Cathartic Blah

Gridlock

2011-11-01T21:27:00.004-06:00

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a flip flop stamping on a human face—forever."
-George Orwell

I had been warned about traffic before moving to LA. I wasn't prepared, however, for the staggering truth of it: a mass of humanity and steel and exhaust forced through a looping, labyrinthine sieve.

I don't hate it, though. That fact surprised me as much as the phenomenon itself. It is simultaneously oppressive and symbolic of the natural order of things. I don't hate it; I respect it. Humans have created this place; LA is a city of commerce, glamour, beauty and disease. It is the best of us and the worst. And the traffic is like a deep scar...sometimes noble and sometimes hideous.

Traffic, I propose, has made LA a patient city. The denizens of this former wasteland are willing to wait for their dreams to come true. They'll wait for opportunity, fate and yes, traffic. When lines of cars snake out to the horizon on gridlocked highways, I see a patchwork of different ambitions and hopes struggling to survive. They steer this way and that towards all the things they want in life.

Los Angelenos are willing to wait. The traffic may let up any minute...

The Promised Land

2011-10-09T22:02:00.006-06:00

Los Angelenos
All come from somewhere
To live in sunshine
-Billy Joel

After 7 days, 1900 miles and lots of gas, I've finally arrived in Los Angeles.

What next? Job, apartment, relationships, destiny? All in due time.

For now I'll bask in the sunshine and chaos. I'll frolic under palm tree and overpass. I'll chuckle at reports of the frozen tundratic land I've left behind.

Not all my dreams may come to fruition, but it won't be because of the City of Angels. I don't suppose all things are possible here, but I aim to tiptoe along the boundary between fantasy and reality.

Steven P. Jobs 1955-2011

2011-10-05T19:42:00.008-06:00

Humanity has lost a giant today. Many will mourn, and their reasons will be varied and perhaps unexpected.

I suspect that the full meaning of Steve Jobs' life won't be understood for many years. He was more than just a brilliant entrepreneur and cunning inventor; his genius extended beyond microchips and earnings statements. His life represented something deeper and farther-reaching: a vision for humanity. And, personally, he was a hero and luminary who I looked to for hope in my own future.

Our family's first personal computer was a Macintosh SE. It was 1987, and we lived on the bleeding edge of technology; it was the first Mac with an internal hard drive (32 MB!). All my computer-savvy friends at school had Commodore 64's and "IBM Compatibles". Debates often raged at the lunch table about which computer was best, but I vigorously defended our Mac even in the face of public ridicule. Without knowing or understanding it, I had joined a fraternity of consumers unlike any before or since.

It wasn't until several years later that I learned about the high priest of our cult. Steve Jobs, the nerd of all nerds, birthed a cultural force that lay dormant for decades in the hearts and minds of faithful Apple users. We happily clicked and fawned over our devices even as irrelevance seemed to settle finally upon us with the domination of Microsoft Windows and the ubiquity of the bland 'PC' moniker.

These days, the chic Apple logo is everywhere, and it's never been hipper to own one of the devices. How did this happen? And why? Is my iPod just that cool? Does the usefulness of my iPhone stagger me with awe? Nay! These things are just a conveyance for our imaginations and the medium through which Jobs' vision could be shared.

Steve Jobs was the last great Humanist, Apple's philosopher-king and America's quintessential tragic hero: bold, brave, flawed and able to overcome. The work he did and the products Apple has churned out year after year suggest a fascination with bringing humans closer together. He wanted people to be more closely knit and be able to communicate and work and understand each other with fewer barriers. This is a simple vision, perhaps, but it is remarkable in that it has been realized and appreciated by so many. President Obama probably put it best: "there may be no greater tribute to Steve's success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented."

It is an unexpected turn of events that Steve's death is on the same day as my arrival in California. This day was meant to be the start of a new journey and a new life. I have been inspired by Steve's example in the past - not as a future tech leader but as a man following a dream - but this tragedy is still more poignant than I would have expected. I have been greatly comforted, though, by his excellent commencement speech at Stanford in 2005:

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

I am newly inspired by Steve Jobs' life and death. He said in the same speech that death is the "single best invention of life...it clears out the old to make room for the new." While that is a macabre thought on this particular day, its truth is undeniable. What it means to me is that time is precious, and I don't intend to waste any more. I can best honor Steve's memory and life by following my "heart and intuition". And I think it's likely that his ability to stir the imaginations and actions of his fellow humans may even outlast iPods and iPhones.

The New King of Comedy?

2011-04-12T15:42:00.005-06:00

David Letterman received the Johnny Carson Award for Comedic Excellence at The Comedy Awards the other night. Deserved? Probably.

While commenting on the annals of comedy is a bit like arguing about the most beautiful woman in the world, I am nevertheless intrigued by the evolution of the comic arts. Perhaps it's the human need for categorizing common lore or the pervasive nostalgic feelings that help make life meaningful, but some part of me sees a hierarchy in any discipline. Who was the best? Who had the most influence? Who was the most successful? These are the questions we ask about sports stars, movie stars, writers, scientists, CEOs and even chefs. We probably like to make these lists because we all hope to be at the top of one someday.

In the world of entertainment, Johnny Carson was the undisputed paragon of late night comedy. The Tonight Show ran for 30 years and started the careers of some of our nation's most beloved comedians: Jerry Seinfeld, Robin Williams, Joan Rivers, Bob Newhart and, of course, David Letterman. Much has been written and spoken about Carson's influence; certainly The Comedy Awards' presentation of the eponymous award fawned over his memory.

Who can follow in those footsteps? Surely not Jay Leno with his inelegant departure and return. Conan is a little too quirky. Letterman is funny, but his reach seems limited. Perhaps the show director at The Comedy Awards was suggesting a new name when he cut directly from Letterman to the audience that night: Jon Stewart. From the looks of it, Stewart was the first to stand and clap after Letterman took his bow. I suspect that he, too, had an inkling about the torch that is being passed to the next generation of comedy legends.

The Daily Show has won the Emmy for "Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series" every year for the last 8 years. The Daily Show also has its own list of comedians who started as correspondents and have risen to new heights: Steve Carell, Stephen Colbert and Ed Helms to name a few. Though not yet as glittery a list as The Tonight Show's, it speaks to the ascendancy of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show as national icons.

Perhaps it's premature or just plain silly to anoint Stewart at this point, but I think he has changed the nature of the art. Besides establishing a comedic dynasty, interviewing kings, presidents and scholars, and becoming a necessary stop on any artist's new project promotion, he has also used The Daily Show to have a demonstrable impact on U.S. domestic policy. The best example of this is the 9/11 First Responders bill; The Daily Show's relentless focus on this topic seems to have created enough of a stir to move it past its stall point.

This makes me wonder: do we want more from our comedians in this new century? The early days of comedy involved mostly slapstick and silly musicals (think, The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin). Today, however, a growing number of successful comedians are those commenting on current events and poking fun at presidents and despots; sometimes they even run for office.

Whatever role comedians play in the evolution of a public consciousness, they will at least continue to make us laugh. For those efforts, the torch-passing has been seamless and natural. There may not be a Jon Stewart Award for Comedic Excellence in the stars, but his ability to leave us in stitches is undeniable. And in the process of making us nearly wet ourselves, Stewart may find his influence growing in ways he can't yet imagine.

Glide on the Peace Plane

2011-04-05T11:57:00.011-06:00

"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time." -JFK

Perhaps President Kennedy didn't realize how much money there is in selling American weapons of war.

A recent article in Fortune discusses the potentially disturbing circumstances surrounding the business of arms exports in the United States. Evidently President Obama is actively trying to increase sales and make it easier for our allies, or would-be allies, to purchase weapons from us.

The above picture is a Boeing-made F-15 fighter jet manufactured specifically for Saudi Arabia. I can't help but notice the Arabic letters emblazoned on the fuselage; the juxtaposition of those foreign characters and the classic, stenciled English titles would almost be hilarious if it didn't represent such a seemingly dark and chaotic reality.

The scope and magnitude of these arms sales, coupled with recent tumult throughout the Middle East, gives me pause. It's a dangerous world, and even the experts can't say for sure what our best move should be. So for me to weigh in is a little like trying to send forth some kind of personal cosmic energies towards and on behalf of a favorite sports team.

As a citizen of this planet, though, I have a vested interest in life moving on without death and destruction on a massive scale. And so, President Obama, what's the plan? The whole world is looking to you for an ingenious solution to terrorism, nuclear weapons, desert insurgencies, domestic woes and the tragically unrealized hope of a world without war and poverty.

The president has gotten criticism for not doing anything regarding Libya, then for doing too much, then for not doing enough. The criticism may be deserved in this case, however. Not because, as my conservative counterparts may insist, President Obama is weak and ineffectual. Rather, it's because nobody knows the answers or can identify the correct path.

I don't have a clue if we should bomb Libya, liberate Libya, or leave Libya the hell alone. Some critics have harangued the president about his lack of consistency in dealing with the various Islamic hotspots in recent months. Other, more liberal, critics have scoffed at the idea that the President would make decisions based on what was best for global U.S. interests(even The Daily Show).

There have been some well-branded doctrines and taglines in past administrations that have helped Americans understand and connect with the foreign policy choices and the reasons behind them. (Think Monroe Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, Shock and Awe, Axis of Evil) What is the Obama Doctrine? People have struggled to figure that out, and I tend to think that it's because there is no such doctrine. We seem to expect our presidents to develop and adhere to monolithic dogmas that act, at best, as guidelines for foreign policy decisions and, at worst, as blind templates to be used in any situation. The world is increasingly a place, though, where such expectations are foolish.

