research and development.

On one level, this assumption rings true. For the sake of a blog post, I'll accept it as such anyway. Now the more interesting question: why is this true? Why exactly is the market the limit-experience by which which all other experience is defined -- the paradigmatic paradigm? Why exactly do we read with embarassment our religious texts, when they tell us to give away all we own, or when they indicate the implications of recognizing desire as the root of suffering, and recognizing our experience of life as one of vanity and/or illusion? Why do we then rationalize and/or spiritualize these texts into something more palatable -- something more marketable and productive?

The answer, of course, is as simple as the question is complex, and betrays a religious element to our political economies. Our religious myths almost universally, be they orthodox or heretical, speak of an original -- or immanently recurring -- lie. A deception at the heart of our experience of what we take to be real. A deception that is the original melancholic "fall" (or, for the philosopher, "being thrown") into existence. For some, this deception is an evil that never should've happened; for others, thinking beyond this original evil is impossible, for where there is no deception there is no creation, and where there is no creation there is nothing & nobody to gripe about the deception. It is here that we find an important analogue between the mythic/religious 'original lie', whether it be a deception that must be reversed or one redeemed, and our position with respect to the the market & marketable religion.

Almost across the board, religious myths are built around the notion that in some way the basis and limits to our lived existence (be they the lie or the market) can be overcome. However, to resist the lie (or, by extension, the market) or at least the degree to which it defines us and the possibilities for our future, is not a matter of coming up with transcendental or utopian alternatives, as though we might imagine some truth that is beyond or trumps the plane of existence (and thus of the lie / the market). We are, on the contrary, stuck with the great lie, to the extent that it forms the basis for all existent, marketable truth.

Nevertheless, in my view, our religious myths & cultic practices are not means of cooperation or compromise. (Such compromise is what we find in traditional formulations of sacrificial atonement -- i.e., Christ dying on the Cross to satisfy the penalty for guilt, etc. -- and various proposals now to use use the market to solve problems caused by the market -- e.g., carbon credits, etc. I do not find either very compelling.) To overcome the great lie, our religious myths remain fully a part of the lie they expose, and thus are prey to inherent weaknesses, flaws, and aporia, but inform a cultic practice whose power is not accessed by marketable efficiency. If, then, religion can be found to participate on the level of the lie, and perhaps even provide our political economy with its foundational myth, the cultic practice of religion might then also inform us of a means & aesthetics of our resistance.

I recognize that all this comes dangerously close to an apologia for fundamentalism. When Thomas Frank wondered, 'What's wrong with Kansas?', he failed to adequately explore the religious basis for many rural poor voters to go against their own temporal (financial) interests and instead home in on moral issues. While I affirm there are solid religious reasons for these voters to vote against their interests, and thus to reject marketabl efficiency, I fully reject their equation of morality and religion. Such an equation, in my estimation, requires little to no actual cultic practice -- and, thus, very little in the way of actual religion. Contemporary religion, in the east now as much as the west, has traded in the power of the cult that cannot be measured for the power of its marketable return. This need not be a the immediate return of, say, a bomb exploded in the name of a deity, for it could just as easily be done with a view to deferred eschatological future that never arrives. Moral civic religion is, in short, not simply a reluctance but a full-scale unwillingness to take traditional religious practices at their word -- that is to say, is to not really believe in their power or truth.

A point of discussion, I hope, is the the extent to which we have almost completely lost the sense that religious practice has been traditionally limited to minoritarian communities. Monks, of myriad religious stripe, for example. This never meant that an individual culture was without religion. Superstition has, of course, always been rife; we might even say there was enough inbedded religious belief that, to the outside observer, the culture itself was religious. But, for the most part, it seems that traditional religious practice consisted of patronage -- that is, supporting that smaller community who was seen as actually believing in, and thus practicing, the religious myth. In this way, the greater community reaped the benefit by cultic proxy. There is, perhaps, something to this sense of the true believers believing for you.

If that is the case, casting alternative religious visions & practices, in spite of the protests of some, is not an irresponsible apology or rationalization for the religion & religious ideology that exists (even if unknowingly) to maintain the lie / the market. It is, rather, one of our most essential tasks.