But what of arms sales? Where does that fit in to the president's plan? It is certainly disturbing to think of the U.S. selling arms to countries who might use those very weapons against us in the future. On the other hand, the Fortune article points out that, in virtually every case, the weapons we're selling aren't exactly top-of-the-line. The F-15, for example, is a 30-year old design. We sell Patriot Missiles, and those haven't been in vogue since the first Gulf War.

There are various theories surrounding the rationale for selling these weapons. The most interesting one suggests that the U.S. is essentially duping the Saudis and others into buying 'second hand' goods; we get all the upside: money, jobs, allies, and the buyers can't ever effectively use them to seriously harm us or anyone we care about. Moreover, nations like Saudi Arabia, armed with second-tier U.S. weapons, can help isolate wild cards like Iran.

I don't think there is an Obama Doctrine, but if there is, maybe it's an effort to reposition the United States as that girl in high school who tries to be everyone's best friend: not many really like her, but they definitely don't hate her. Conventional wisdom says that engagement and proximity are crucial for peaceful coexistence, whether it be in the form of global arms trade or navigating the dicey waters of a teenage girl's social life.

As a grad student 5 weeks away from completing his MBA, I tend to believe that it's hard to get mad at the people you do business with. So maybe that's our goal: let potent economic forces stir the cooperative self-interest in all of us.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."
-Adam Smith

Mobile Nirvana

2011-02-22T11:25:00.004-07:00

"iPhone 4. Verizon. It begins." This is the recent tag line that appeared in Apple ads for the new Verizon iPhone. Too dramatic? Not for me.

I'm a longtime Apple user. Maybe product loyalty is an inherent trait, since I'm also a fairly longtime Verizon customer. I couldn't have predicted the ascendancy of the iPhone, nor could I have envisioned the 4 year reign of AT&T's exclusivity agreement with Apple. So, needless to say, my technological ch'i has been noticeably out of wack for several years.

No longer. The Verizon iPhone 4 is my new companion. To know it is to know blissful, electronic enlightenment. After a 6-month stint with an Android phone, I have finally arrived. No more goofy usability problems or OS malfunctions. It knows my MacBook, and my MacBook knows it. I have emerged from my dark, primitive chrysalis, and now I can fly freely to and fro across the technoverse.

"If a man can control his [phone] he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.”
-Buddha

Hoodwinked!

2011-02-21T22:38:00.006-07:00

Oh Tim Burton, who have ye become?

I recently saw Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland, and I'm left wondering..what happened? He used to be a director with so much promise. He was unique and quirky. He made darkness nifty and entertaining. He made Batman!

After Pee-wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice and Batman, I remember thinking Edward Scissorhands was weird but not bad; I assumed it was either an aberrant misstep or merely not my thing. Then came Batman Returns. Ok, I thought, sequels are tough. He got a pass. Ed Wood? Just being experimental. Everyone is allowed a 1941, after all.

At Mars Attacks, I was still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt was clearly growing. Sleepy Hollow was weakly hollow, but still in the Burton vocabulary.

Enter Planet of the Apes. There aren't enough disparaging words available to accurately trash this horrid mess of a movie. And still I believed that, somehow, the best days of Tim Burton were still ahead. Maybe it's because I recall so fondly the twisted genius of Pee-wee and Beetlejuice. Maybe it's because I give him too much credit for causing me to believe that a superhero movie could touch brilliance and reinvigorate a ridiculous sub-genre.

Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd all flew by in a blur of speckled mediocrity. The titillating murkiness of his earlier work had given way to full blown creepers. What was intriguing and subtly hilarious about Michael Keaton's Batman had been obliterated by the uncomfortably effeminate and Michael Jackson-esque Willy Wonka.

And now Alice in Wonderland. I'm not sure why I'm surprised. Maybe I continually hope for the resurrection of a promising career in a world of so much schlock. Maybe the redemption narrative just simply rules supreme in my psyche. Either way, I give up on you, Tim Burton! You won't hoodwink me any longer! Joel and Ethan understand me. Steven still has many wonderful cards up his sleeve, no doubt. Quentin, I'm tingling with anticipation. The Departed showed us that Marty still has some game, and even Oliver, though wussing out in his old age, may still surprise us.

"We've seen every conceivable battle sequence, every duel, all carnage, countless showdowns and all-too-long fights to the finish. Why does Alice in Wonderland have to end with an action sequence? Characters not rich enough? Story run out? Little minds, jazzed by sugar from the candy counter, might get too worked up without it? Or is it that executives, not trusting their artists and timid in the face of real stories, demand an action climax as insurance? Insurance of what? That the story will have a beginning and a middle but nothing so tedious as an ending?"
-Roger Ebert

Tread Lightly...

2010-12-14T00:09:00.008-07:00

...On the next page she came to a spell 'for the refreshment of the spirit.' The pictures were fewer here but very beautiful. And what Lucy found herself reading was more like a story than a spell. It went on for three pages and before she had read to the bottom of the page she had forgotten that she was reading at all. She was living in the story as if it were real, and all the pictures were real too. When she had got to the third page and come to the end, she said, "That is the loveliest story I've ever read or ever shall read in my whole life. Oh, I wish I could have gone on reading it for ten years"...

-Lucy, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Like many, I had a very active imagination as a child. Books like those in The Chronicles of Narnia, then, were the perfect escape for a young mind sometimes burdened by the hardships of youth. One gets the sense that Mr. Lewis wrote his books just for that very purpose: a literary city of refuge for children who haven't quite discovered who they are. The message while there, though, is that the real world is worth returning to.

I watched the movie version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader this evening. Setting aside, for a minute, the unforgivable massacre of the plot, this movie is a total betrayal of the essential beauty of the novel.

Dawn Treader, like all of the Narnia books, springs out of the idea that the minds and imaginations of children are not just silly things; they are, on the contrary, a crucial part of maturation. The worlds we create as children are vital in that we learn how to see ourselves living, acting and choosing for ourselves. We go away to search for buried treasure, climb an impossibly high mountain, or explore a distant planet. But as we go, we are anchored to our real lives by story elements that are familiar to us. We may be suddenly ripped from our delicate reverie by a call to dinner or the end of a chapter, but joy from that world is still with us, and it may even help us deal with reality, however harsh it may be.

I didn't really expect the movie to explore any of that stuff, but I was holding out hope that it might somehow hit on the nature of childhood or simply show Narnia through the eyes of an awe-filled child whose dreams are boundless and bold.

Instead, the director, writers and producers chose to rearrange it into an unnecessarily high-paced barrage of special effects and regurgitated sci-fi/fantasy plot devices. A once-delightful story with complex and conflicted characters, unexpected twists and an interesting theological foundation has been lobotomized and fluffed.

This is the third movie in the series, and each has strayed further from the path. Since I have played out these stories in my head countless times, I suppose no movie could compare to what I've been able to conjure. Having said that, such an admirable and noteworthy set of writings is deserving of a more substantive attempt. Children are meant to enter Narnia for the nourishment of their souls, and, instead, this movie simply primes a baser desire for flash and swashbuckling.

Of course even this cinematic travesty can't ruin what lives in my mind and heart. I'm content to, every once in a while, return to the Narnia of my dreams. To slip away to a place in my mind, even if only for a few minutes, to a safe place where where colors are more perfect, breezes are always warm, and happiness is something that is easily accessible to all who yearn for it. It isn't an escape or even a respite anymore; it is a nostalgic pause that reminds me of who I have become and what steps it took to get here. Moreover, I can be encouraged by the fact that adventures aren't just for children's books and that we all have the chance to be the hero of our own story.

Unlikely bedfellows

2010-12-09T15:27:00.008-07:00

Someone pissed off the Democrats. And everyone knows how feisty they can be while they're hot and bothered. The culprit? The leader of their party.

It has been truly fascinating to watch the Bush tax cut debate unfold over the last few days. The tax cuts, instituted in 2001 by President Bush, were set to expire at the end of this year. The fact that we're still in the middle of a massive economic slowdown has primed the pump for a classic tug of war between liberals and conservatives over the nature of taxation.

I don't think anyone really knew exactly how the situation would play out; President Obama wasn't really going to allow the tax cuts to become permanent, and yet he also couldn't get away with "raising" taxes in our current economy. The Republicans, still mid-victory lap from the midterm revolution, also have their ideological purity to maintain; they always have to fight tooth and nail for lower taxes.

Some kind of deal had to be made, and the Republicans have a hearty helping of leverage now that they'll own the House in January. I wasn't surprised about the particulars of the deal, but I have been shocked at the reaction from the Democrats: fiery rhetoric, murmurs of 2012 primary challenge to the president, and a refusal on the part of Nancy Pelosi to allow the bill to go to a vote.

(Why is it that conservatives are so much better than liberals at towing the line? Conservatives easily fall into goose-stepping stride while the liberals sidle up to the table, preparing to eat their young.)

This feels like an old school political dog fight. I just wouldn't have expected the cast of characters to be aligned in the way they are. In a weird twist, the president is essentially lining up with the Republicans(who are still in the minority, by the way) to push through a conservative tax plan.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is the president, who I once thought was as shrewd a politician as there has been, making a huge tactical mistake? Is he truly weak and thus at the mercy of the outrageously vocal Republicans? Or is this really the best play available? It occurs to me that President Obama might be banking on the fact that the liberal base of the Democratic Party is the least threatening group of people in the cosmos. He knows he can get this deal punched through regardless of the objections of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He also knows that he'll have to give up some stuff in order to be an effective president in the next two years. Perhaps he expects to come out on the other side of this thing looking like the only adult in an ongoing food fight. (I suspect he also knows that two years is plenty of time to win back the loyalty of the liberals. Liberals are, after all, fickle fish.)

I've always been a fan of harmony between otherwise disparate groups of people. Therefore it seems like a reasonable tax deal given the political and economic climate. I don't really think(having been warned numerous times about the severe limitations of fiscal policy) that extended tax cuts are going to save the economy. I think consistency more than anything would be helpful. Personally, though, I can't help but like the reduction of the payroll tax..that should help a bit. Tax cuts for millionaires? Hmmm. Perhaps I'll feel differently when I am one myself.

We all fall down

2010-11-28T12:24:00.011-07:00

General Motors hasn't been known, recently, for tact or class. A company that was once one of the largest and most respected corporations in the world has fallen on hard times. They've become the object of ridicule and criticism. They've been at the center of a political debate over how the government should deal with the imminent collapse of a major institution. "Too big to fail?" Foolish executives, massive job losses and colossal market share reduction have left them downtrodden and pathetic.

I was surprised, then, to see this commercial the other day. It's the first time that I've become aware of any demonstration of remorse from GM. I'm not knowledgeable about all the changes in management at GM, but it appears that someone is making some good choices. This commercial, which amounts to a corporate PSA, comes within weeks of GM's huge and successful IPO. They raised over $20 billion from the stock issue; some huge proportion will go towards repayment of the $50 billion bailout from the federal government.

This seems like good, humble corporate governance after a season of terrible decisions. Moreover, this commercial, albeit, creatively speaking, a hodge-podge of barely relatable images, plays like an act of contrition on the part of GM. The former corporate titan says, literally, "Thank you for helping us get back up."

As a Democrat, and supporter of President Obama, I can't help but see this as vindication of the bailout. Certainly not everyone will see it that way. But I feel as if there is a gentle voice whispering, "see, it was important to help and rehabilitate an iconic American institution and protect thousands of jobs."

I'm a fan of redemption stories of all types. I would probably never buy any car other than a Honda or Toyota(except for maybe a Cadillac), but I'm happy for GM. I respect and admire them for using their influence and resources to communicate such a heartfelt message to the American people, and I'm pleasantly surprised that they had enough insight to recognize their role in the development of American industry and their future role in helping our economy return to its former glory.

A Prouder Monkey

2010-11-01T20:53:00.008-06:00

Swing in this tree
Oh I am bounce around so well
Branch to branch,
limb to limb you see
All in a day's dream
I'm stuck
Like the other monkeys here
I am a humble monkey...

I've been thinking about Dave Matthews' "Proudest Monkey" a lot recently. Part of me just wants to think that this jam-tastic song is only a foggy protrusion of Matthews' formerly drug-addled mind. Perhaps a mere random assortment of images he conjured after a stoned screening of The Jungle Book or Project X.

Another part of me, however, can't help but dig a little deeper. What if, instead, it is an unlikely ode on the human condition? A reflection on our origins and our future?

Setting aside for a minute the evolutionary ramifications of monkeys, could this song suggest something about the human need for growth and change and improvement? Are humans innately prepared to move into new places and phases of understanding?

I find myself inadvertently cowering in the corner some days. The glare and weight of each day sometimes seem too difficult, and I sit in the proverbial tree eating bananas. Is it because of what's out there? Or is it because I have grown too comfortable in the shade?

Then comes the day
Staring at myself I turn to question me
I wonder do I want the simple, simple life that I once lived in well
Oh things were quiet then
In a way they were the better days...

The song gives me some hope, though; it isn't because of the insatiable forces of nature that, perhaps, propel natural selection and adaptation(although I'm willing to accept that they play a role). The hope in this case stems from a seemingly content animal who is willing to jump to a new limb or no limb at all:

But then came the day
I climbed out of these safe limbs
Ventured away
Walking tall, head high up and singing
I went to the city
Car horns, corners and the gritty
Now I am the proudest monkey you've ever seen

It's hard to climb out of those safe limbs. What is it that drives us to do and be more? What is it that keeps us the same? Is one better than the other? Were they really the better days? (The matrix tells me this steak is juicy and delicious...) And would the monkey cease to be proud if he stayed where it's safe and secure?

I have some strange thirst that makes me look around every day and wonder at people's motives and desires. I have many questions and few answers. Why do people do what they do? What do they hope for? Is life a quest for knowledge and joy? Or is it, as I have often suspected, an endless treading of water?

Regardless of the depth of insight in this song, I feel confident that the tension between hope and despair is normal. There probably aren't great, sweeping, meaningful conclusions that hint at a fundamental truth(though that would be nice) undergirding the whole of our existence, but we can still make choices to expand our outlook; we can reach for more. Is there intrinsic value in considering different possibilities? Maybe not. But nature has shown that things which are static and intractable are often subject to destruction. Even rocks and mountains will eventually crumble. In the meantime they are symbols of steadfastness..yet birds still poop on them.

Too dismal? On the contrary, a scrappy and weathered outlook is preferable to me. Songs are more interesting, relationships are more necessary, and the rapidly expanding universe is the limit. Some might say that this is a misguided defense of pessimism. I'd rather think of it as my own version of a swan dive off of those safe limbs into the spongy unknown.

Another Misunderstood Genius

2010-10-18T12:27:00.007-06:00

"Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and Steve Jobs, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well, that's what Ralph would have said..if he had owned an iPod.

The New York Times recently published an article about Apple's potential iPhone market share plunge due to vigorous competition from Android phones. The article suggests that Apple is in for another rude awakening like it had in the mid-90s when they essentially lost the OS war to Microsoft.

I'm a huge fan of The Times, but it surprises me how short-sighted they are when it comes to Apple. For one thing, they're ignoring a key component of that 1990s tumble: the absence of Steve Jobs. Apple pushed out its genius creator in the 80s after an explosion in success and a subsequent power struggle. Following Jobs' ouster, in a McDonald's-like frenzy of product innovation attempts, Apple came out with the predecessor of the of the PDA(the Newton), the first laptop, education-friendly computers, and a host of other stuff. While many of the releases were prescient and interesting, they were prohibitively untimely. Apple ended up losing huge swaths of the market.

Perhaps the most tragic misfire in Jobs' absence was the "clone" program that attempted to increase market share by allowing third parties to manufacture and sell Macintosh desktop computers generically through hardware and software licensure. This feeble effort only served to further dilute the brand. Microsoft, still under the command of a spunky Bill Gates, saw their influence expand exponentially in a flourishing economy, hungry for new computer technology and without much competition from the formerly dominant Apple. It wasn't until 1997 when Apple came to its senses and put Jobs back in the saddle. A year later, Apple introduced the iMac; a wave of bleeding edge innovation has followed.

It is true that Android phones are gaining a lot of ground in the smartphone market. The problem with the concerns expressed in the article is that it doesn't really matter. They assume that Apple's primary goal is to dominate a market or sell a lot of phones. Of course, as a corporation, they have a responsibility to investors...and their investors have become very happy. But what makes Steve Jobs get up in the morning? Higher EPS? A million more iPhones sold? A new contract with Verizon? I don't think so:

"Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful...that's what matters to me."

I maintain that Apple, or any similarly forward-looking company, doesn't have much to fear from Android or Microsoft or HP or many other technology companies. Those guys are all playing on Apple's field; Apple sets the trends..the temperature..and the rest wait around to see who can emulate the fastest. Other companies have just now 'arrived' on the smartphone scene. Apple isn't really in the smartphone market. Or the computer market. Or the mp3 player market. They're in the life-change market.

As arrogant as it may be, Steve Jobs believes that he can change the world. He believes that he already has. And he's right. He doesn't have to worry about competing in the world of personal technology; he invented that world.

People pay entrance fees and wait in stuffy convention centers just to hear about the next Apple product. Writers speculate and entrepreneurs drool. Like Slugworth in Wonka's factory, they connive and scheme just to get a glimpse. Is it just to find out what the next gadget will be? No, it's because they know when Steve Jobs takes the stage, the future will unfold a little bit more.

Paging Dr. Mengele

2010-10-14T09:39:00.005-06:00

Our very own Angel of Death? Angel of Extreme Discomfort?

A college professor recently made the discovery that in Guatemala in the 1940s, an American doctor purposefully infected Guatemalan patients with syphilis in order to study the effects of penicillin on the disease.

That's pretty disturbing. The The New York Times article, in fact, points out that while Dr. John Cutler was doing this, the United States was prosecuting Nazis for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials; war crimes that included, by the way, heinous medical practices like purposely infecting patients with diseases.

The strange thing is that I'm not really too surprised or bothered by this fact. Of course it's inexcusable and abhorrent to do what Cutler did, but it doesn't rock me to the core the way it should.

Shouldn't such a shocking revelation act like a slap in the face to your average American? Shouldn't we all be outraged? Shouldn't it drive us to the next inevitable question: What else are you keeping from us? What other travesties are you hiding? JFK? September 11th? Area 51? Elvis?

For some reason, though, I'm not that bothered. Maybe it's because it was so long ago. Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with the realities of human nature. Or maybe it's because I'm just not sure yet what this situation really says about who we are as a people..or that it even speaks to our identity at all.

What it does speak to, though, is that someone did it before, and therefore someone could do it again. People are capable of anything. Some might suggest that the answer to our human shortcomings is a more targeted approach to encouraging the best in us: personal responsibility. I applaud that notion, but I struggle to see how that can, corporately, be accomplished. Religion, you say? Ah, well history has done a pretty good job of showing how well that works. Evangelical Christianity? I'll refer you to the former answer.