Masochism

2007-04-30T02:14:00.000-04:00

A month between posts. I know what you long-time readers are thinking: he's back to his old ways again. But believe me, I had the best of intentions. I wanted to blog about the month-long process of packing and moving, but it was so painfully dull, devoid of even the most agonizing and vulgar frustration, that I couldn't find anything worth writing about. The only exception, however, is a big one. Namely, the unexpected sadness I felt when I actually left. I should've blogged about this at the time, I suppose; but, to be honest, it was too raw an emotion, too deeply felt. I'm not a good enough writer any more to set that kind of feeling into words. Perhaps if I blogged more often ...

I'll try to do so now, though. With a little bit of hindsight, and a lot of bit of (potential) foresight.

The final week I was in Cincinnati reminded me how much I'll miss living in that part of the country. I've grown very oddly affectionate of my home state, Kentucky, for example. K. & I found ourselves driving south more often than we did any other direction, in fact. There is an allure there that I kind of thought I'd moved beyond. In the past year ago, in particular, I've become fascinated with farming and traditional crafts, at the precise time in my life I was moving from one urban environment to an even more urban environment. I remain a man of pavement and people traffic, and yet I cling to a sense that the passing away of traditional arts of life & work is perhaps the final tragedy of our age. Is it still 'nostalgia' when you have never experienced something before and have no inclination to really experience it?

More important still, though, is the degree to which I realized I really love my family and friends. Unlike my last big move, this one really hurt. Between the mother who sold me her beloved car for a bargain-basement price; a brotherly best friend who goes out of his way to help me even when we rarely get to hang out; an older friend-mentor who buys me lunch & whisky, and who (with his wife) has hosted some of the best dinner conversations I've had in ages; to an old pastoral friend who, in spite of disagreeing with me about just about everything worth disagreeing about, lends me laptops and televisions and Sopranos DVDs; and a Hoosier household who buys my dog treats and toys for the road, supplies me with an endless supply of cookies, and has extended me an open-ended sanctuary for nearly five years -- I have a lot to miss.

As I drove west this past week, I was very regularly reminded of the things I will miss. And now, as I walked the streets of San Francisco yesterday and today, and as I now look out my hotel's nineteenth-floor window to see the streetcar rumble by, I don't miss any of these things & people any less. Ever peculiar, and ever melancholy, I know, I now look forward to the accumulation of more people and things worth missing.

I'm under no illusion that I've "settled down." Indeed, I only hope to feel this kind of sadness again.

Commander Crunchy is Homo Sacer

2007-04-01T18:41:00.000-04:00

The saga of Mr. Sprinkles continues over at Acceptable TV. Watch it here, and then head over there to register & vote for it. We must keep Mr. Sprinkles' story alive.

Mr. Sprinkles

2007-03-29T17:36:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the world of Mr. Sprinkles & Acceptable TV.

The Perils of Parking

2007-03-29T13:02:00.000-04:00

Lately, I've become increasingly interested in urban planning -- another missed opportunity for me, it seems -- so maybe none of this is as interesting to you as it is me. But, surely you've been stuck in downtown traffic and have fumed, 'Where the hell are all these people going!?! MOVE!!' If so, check out this astonishingly interesting Op-Ed in today's New York Times about the relationship between traffic congestion in cities and the search for a cheap curbside parking space. (As for me, I'm always content to take the first parking spot I find -- no matter if it results in a half-mile walk. It's not that I'm a responsible person, it's just that I'm not the model of patience.)

[A] surprising amount of traffic isn’t caused by people who are on their way somewhere. Rather, it is caused by those who have already arrived. Streets are clogged, in part, by drivers searching for a place to park.

[. . .]

When my students and I studied cruising for parking in a 15-block business district in Los Angeles, we found the average cruising time was 3.3 minutes, and the average cruising distance half a mile (about 2.5 times around the block). This may not sound like much, but with 470 parking meters in the district, and a turnover rate for curb parking of 17 cars per space per day, 8,000 cars park at the curb each weekday. Even a small amount of cruising time for each car adds up to a lot of traffic.

Over the course of a year, the search for curb parking in this 15-block district created about 950,000 excess vehicle miles of travel — equivalent to 38 trips around the earth, or four trips to the moon. And here’s another inconvenient truth about underpriced curb parking: cruising those 950,000 miles wastes 47,000 gallons of gas and produces 730 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If all this happens in one small business district, imagine the cumulative effect of all cruising in the United States.