I'm convinced that there are no purely social forces that can contend with the seemingly entropic nature of humanity. Humans can behave 'good' or 'bad', and, left in a vacuum, that 'goodness' and 'badness' will continue to ebb and flow. The only thing that has ever constrained behavior is the institution. Institutions are what keep us organized and settled. It is our institutionalized conscience that allows us to silence our demons and let loose our better angels. Does it always work? Clearly not. But it definitely lets us look back at old horrors and see them as horrors. Moreover, once we recognize a horror, it's easier to move on knowing that we have the ability to do better.

The Death of Youth?

2010-08-27T07:25:00.007-06:00

I finally return from my blogging slumber...for what? To purge the feelings associated with a 'landmark' birthday? I turn 30 today, and, like watching your car's odometer flop over to 100,000 miles, I can't help but wonder how much this puppy's got left in her...

I don't want to be too melodramatic, but...geez I feel old. It seems like your 20s are the best time in life since it's the only decade we desire. In your teens, you can't wait to get into your 20s. As you approach 30, you claw and struggle to hang on to every last moment. But..inevitably, irrevocably, we are violently ripped out of youth into the gaping maw of aches, pains, drooling, memory loss, and, finally, rigor mortis....

Nope..too grim. I'm already over it.

Let's see what you got 30s!

Are you kidding me right now?

2010-03-28T10:09:00.003-06:00

Bruce's face says it all. Terrible regular season. Lost in double OT to Ohio State and missed the Tournament. Lost to Dayton in the NIT. And now...my bracket is totally screwed!

Now I know why people randomly become fans of the most successful teams; it's hard to lose! All these disappointments are difficult to weather. Why stay loyal to a team when you can pick up the Yankees with their 27 World Series victories? Or the Steelers with 6 Super Bowl wins? Or the Lady Volunteers with 8 NCAA titles?

But, of course, I won't ever do that. I can't. My loyalty is like a chronic disease. So I'll continue to endure mediocrity and awfulness with some tiny, hidden speck of hope that maybe even one of my silly teams will some day win it all, hoist a trophy or take a victory lap. Until then...ugh...

A New Platform for Creativity

2010-03-23T13:27:00.004-06:00

How old is too old for video games? I hope I'm not there yet, since I just really enjoyed finishing Bioshock 2. This is a game that can appeal to extreme gamers AND English majors who never got to use their degree in a career...and who like mowing down hoards of zombies. (Perhaps someday I'll explore the beauty of the zombie genre by itself.)

Bioshock 2 takes place in the city of Rapture, a would-be utopia under the surface of the ocean. As the game story unfolds, you learn that a maniacal genius has created this underwater metropolis to escape the burden of world governments. Rapture is meant to be a haven for those elites who can find no place under the thumb of laws and societal norms. Something goes horribly wrong, though, as utopian societies are wont to do. What's left in the aftermath of a major conflict is a huge, hulking, art deco-infused city with zombie-like, genetically enhanced monsters who roam around looking for the next kill.

Apart from the thrill of unleashing round after round into these hideous freaks, the game explores prescient questions about genetic engineering, cloning and societal reconstruction. In the spirit of Ayn Rand, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, the city of Rapture becomes the setting for a reimagining of the kind of ethical wrestling that plagued those writers who were, in their own time, the seers of the world to come.

How far have we come? While the threat of worldwide totalitarianism is no longer a major issue, can't the same concerns play themselves out in a whole new way? And can't they manifest themselves in ways that aren't only fit for conspiracy theorists? What kind of society do we want? How will we get there? What freedoms are we willing to sacrifice? What desires lurk amongst the minds of our fellow humans that might some day create a 21st century version of Rapture?

I don't have a clue, of course. I am gratified to know, though, that people, even video game makers, feel some need to ask the questions and attempt to learn from the past in order to prepare for the future. Sophistication is no longer just for books and poetry; video games, TV shows, horror movies, newspaper articles and..maybe even blogs..are the new medium for exploring what could be based on what is.

Big Brother is Reading Your Blog

2010-03-22T11:59:00.006-06:00

Healthcare for everyone at last? So it would seem. The president will sign the House's healthcare bill tomorrow, and the last step will be for the Senate to approve the package of changes that will make the final bill unified.

Some people aren't happy about this. In fact, some people are downright furious. The Republicans continually suggest that the vast majority of Americans are outraged by this turn of events. I've never heard so many direct references to polling data.

I understand the basic concerns: high spending, taxes on people who make the most, toddlers having to pay off trillions of dollars of debt. Those concerns are duly noted, but the way those legitimate concerns have been manifested in the public eye is kind of alarming. The pure hatred for President Obama and Nancy Pelosi is..disturbing.

Bill Kristol's brand new article in The Weekly Standard is probably representative of the new Republican election strategy: Repeal! From now until November, every Republican will be promising to repeal the evil Obamacare if they are elected. This is a bold strategy since such an effort would require the kind of congressional revolution that we've never seen before. Frankly, if such a thing happened, I would be happy to concede that the American people really didn't want healthcare reform. And, of course, that's exactly what the president said at the recent Healthcare Summit:

"We cannot have another year-long debate about this, so the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks' time or six weeks' time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, and then that's what elections are for."

The president is keenly aware of the risk he's taking on by pursuing this agenda. He certainly could have made a token effort in order to appease the constituents who voted for him with the understanding that he would fix healthcare. Instead, he has chosen to really rock the boat and do what he thinks is best: a major overhaul of the system. Will it work? Will people be happy about it? We'll have a pretty good sense of that in November.

In the meantime, I think it's worth noting that the fear-inspiring rhetoric (or, I daresay, propaganda) set loose by the Tea Partiers and the Republican Party is..silly. The talk of socialism and government takeover and baby-killers is really nonsense (Note the protester's sign in the picture above). The healthcare bill is about regulation and rules for insurance companies; they would have you believe that the healthcare police will raid your house for non-government produced pharmaceuticals and private health insurance policy documents. "I'm sorry, ma'am, does that packet say Anthem on it? We're taking you in."

So now the battle really begins. It's a battle of words and images waged with innuendo and blogs and Youtube clips. Who will America believe? President Obama who says that this bill is the best thing for the present and future? Or the nebulous right wing mass who conjures images of Big Brother looking over your shoulder and at your medical charts?

A Good Night for the Academy

2010-03-08T01:51:00.004-07:00

James Cameron is about to choke his ex-wife since her movie was really good, and his movie really wasn't. Ah...justice.

Avatar, the most overblown, overhyped movie ever, walked away from Oscar night with only three piddly statues for the effort (and for the $300 million budget). Much has been written about this silly, Smurfs-meet-Ewoks story, and many people undoubtedly expected it to rake in the awards. The awards it won, however, were for the less exciting visual effects and similar categories that nobody really cares about.

I applaud the Academy for not indulging the mass appetite for mindless, CGI action. Although I've been told that watching Avatar in 3D is a must, I can't help but think I got the idea without alien palm fronds jumping off the screen at me. The mystical, psuedo-illuminati people behind the Academy Awards weren't fooled either. And even though I'll probably never forgive them for choosing Gladiator over Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, they moved one step closer towards vindication tonight.

(They also didn't lose any points for going ahead with selecting Christoph Waltz to bring home the Best Supporting Actor award for Inglorious Basterds. His genius in that role was appropriately recognized. I only wish Quentin Tarantino had finally been recognized for his genius.)

Congrats to Kathryn Bigelow for making a great movie and for becoming the first woman to ever win the Oscar for Best Director.

Stickin it to the man...

2010-01-28T01:47:00.009-07:00

Illini, Chicagoan, film critic...Roger Ebert is my kind of guy. I say that even though he gave Avatar 4 stars, and I would have only given it 2.

Earlier this month, though, I was really proud of him for this response to an outrageous Rush Limbaugh outburst.

It seems that Rush, with all of his wisdom and discretion, chose to suggest that President Obama is likely to steal money intended for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti through the official White House website.

Believe it or not, I can't say that I'm too concerned with another dose of Rush's absurdities; I don't expect much anymore. No, the real mind obliterator is that so many, upwards of 20 million people by some estimates, gobble it all up each week.

Do people really think that President Obama would do something like that? Did Democrats think President Bush was doing things like that? Is claiming such a thing really just some vague, cathartic boo-and-hiss session? Maybe venting is good?

Whatever the case, I'm glad that Rog decided to call him out. Shouldn't there be sociological consequences when someone who exerts substantial influence decides to just say things? The lingering question in my mind, though, has to do with the number of people who really identify with Rush. There are clearly millions of listeners, but how much stuff do they agree with? Is there an analogous personality on the left who is equally preposterous?

Just this evening, at the facility I work in, there was a group of about 150 conservatives, including some Republican county officials, who got together to watch the State of the Union (which I actually haven't watched yet). I have no doubt they made quite a ruckus over the president's speech. What I was most struck with, though, is that, even though there is a yawning chasm between us on the political spectrum, they were at least choosing to engage in the process. Maybe they hate everything the president stands for, and maybe they think the nation is disintegrating before our very eyes; but they showed up. They want their voices heard.

I'm not sure if I, or Roger Ebert, can muster the same respect for Rush as for a local gathering of like-minded citizens, but I suppose he has the same right to blabber on as anyone else.

I just don't know why they're paying him $400 million for it.

NBC and the Grip of Jay Leno

2010-01-25T08:58:00.006-07:00

I can't understand it. NBC gave us Seinfeld, The West Wing, 30 Rock, The Office, Cheers, The Cosby Show, The A-Team, Frasier, Star Trek....basically some of the most popular and successful television shows in history. Shows that, for better or worse, have shaped American culture(yes, it should give us pause that TV can do that, but I think we just need to accept it.)

That list, of course, should also include the tremendously successful Tonight Show and Late Night With David Letterman. Something happened, though, that blurged up the greatness of those shows: Jay Leno.

In 1992, when Johnny Carson was retiring from The Tonight Show, a well-known spat erupted over who would succeed him. David Letterman had been in the slot right after Johnny Carson, and so he seemed like the logical choice to take over. Even Johnny wanted it. Somehow, though, NBC, the network that seemed to have the golden touch, decided that the lesser-known Leno should be the host.

Fast-forwarding to 2009, NBC is at it again. Conan O'Brien gets bumped for Jay Leno. I would love to understand what power Jay Leno has over NBC that he can throw his weight around like this. He's not that funny. Why would NBC continually choose Leno over the comedic genius of Letterman and O'Brien? What's going on there?

Jay Leno has a grip on NBC. A fierce grip. What is the secret of your power, Jay?

A Lifetime of Learning

2010-01-18T22:30:00.004-07:00

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

My thoughts often turn to deceased Supreme Court justices around this time of year; there's something about that slightly perforated W2 that just tickles my fancy. It's like my own personalized bingo card.

Nobody really likes paying taxes, of course. There are those who are really enraged at the concept, though. I have a hard time relating to those feelings since I tend to think of all the cool stuff we get from paying those taxes: tanks, stamps, cheap celery, CAT scans for grandma, etc.

Taxes have also gotten more sophisticated in recent years. The federal government seems to be interested in some sort of widespread effort to help people and foster better living and common prosperity. I was trying to think of other, more sinister reasons for things like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but I had trouble coming up with any. No doubt the liberally-biased media has brainwashed me..or perhaps they brainfilthed me.

Of course I jest. Clearly there are legitimate concerns with virtually all social programs. I'm not convinced that any of those concerns are reasons not to do them, but they could probably all use a tweak here or there.

Today, though, I feel like raising a glass to our national government for coming up with the Lifetime Learning Credit. The first couple of toasts will obviously be because I discovered that I will benefit from this wonderful credit this year (I already did my tax return!). The third toast, though, will be to the federal government for the title of the credit: The Lifetime Learning Credit.

Perhaps I'm reading into this too deeply, but I am proud to live in a country where education is valued so highly. From the Lifetime Learning Credit to Stafford Loans to Pell Grants, our government really wants you to go to college. Not only that, but they want to you keep learning for the entirety of your lifetime! This is a bold gesture and a lofty goal from a government that was once afraid of whiskey.

Many negative things can be said about the spending habits, partisan bickering and psuedo-imperialistic tendencies of our federal government. There are a lot of good things to be said, though, about a vision, created through painstaking, policy-making effort, of a people that are healthy, safe and smart as hell. God bless America?

The Law of Love

2009-12-19T11:04:00.007-07:00

President Obama formally accepted the Nobel Peace Prize last week in Oslo. Per tradition, the president addressed the distinguished audience with a "Nobel lecture". His speech has been discussed and debated by everyone from Glenn Beck to Hugo Chavez.

Even those who disagree with the president would undoubtedly agree that he is at least true to himself and his principles. Almost a year into his presidency, it's hard to deny that he is exactly who he said he would be and that he is doing exactly what he said he would do.

I won't apologize for being a fan of him; there are few who can so comfortably inhabit the spotlight. There are fewer still who can know, understand and speak to the moment while being in the spotlight. Beyond that, who else could get away with talking about the "law of love"? Moreover, it's hard to compute that an American president talked about the law of love in the same speech as warning the world that the United States won't hesitate to use its military might to protect its citizens. What is love?

"the human condition can be perfected"
"fundamental faith in human progress"
"the spark of the divine that stirs in each of us"

Gene Roddenberry would be proud to live in a country with such an unabashedly humanist president. President Obama's speech also served as a perfect example of why I wouldn't want anyone else to be in the White House. He isn't perfect. He will most likely make mistakes during his time in office. The underlying philosophy that seems to guide his thinking, though, is that humans have great potential for good; they only require important and well-maintained institutions to help mitigate the bad stuff.

What of peace, though? It didn't surprise me that he referenced King, Ghandi and Kennedy; it shocked the hell out of me, however, when his conclusion for potential peace was "the continued expansion of our moral imagination."

I have been dwelling on that phrase for days. What does it mean? I'm convinced that it means something; he is, after all, no Palin (mindlessly filling empty space with meaningless blather). I suppose it has to do with perspective; perhaps President Obama is suggesting that no peace is possible until all parties believe that it is possible.

Does the world, then, need some big bowl of magic, geopolitically fuzzy koolaid to really create peace? Is the president suggesting that we should, a la Rodney King, all just get along? No, of course not. Clearly, though, hope was not just a campaign slogan. I really think he believes that personal determination and political will and a massive, communal paradigm shift are the main drivers of world peace. It's a choice. This method, of course, is a far cry from the more...tactile...foreign policy that Cheney and Rumsfeld espoused. It doesn't surprise me in the least that our former vice president's head is about to explode over President Obama's choices.

Peace is a choice, Obama (and Roddenberry) would say. The speech in Oslo last week amounted to, in my opinion, Choose to be with us, or get the hell out of our way.

Peace or utter destruction...it's up to you.
-Captain Kirk

A Lot More Fame for the Hall

2009-12-08T00:27:00.005-07:00

Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame this past September. Of course there was never any question about whether or not he would be enshrined; everyone knows His Airness deserves to be there. Everyone, it seems, including MJ himself.

I had heard that Jordan's speech to the ceremony audience was a display of arrogance, but I hadn't gotten around to watching it for myself until tonight.

After watching, a question comes to mind: is it arrogance or just truth? Is Michael Jordan cocky when he speaks of his achievement in basketball? Or is he just being honest?

As a fan of MJ since as far back as I can remember, I, too, was a little put off by his display of hubris. When I originally heard about it, I had trouble believing it. Certainly he knows that you can't bluster and trash talk when you're one of the best at something; it just isn't done.

As the speech went on, though, I found myself connecting with Michael Jordan on a whole new level. I don't think it really is hubris or arrogance. I think he was just speaking the plain truth. His speech was a parade of thank yous to the many people who had inspired him over the years. That's pretty standard. The speech was also a regurgitation of the vast mental list he has been keeping since his earliest basketball days: who will challenge me to be the most competitive person to ever play a sport?

I almost feel as though we all needed to hear the speech. What a rare insight into a unique persona. Who knew what turbulent fire lurked underneath that oftentimes calm demeanor. Yes, he definitely got very excited during games, but I remember the MJ who stood at the free throw line, calmly chewing his gum with the game on the line.

I think the reaction to his speech was understandable. Just watching the audience squirm during the speech was excruciating. They were all thinking the same thing: why isn't he doing the usual humble, "I couldn't have done this without you" thing? We were all probably foolish to think that. Isn't it fitting that the greatest player ever, who was constantly able to confound expectations about what was possible in a basketball player, would confound expectations when presented with the greatest honor that can be bestowed on a basketball player?

He ended his speech by remarking that induction into the Hall of Fame isn't an endpoint to his career. He said you might see him playing at age 50. "Don't laugh," he said. "Limits, like fear, are often just an illusion."

Cinematic Genius

2009-12-01T21:57:00.007-07:00

Setting aside, for a moment, questions about Big Bird's gender and the nature of Kermit and Fozzie's relationship, it's nice to bask in the goodness and simplicity of one of my favorite scenes in all of moviedom.

Why do I love it so much? Probably because it's about friendship and difficult journeys and the vast unknown. It's a reminder that any obstacle can be overcome when you have someone with you. It's probably also because of Kermit's reaction to an actual fork in the road.

It's also an acknowledgment that the process matters more than the outcome. It's strange that such a thing is true since the whole point of the process is the outcome, yet we're never fully satisfied with just the destination; we need the journey to be whole. Who understands that better than Kermit and Fozzie?

Movin' right along in search of good times and good news,
With good friends you can't lose,
This could become a habit!
Opportunity knocks once let's reach out and grab it,
Together we'll nab it,
We'll hitchhike, bus or yellow cab it!

Movin' right along.
Footloose and fancy-free.
Getting there is half the fun; come share it with me.
Moving right along.
We'll learn to share the load.
We don't need a map to keep this show on the road.

Our Princess is in Another Castle

2009-11-23T02:06:00.006-07:00

Donovan McNabb whispers words of encouragement in Jay Cutler's ear after the closing moments of the Eagles' 24-20 win over the Bears tonight. What do you suppose he said to him? We can all probably imagine the pep talk from one quarterback to another; one guy who understands adversity to another.

I've been on this whole struggling quarterback theme recently. I keep finding identification in the shoddy play of the leaders of the teams I care about. I can't help but wonder about the narrative of their lives; what happens next? Will they win the big game? Will they bring us along on a journey to realize all our hopes and dreams?

Of course I'm not talking about football, really. Football, ultimately, is just a really good metaphor. Dramatic music, bright lights, history on the line...those moments resonate with all humans because we all want to be the hero of our own story. (We probably want to be the hero of everyone else's story too)

Most of us won't be the hero or win the big game or save the princess; most of us will make an attempt and discover the harshest of truths: Thank you, but our princess is in another castle. Then we give up and move on with our mundane existence. There's nothing wrong with such an existence; it just feels disappointing after high hopes have been dashed.