The writer's solution may seem unpalatable to some: increase the cost of curbside parking. But, all in all, I think his thinking is spot-on. We've accommodated the all-consuming culture of the car for far too long. This is but a token gesture in the right direction.

"I've Seen Everything"

2007-03-27T23:25:00.000-04:00

K. & I watched the first season of Extras a couple of months ago, but this scene still kills me:

On the Hereafter

2007-03-27T21:16:00.000-04:00

This quote is completely stripped of its context, and I'm not even going to say much about it. But it's something I came back across this evening and thought worth sharing.

The secularist and the Marxist criticism of the vision of marching to Zion claims that the promise of pie in the sky bye and bye cuts the nerve of action today. The expectation of "fairer worlds on high" is supposed to detach the present from that which is promised.

This may well have been the case when in recent centuries the beneficiaries of the social system appealed to a future world to encourage their subjects to remain docile. But our interest is not in asking whether the eighteenth-century religion could be the opiate of the people, but rather understanding the function of the apocalyptic vision in the first-century church, whose seers were not on any drug.

In the world view of that time the gap between the present and the promise was not fundamental. What we are now doing is what leads to where we are going. Since the "this-worldly" and the "other-worldly" were not perceived in radical dichotomy, to be "marching through Emmanuel's ground" today is to be on the way to Zion. Terms like "hereafter" are in that kind of context affirmations not negations. They do not say that that to which we look forward is in a radically different kind of world from the world in which we now live, but rather that it lies farther in the same direction in which we are being led. The unforeseeable future is farther along in the same direction as the foreseeable future for which we are responsible. (John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 248-49).

A Little Basketball

2007-03-26T09:54:00.000-04:00

As many of you know, this was the first year of a new rule in the NBA that requires kids just out of high school to wait one year before they will be allowed to play professionally. The problem, near as I understand it, is that team owners were increasingly frustrated by the fact that they had to invest money in unproven talent. Of course, nobody had a gun to their head when it came to drafting kids just out of high school. And, of course, for every Lebron James who came out of high school and became an instant All Star there were at least three players like Sebastain Telfair who will almost certainly end their career playing in Europe. Nevertheless, no team owner wanted to take the risk of passing up on that high school phenom who might be the next big thing. They're fun to market, they're potentially very lucrative (i.e., they put butts in seats), and they can revive an organization (for a while) if they're great. After several years of rolling the dice, though, the owners finally decided to change things up. Let the kids play college ball for a year, or sit on their butts playing with their Nintendo Wii, they said, anything but enter the draft.

This year, the rule has been almost universally regarded as a success for college basketball. It's brought long-time NBA fans back to the game, and it's turned football towns into basketball towns (e.g., Columbus, Ohio and Austin, Texas). Between Kevin Durant down in Texas and Greg Oden at Ohio State, NCAA Division I basketball was bursting at the seams with awesome talent. It was, in my estimation, a golden year for college basketball. Durant and Oden were choirboys, loved by their communities and colleges -- they said all the right things, even down to the obligatory "I might come back next year" lie. Of course they're not coming back next year, but we'll give them credit for playing along with the illusion of honesty and integrity that compels so many to adore college basketball.

All along, though, there have been naysayers to this new rule. Take for instance, Bobby Knight. For all his personal flaws, Knight is an educator at heart. College basketball is not, for him, a NBA minor league; nor is it a junior circuit. Kids are given athletic scholarships ... in order to go to school. The fact that they are athletes of the highest caliber is secondary. Obviously, then, he doesn't take kindly to kids coming in for a year only beause they have to. He contends that what you have is a bastardization of college athletics as a whole.

"Because now you can have a kid come to school for a year and play basketball and he doesn't even have to go to class," Knight said Monday during the Big 12 coaches call. "He certainly doesn't have to go to class the second semester. I'm not exactly positive about the first semester. But he would not have to attend a single class the second semester to play through the whole second semester of basketball.

"That, I think, has a tremendous effect on the integrity of college sports."

Now, I don't know what Oden or Durant's academic schedule or grades look like. But, on the whole, Knight makes a pretty good argument here. Thus far, though, both players have been such class acts that's it not really been a big issue to too many people. What happens, though, when a high school kid without their apparent maturity comes along -- who understands the illusion of integrity in college basketball, but who revels in openly flaunting it rather than repress or deny it? What happens when a kid comes along who will not say the things we want to hear, or play along the way we want; who understands the college game purely in terms of his pre-professional marketing; who has his coach wrapped around his finger? What happens then?