I keep dwelling on the dream, though. Is it folly to want to achieve greatness? It wasn't for little Barack Obama who wrote his essay about wanting to be President of the United States in grammar school. Or was that just legendary devotion to some sort of arrogant, egomaniacal obsession?

There is a pesky little truth that plagues us: we don't get to know the end of our story. We won't know if Donovan McNabb's private words to Jay Cutler are the beginning of a great dynasty of football excellence or if his mediocrity will continue to build up and eventually suffocate him.

I'd like to think, for Jay's sake, for my sake, for Juice's sake, that this is all just the beginning of a wonderful story. I'd like to think that some grand narrative awaits me. It would be nice if, although bright lights and cameras may not accompany it, some sweet destiny is out on the horizon. Perhaps some day the monster will be slain, the princess will be waiting and the day will be won.

In the meantime, I may just throw a few interceptions.

Moon River?

2009-11-13T19:05:00.006-07:00

NASA announced today that data from the LCROSS lunar probe launched in June has revealed a potentially significant amount of water under the moon's surface. Scientists have long wondered about the possibility of water lurking somewhere on the moon, and now, at long last, they have their answer.

The implications of this discovery are far-reaching; the domain of science fiction may be about to get a lot smaller. Self-sustaining colonies on the moon could be in the not-too-distant future. With a plentiful supply of water, moonies (I've decided that we'll call them that) could live unassisted from earth for a while. Such colonies could be the location for a super-powerful telescope or a low-gravity launch pad for spacecraft to delve deeper into space.

Beyond that, though, is the possibility of life on other planets. If water can exist on the moon, it could exist elsewhere, too. If it does, lifeforms of endless variety could potentially thrive and evolve.

The possibilities are endless.

Vindicated?

2009-11-04T09:27:00.008-07:00

Finally a win!

The Illini, after half a season of wretchedness and yucky, defeated Michigan on Saturday. (And yes, the classic "Muck Fichigan" shirts could be seen throughout Memorial Stadium...it warmed my heart.)

Although rookie wide receiver-turned cornerback Terry Hawthorne must get a lot of credit for using Flash-like speed to stop a Michigan receiver from entering the end zone, my game ball goes to Juice Williams.

Juice looked like the real Juice. He was on fire. The Michigan defense was totally bumfuzzled. It was awesome.

I suppose it counts as irony that, after last week's Purdue debacle, I wondered aloud about whether or not Juice would be able to redeem himself. Would his football career rebound? Or would he settle into a dark trough of mediocrity and anonymity? I'm not sure what Coach Zook said in the locker room at half time, but it evidently inspired his team.

So now, Juice's (at least temporary) vindication has me wondering: if he can do it, why can't I? In college football, there's a very limited number of opportunities to achieve anything. In real life, the opportunities don't stop until you're dead. I'm reminded of my very favorite quote from one of my very favorite movies: "Can't someone be a shit for their whole life and then try to repair the damage?"

I am inspired by Juice. I suppose a lot of things are possible. Although I have tended to have a fairly negative outlook on life, I have been recently realizing that being overly negative can be a serious liability. That's probably obvious for most people, but some of us take a little longer to catch on... In any event, maybe I'll choose to think of myself like a fourth year starting quarterback with a 2-6 record and 4 games to go. The brass ring? A .500 season and possibly the Motor City Bowl? Yeah, it's a long shot for the Illini, but sometimes being a little bit better than you were before is an accomplishment in itself.

Just Add Water

2009-10-24T22:33:00.005-06:00

3000+ passing yards. 22 touchdown passes. Those are just a couple of highlights from Juice Williams' 2008 season. He was the leading passer in the Big Ten.

2009? Almost 2/3 of the way through the season: 936 yards and 4 touchdowns. Bleayck! The Illini are 1-6 and playing like a high school team. They couldn't even beat any of the schools in Indiana!

Near the end of the slow collapse at Purdue, one of the commentators said, "Boy, Juice is just playing with no confidence right now." I've been thinking about that. Why is that? How could the Illini's all time leader in passing yards and fourth year starter be struggling so much? It doesn't make much sense. He has all the tools: great arm, decent offensive line, speed, strength and a whole set of really good receivers. What gives?

I don't know the answer, of course, but dwelling on Illinois' football calamity has caused me to think about my own life. I feel for Juice. He's a guy who has ability but no production. Opportunity but no success. Support but no confidence. I feel for him, but I also identify with him.

Humans love drama. We love a great story. We want to see comebacks and resurgence and rags to riches fairy tales. ESPN would eat it up if Juice Williams suddenly starting overcoming adversity and won the big game. The sad part is that sometimes that story doesn't happen. In fact, I think it rarely happens.

At this point, 7 games into his last season with a 1-6 record, it's unlikely that Juice will be able to stage a meaningful comeback and capture glory and honor for his teammates and school. So where will his story go? Oblivion? What about my story?

I'm not really comfortable with the concept of fate. It's too convenient. It's a mental crutch. Having said that, I admit that it can be tantalizing to think about. Where will I go? Who will be? What will I do? Will they make statues of me? Put my face on a stamp? On a commercial?

Like Juice, I feel like I'm spinning my wheels in the mud. I'm playing with no confidence. I once heard a wise man say that life is divided into two parts: living and waiting to live. I'm spending a lot more time waiting to live, I think. How do you change that? How do you take a thick, sloppy existence and make it work it better? Juice and I would love to know.

Anthing is Possible

2009-10-21T10:38:00.007-06:00

The Vatican has just announced a plan to make it easier for Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church while holding onto some of their Anglican traditions. That's like the Hatfields inviting the McCoys to a party to share some rhubarb pie. (Then, based on the comments of the Anglican Primate, Rowan Williams, it's like the McCoys saying in response, "We'll see.")

The impetus for this move springs out of a battle currently raging in the Anglican Church over whether or not women should be ordained as ministers. The Pope wants to provide a streamlined process for Anglicans uncomfortable with potential women ministers to convert to Roman Catholicism. The Vatican seems to be genuinely interested in preserving cultural traditions while also trying to reunite a worldwide Church: "The unity of the church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows."

Is it possible that an almost 500 year old rift could finally be getting a little smaller? I am intrigued by that possibility, although I also think the burden is on the Pope to explain why one united, worldwide church is such a great idea.

The church is a funny thing; it may be simultaneously the most powerful force for good and the most powerful force for bad in history. Will thawed relations with other church traditions make the Roman Catholic Church better? I have no idea. The only thing I can say for sure is that it will provide even more fodder for Dan Brown novels.

Goosebumps...

2009-10-11T13:55:00.001-06:00

Hog Butcher for the World

2009-10-02T11:01:00.008-06:00

Come and show me another city with lifted head singing
so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.
Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on
job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the
little soft cities;

Carl Sandburg probably wasn't thinking about Rio de Janeiro when he wrote his excellent poem. Today, though, I can't help but think about all the little soft cities on my list: Tokyo, Madrid, Rio!

It's a sad day for Chicagoans everywhere. Chicago, after an effort spanning more than two years, was rejected today as the host for the 2016 Olympic Games. Even President Obama made the trip to Copenhagen to make a pitch to the International Olympic Committee. Evidently, though, the president doesn't have much pull with them.

As soon as I read the news of the IOC's Chicago bitch-slap, I immediately thought of Sandburg's poem. He understood better than most that Chicago is the nation's tragic hero: flawed, courageous, unique, restless, ambitious. The grid-like pattern of streets and row houses seems, at first glance, like city over planning run amok. All those right angles are, instead, demonstrable thoroughness and intensity. The people of Chicago live through bitter winters, century-long World Series droughts, gang fights, O'Hare delays, cicada invasions, stifling humid summers, landmark name changes and the loss of a day off for Casimir Pulaski Day. They are a resilient people, and if the Olympics don't want Chicago, they'll live through that too, because they are...

Laughing!
Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of
Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog
Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with
Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.

Uh oh, they're getting organized...

2009-09-12T19:09:00.010-06:00

Raptors? Killer ducks? No, Republicans!

I jest, of course. I was pleasantly surprised to see today that hordes of Republicans stormed the National Mall in Washington D.C. to protest the president's agenda. In recent months, much has been made of the fact that conservatives aren't traditionally known for being protesty types. This month's Tea Party crowds are catching my attention, though. True protesters? You'll know them by their signs:

While the nature of their passion eludes me, I remain impressed by such a large group of people exerting their right to protest. They really believe that our nation is in peril and that something must be done about it. If they can just convince the center and find someone to lead them, the Democrats might really have some problems in the upcoming midterm elections.

bleayck!

2009-09-06T21:03:00.006-06:00

The season just started, and I'm already sick of it.

I'm not sure how much more sucky Illini football I can take. I might just have to start telling people that I went to USC.

I don't like being the type of fan to jump to conclusions about the efficacy of the coaching staff, but even I'm starting to wonder. How can a team that routinely recruits Top-25 classes perform so poorly? How do you lose by 4 touchdowns at a neutral site to a team that has replaced 23 starters...including their quarterback?

I'll be violently ill if Illinois loses to Illinois State next weekend. Then I'll just not be surprised when they get obliterated in the Ohio State-Penn State-Michigan State gauntlet over the following 3 weeks.

Zooker...you better do something right soon. Coaches fly around like mad in this day and age. Soon enough the Assistant Offensive Line Crotch Coach from the University of Franistan will be taking your job.

New number, funny smell...

2009-08-29T23:04:00.008-06:00

29. As I creep ever closer to the age which shall not be named, I get increasingly morose and angsty. Not all the time, of course: just moments here and there, when I suddenly remember the slow, entropic march of Time and its sluggish, juggernaut companion, Age.

My birthday was this week. I don't do birthdays. Although family and friends have routinely put forth valiant(and appreciated) efforts to help me find joy on my birthday, I almost always have found a way to sabotage it.

In the same week, I've moved into a new apartment. Somehow the two events seem inextricably linked. I can't help but glance around the new living space at my possessions cluttered in random piles and worry about how I'll find places for each thing. It feels like each new year provides a similar opportunity: year 29 is a new life space; it requires cleaning, rearranging, new smells, new bugs in alarming places and enough unknowns to make me feel a little anxious.

Thanks to Google Maps, I can provide a satellite image of the new place(even though it looks like a peaceful community in rural Syria that's about to get smart-bombed). I wish I could get that kind of bird's eye view of my life. New apartment. New grad school experience. New set of accompanying opportunities. Maybe if I could get high above it all, I might discover that new things are good. I might find peace in the knowledge that I can take new steps and not totally ruin everything.

I've heard a lot of people talk about living with no regrets. I'm not sure that's possible. At least not for me. In the words of Captain Kirk, "I need my pain." I have lots of regrets; things I should have done, things I shouldn't have done. Is it possible to make the most out of your life unless you've already squandered it in some way? I'd love to meet the people who used every moment with total clarity and absolute efficiency. It can't be done. So I resolve to wrap myself up in the tapestry of my regrets; I'll steep myself in them until I never forget them. Maybe then I'll be wise enough to ask the right question or take the right step or find the right person.

Senator Edward Kennedy, 1932-2009

2009-08-26T02:11:00.004-06:00

Senator Kennedy died late last night from the brain tumor he had been fighting for more than a year. Although I'm essentially too young to have fully appreciated his impact on our nation, I'm still very saddened to learn of his death. His 47 years of service in the U.S. Senate were obviously full of passion and purpose; he deserves respect for that. A great liberal icon has passed, and I believe we are better off for having had Edward Kennedy in our lives.

His life was bloated with high expectations, celebrity hoopla, scandal and tragedy. In the midst of that, though, he was able to bring a measure of hope to his constituents and to U.S. citizens from all around the country. It's as if he, at some point, suddenly realized that he was given a special opportunity to make a difference; the Kennedy name became more than just a passport for women and wild times.

It may seem strange for me to feel a loss of a stranger nearly three times my age, but I nevertheless feel it. Perhaps it's Senator Kennedy's famous public profile. Perhaps it's his connection to President Obama's candidacy last year. Perhaps it's some kind of "gaper's delay" rubber-necking celebrity thing. I don't know. Perhaps it just feels right to mourn one of our honored dead.

In any event, rest in peace Teddy. I doubt there will be many more like you.

Like a complete unknown

2009-08-15T14:26:00.007-06:00

Bob Dylan was found wandering around private property in New Jersey last month when concerned residents called the police. A young police woman confronted him and didn't believe his 'I'm Bob Dylan' story. She finally eased up after verifying Dylan's identity with his manager on his nearby tour bus.

As fun as it is for celebrities to be found in weird places, this story has an unusual layer that makes it more intriguing.

It turns out that the area Mr. Dylan was found(in sweatpants, a trench coat and a hoodie, by the way) was very near a house Bruce Springsteen used to reside in. Apparently the Boss lived there while authoring "Thunder Road" and other great hits.

This is just the latest in a pattern of Dylan sightings in recent months near the old homes of other legendary rockers: the former homes of John Lennon and Neil Young were also on Dylan's itinerary.

This is like Michael Jordan visiting the high school where LeBron James played basketball. It's like Johnny Carson watching tapes of Conan O'Brien's show. Like Napoleon poring over the memoirs of Norman Schwarzkopf! Is he loopy? Or is this just another extension of his genius?

I'm choosing to err on the side of genius.

Is it humility that inspires Bob Dylan to wander through the rain, searching for some key to his colleagues' greatness? Does he sense his own shortcomings and yearn for a more full life? What causes a man, who has already secured his spot in the pantheon of musical glory, to don a cloak of anonymity and genuflect in the presence of the very people who stood on his shoulders?

Who is Secretary of State?

2009-08-11T23:05:00.004-06:00

Hillary Clinton is. She made damn sure we all know that one. Whatever else can be said about her, Hillary Clinton remains one of the more interesting public figures.

While in Africa the other day, Mrs. Clinton got a little feisty with a questioner who she thought was asking her what her husband thought about a situation. Even though the translation turned out to be wrong, it's interesting that she got so fired up about the suggestion that the former president's opinion should be a factor in her thinking.

I suppose Hillary Clinton is in a very difficult marriage...perhaps a record-setting amount of difficulty. She has endured a lot of crap with poise and dignity for a lot of years, and I guess my first instinct is to cut her some slack.

She will, of course, be mocked and gawked at for her response to the question. I think that's unfortunate. Many people look at Hillary Clinton and see a shrill, overly ambitious, deadly liberal, cold-hearted devil-woman(perhaps I'm overstating the point). I see a confident, capable, patriotic woman with a lot of misfortune trying to do the best she can for her country. I think the African press conference incident gave us a little insight into the humanity of Hillary Clinton. Let's give her a break.

Justice League

2009-08-06T21:53:00.003-06:00

Congratulations, Justice Sotomayor. You're the first Hispanic Justice of the Supreme Court.

Americans really like firsts. First African-American president. First Hispanic Supreme Court justice. First non-steroid-imbued baseball player to hit x home runs. I suppose we pay attention to all these firsts because the various news media outlets cover them so passionately. That begs the question, though: do we care about the first whoever to do whatever because CNN, for example, covers it? Or does CNN cover it because they know we'll eat it up like so much first bacon cheeseburger under 1000mg of sodium?

It's nice that this intelligent woman gets to be the first Hispanic to sit on the federal bench, but I'm less gratified by her Hispanic-ness than I am by the possibility of her bringing wisdom and insight to the most important court in the country.

Conservative PACs are undoubtedly unnerved by Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. They probably feel that this confirmation is just the latest abomination brought on by the massive swarm of liberal locusts that is currently marauding around the country. Obama. Clinton. Biden. Clinton. Abortion. Clinton. Sotomayor. It may be too much to handle. Maybe the worst part of partisan politics is the inter-power teeth-grinding years that a party has to deal with until they're given another shot at the tiller. No words of consolation can possibly assuage the fear and restlessness that accompany being the minority party. Sorry, GOP, you'll just have to wait this one out.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President?

2009-08-04T14:38:00.005-06:00

In addition to sharing cupcakes with longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas, the President had a pretty good birthday today. As a result of former President Clinton's visit, North Korea has pardoned the two imprisoned journalists who illegally entered the DPRK a few months ago.

Some people seem to think that this development is representative of a mild thaw in the relations between the United States and North Korea. (On a side note, I wonder if the Korean photographer demanded that President Clinton not smile for this picture.) I can only hope that our diplomats and wonks are putting in a few extra hours a week to make sure they're handling this the right way.

While I've never been truly afraid of the United States being subject to some kind of horrific nuclear attack, it occurs to me that North Korea's future will involve one of two things: a catastrophic collapse into a puddle of economic goo, or a wild, button-pushing nuclear attack frenzy. The real question is which will happen first.

I'm having a rare moment where I'm able to channel the feelings of all conservatives in North America: the Clinton family is on the case in North Korea...panic! If Chelsea flies to Pyongyang in order to seduce Kim Jong-un, then we'll really have something going.

I jest, of course. I really do hope the former president and the Secretary of State can help President Obama find a lasting solution to the North Korea problem. In the meantime, though, I'll refrain from letting frowny photo ops get my hopes up.

King of Pop

2009-06-26T00:01:00.004-06:00

Michael Jackson died today. This makes me sad...more sad, in fact, than I would've expected. For all his mistakes and shenanigans, Michael Jackson remains a central figure in the evolution of American culture over the past 30 years. The day the music died? Maybe not, but there is a silence that has(or should have) nevertheless spread over our nation today. He was the Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Leonardo da Vinci or Albert Einstein of his craft...a virtuoso who stands alone in the gaze of history...a master of his context. Too melodramatic? Perhaps, but I'm sticking with it.

There are some estimates that put Michael Jackson's total album sales at well over 500 million for his career. Thriller alone is the highest selling album in history with over 100 million copies. These aren't just statistics from a bygone era, either. Jackson was lined up to do 50 concerts in London this summer, and they were all already sold out.

Of course, unfortunately, Michael Jackson's name will be inextricably linked with a set of child molestation accusations. As disturbing as those issues are, they really seem almost understandable for a man who has had such a tumultuous and overwhelming life. He was thrust into the limelight at the age of 6, and he was undoubtedly destined for, at best, an unusual life. A highly abusive father and a childhood of touring and recording seems to have caused a warping of his perspective on how to live. Perhaps one of the lessons of his life is that one person can't handle so much...stuff.

I am indeed sad today in light of this tragic end to a tragic life, but it's more than that. I'm somewhat surprised to realize how close Michael Jackson's music was to the memories of my childhood. My mom frequently listened to Off the Wall while I sat shotgun in her Chevy Cavalier, circa 1986. My first cassette tape was Bad, and I listened to it so much that the tape actually wore out. I remember being truly disturbed by the video from "Thriller" with that eerie Vincent Price laugh at the end. Through good times, sad times, fearful times and confident times, the King of Pop provided a soundtrack for my life; I am grateful to him for that.

Michael Jackson, may you truly rest in peace. God knows you never had any peace in life, so I hope the universe is...understanding enough to give you some peace in death.