We'll find out next year.

A Redacted Cross-Post From Elsewhere

2007-03-21T15:55:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to post something for a few weeks now, but something always comes up just at the moment I feel like I have the words to express whatever was on my mind at the time. I've no such excuse now, but I won't subject you to a series of catch-up posts. One should do just fine. So, a few thoughts:

I don't generally have a lot of positive things to say about Indianapolis, but, wow, the Indianapolis Museum of Art is pretty damn nice. Def. worth a trip. Should keep you busy enough to ignore the rest of the city. Esp. check out their fine collection of crafts & three Frank Stella installations -- oh, and one of the most curiously vulgar nudes in late-19th century American painting.

Chicago gets nicer each time I visit. I may very well never leave the next time I'm there. A couple of random Chicago notes. First, just before I left, I wandered around Lincoln Square, and was really thrown off by how much it (or at least the street I was on) felt like the Main Street of Small Town, America -- except for the fact that (a) people lived there and (b) the people who lived there had families -- an annoying number of kids, actually, now that I think about it. I even saw a shopowner putting out two bowls on the sidewalk, one filled with dog biscuits & the other with water. I didn't feel the least bit bad about stealing one of the biscuits for my dog back in Cincinnati. Second, I think the weather must've put everybody in a good mood, because I never had a more pleasant city-driving experience. People were waving me over, smiling, using turn signals. Bizarre. I flipped off an old lady driving the speed limit on Lake Shore Drive just to make it feel more like home.

While in Chicago I was very pleased that I got to hang out with death-of-god theologian & friend, Tom Altizer, who was lecturing at Chicago Theological Seminary. His visit was, I think, a success. I had a good time anyway, and I think many aspects of it meant a great deal to him, esp. the return to the site of his first 'real' conversion -- *dramatic pause* a conversion to Satan! I don't think, though, most of the people there were prepared for how attuned he is to preaching. If he considers himself a Satanologist, he surely is its most engaging evangelist. Of course, as he would quickly admit, he is not as 'on' as he used to be, and doesn't feel he is as effective. This is probably true. But I'm still pretty staggered at how engaged he is with the life of the mind at nearly eighty. His first talk, in my estimation, was his best. Here, he very concisely talked about nihilism & American politics, and engaged in a lively debate about his appeal to nihilism as both a positive & a negative force -- there is, in my opinion, something to this worth exploring all the more. His second talk was about the absence of Satan in theology. For a moment, Jonathan Edwards was smiling in his grave. And for his final talk he read an unpublished chapter from his memoir. I felt this last talk was the weakest, but only because it dragged a bit toward the end -- esp. compared to his previous presentations, which were amazingly concise & clear for being fully extemporaneous. The man, one of the last who welcomes his damnation, can also still drink & curse like a sailor.

And last, don't let her innocent appearance fool you, my dog is a badass. Yesterday the wife & I were invited to bring her along to a cookout. Things were going fine for about fifteen minutes. There are about four or five other dogs. Ireland was bouncing around and having a good time running after balls & trying to steal sips of beer, when suddenly she & a dachshund named Dandy caught scent of a wild rabbit in the yard. They both went on the hunt, but only Ireland emerged with the prey. Blood on her snout & teeth, Ireland paraded through the circle of guests and around the firepit with the poor animal dangling from her jaws. As I chased her down, I heard the screams of children & adults alike, 'That poor bunny!!!', and sternly tried to dissuade this newly feral beast from shaking the rabbit any further, as the fur was beginning to fly dangerously in the direction of the food. I finally got the dead rabbit from her, despite her token growls & cries of protest, and the bunny was flung in the front yard for the family to deal with later. The last time she caught her intended prey (the only other time), it was a bird at the park, and it took about a week for her swelling pride to diminish to a nearly manageable level. Until then, she will race with all the vim & vigor her newfound bloodlust can manage toward every bird & squirrel downtown. It should be a fun week.

Oh, I almost forgot. Barring something unforeseen, namely me getting one of the jobs I've applied for, I'm going to be moving to San Francisco sometime late next month.