They see me rollin'...they hatin'...

2009-06-24T23:28:00.006-06:00

I love driving fast.

Maybe I don't love driving fast so much as I hate driving slow. Is there a difference? I'm not sure, but I do know that it's incredibly satisfying to zip from place to place at high speeds; likewise, it's excruciating to be trapped behind, say, a seasoned gentleman in a vintage automobile when I have zipping to do.

I sometimes fantasize about a mystical, heavenly highway where no other cars get in my way. Sometimes the fantasy takes place in a world where all the other drivers are eager to move to another lane so that I can pass uninhibited. Most of the time, though, I imagine a long, dark road lit only by my headlights and the fading light of the sun below the horizon; it's a quiet, warm night, and the breeze through the open windows just ever so slightly muffles a mellow song on the radio. The road is open and free, and it becomes an extension of me...my hopes, my dreams, my pain, my joy, my sadness...

And then with a screech and THUD(like Prufrock's etherised patient), I'm ripped back into reality by a story like this. Apparently a couple drivers got into a spat right here in the Springs, near the intersection of Austin Bluffs and Academy, and one driver fired a gun at the other. Geez. Don't they know there's a KFC right there! What kind of a world is this?

Troubled in Tehran

2009-06-21T09:57:00.005-06:00

The child in this picture is standing outside the Iranian embassy in Greece. It seems that people all over the world are taking up banners, ribbons and flags in order to protest the recent Iranian election results.

There are two things that interest me greatly: the first is the sheer number of Iranians who seem to be upset about the election. At this juncture, this is a somewhat obvious point to make, but it seems strange that a candidate that won by nearly 30 points should find himself surrounded by so many who doubt his win and who oppose him so vehemently. President Obama won by only 7 points, yet even the most disappointed of his detractors understand that he is the president now. (Although clearly there is something to be said for the relative newness of elections in Iran.)

The turmoil in the midst of the 30 point win tells me what it tells millions of Iranians from all over the world: something is fishy here.

The other thing that interests me is the use of banners written in English. If you scan photos on the internet of the protests, you'll see English often. Why? Perhaps it's because they want the United States to do something.

It surprises me whenever I find people from other nations who expect something from America. Maybe it really isn't arrogance when we talk about our leadership role in the world. Maybe we do have some kind of responsibility.

President Obama, of course, is getting criticism for not speaking out strongly enough or early enough. I suppose everyone has their own opinion about the perfect timing and tenor of such a message. But what can the United States really do in this situation? What does the world want from us? Do they want us to create more awareness around the world? Do they want us to covertly pressure the Assembly of Experts to remove the Ayatollah? Send troops in to stop the violence? What?

The world is obviously watching to see what will go down in Tehran in the coming days and weeks. Will the protests gain strength and momentum? Will the Ayatollah crush them with military force? Will they do a full recount? Even the so-called Iran experts don't have a good sense of where this is all leading. It looks like it could end up being a watershed moment for Iran.

The Man in the Mirror

2009-06-10T16:35:00.005-06:00

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. No message could have been any clearer - if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change."

Michael Jackson understands personal responsibility...or something. Maybe, at the very least, he should be commended for putting "Man in the Mirror" on Bad. I appreciate the sentiment of the song because it touches on a classic pillar of wisdom: humility.

If I can be forgiven for the presumptuousness, I think the Republican Party could benefit from reading the lyrics of the song. (If you can't tell, the picture depicts Rush Limbaugh as Jabba the Hut and Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican Party, as the enslaved Princess Leia.)

A recent survey from Gallup indicates that most Republicans can't find consensus on a man or woman who can speak for or lead their party. According to the survey, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were the top 2 picks with 10% each. This is somewhat surprising since neither of them is an elected official; Newt hasn't been in Congress since 1999.

As a (mostly)life-long Democrat, I certainly won't lose any sleep over anxiety about the state of the GOP. Nevertheless, I prefer it when all government institutions are functioning efficiently and coherently. The intra-party tumult of recent months seems to preclude efficiency or coherence, especially since a radio talk show host is dominating the conversation right now.

One of the unfortunate consequences of Mr. Limbaugh being the most prominent Republican voice is that the criticism of the president, and the set of alternatives which accompany it, is fairly narrow and devoid of nuance. And, of course, such an aversion to nuance betrays the legitimate and reasonable arguments of the Republican Party. Mr. Limbaugh's response to President Obama's Cairo speech is a great example of this. Even a cursory examination of the radio program transcript will show the shrill, nit-picky heckling of the president. Rather than commenting on the overall purpose and effectiveness of the speech(or lack thereof), Limbaugh chose to dispute a long list of minute details like the true origin of algebra.

If Rush Limbaugh truly represents the core values of an average Republican, I fear for the organizational solvency of the GOP in the coming years. My guess is that a dwindling number of citizens will find self-identification with the likes of Rush.

Like Apollo Creed searching Philadelphia for a worthy opponent, I'm waiting for the day when a conservative politician gains enough admiration and respect to be able to pick up the phone and say, "Shut the hell up, Rush." Until that day, the mutant identity crisis will roll onward.

It's interesting that someone would create the Jabba/Rush image; I wonder if they meant to suggest that, although Jabba is the one holding the chains, soon enough Princess Leia will deftly strangle the monstrous blob with his own instrument of torture.

"Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

2009-06-07T23:35:00.007-06:00

Shelley probably had an old, dusty has-been in mind when he wrote Ozymandias. I wonder if a delusional never-was could qualify as the potential subject of the poem.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea(or the less sexy 'North' Korea) is a "shattered visage" not unlike Babylon or Carthage. The main difference is that Babylon and Carthage actually had some good years before crumbling to pieces. North Korea, on the other hand, reminds me of the classic RISK strategy: a thick, imposing shell but nothing in the middle.

Kim Jong-Il, pictured here with his charming family, is a despot in the grand tradition of Stalin and Mao: cult of personality, fear of death, drab clothing, etc. The prickly dictator has gone out of his way to appear tough and secure while his country simultaneously starves. Some estimate that the mid-90s famine claimed some 2 million North Korean lives. Through the most controlled financial system in the world and an outrageous focus on military spending, Kim has kept his country of 22 million people in socio-economic stasis: North Dakota, with 640,000 people, has a larger GDP than North Korea.

I wish I could explain my fascination with this country. I think it blows my mind that such a state of affairs is even possible without revolt or collapse. How can millions of people endure decades of isolation, intimidation, control and starvation? In 2008, the U.S. agreed to give 500,000 metric tons of food to North Korea out of essentially humanitarian concerns(along with a healthy dose of desire to get them back to the nuclear non-proliferation bargaining table). What are the people like in North Korea? Are they happy? Do they want a different life? What must happen for change to occur? How bad does it have to get before people will rise up?

Perhaps I take my freedom for granted. Since I was born in the United States, it just seems natural that a government should function the way ours does. Maybe I'm fascinated with North Korea because it reminds me of how precious our way of life is. In our country, those in power aren't deathly afraid of losing power; in fact, it's a certainty that power, once attained, will be stripped away in a matter of several years.

As one who aspires to be ultra-tolerant to those who think differently than I do, I'm torn when I think about North Korea. Is it inappropriate to say that their way of life is wrong? Or is it outright foolishness to not say it? Would a young Korean, living on the outskirts of Pyongyang, chastise me for presuming to know what's best for his country? Or would he beg me to help him find real freedom?

I suppose it's a moot point since it's not likely that I'll ever meet my young, North Korean counterpart. Travel restrictions are so severe that only those on official, state-sponsored visits are allowed to enter the country. Laura Ling and Euna Lee understand this point particularly well today, since they were just sentenced to 12 years in a North Korean labor camp for entering the country without government approval.

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Kim Jong-Il has reportedly just named his youngest son to be his successor. I look at the little boy in the picture, and I can't help but wonder what sort of man he will be. Will he be the one to end the cycle of madness? Will he look to the future and see a different North Korea than his father and grandfather saw? Does he understand the burden he's about to take on? Does he see the opportunity that awaits? Or will he stand by and watch as the pillars crumble and the pieces get buried in the sand?

Swinging For the Fences

2009-06-04T23:57:00.007-06:00

"It felt wrong not to swing."

Merril says this in Signs, one of the more brilliant movies of the last ten years, in defense of his minor league baseball strike out record(it's also one of the scariest experiences for me personally..I've got a whole aliens-terror thing). It's important to note that Merril, in the movie, also has five batting records. Some might compare this kind of thing to Brett Favre...sure, he's got the most interceptions in football history, but at least he won the Super Bowl and blah blah blah...

President Obama, in fulfillment of a campaign promise, chose to give a big speech in Cairo, Egypt this morning. Much has been written about the speech and what it means to everyone from great aunt Aeesha in Tehran to Bob the mechanic in Columbus, Ohio. In fact, the buzz surrounding the lead-up to this speech has been nearly deafening.

The speech was good. Of course it was good. President Obama has a singular talent that we probably won't see in another president for many years to come. It's not just about wow-factor, though. In fact, his speeches haven't really raised one's heart rate in quite a while...since "Yes we can"? Nevertheless, he understands oratory better than most people. He knows a president can't be all fireworksy and preachy; a president has to be a presence in a, "I've got it all under control" sort of way. He must, even in a mere speech, take on all the burdens of the world and be able to stand up under it. Wow it's hard to be President of the United States.

Of course the praise and criticism from journalists form a landscape that stretches as far as the eye can see. Everyone has an opinion: Iran's Ayatollah, Rush Limbaugh, Liz Cheney(in fact, if those 3 got in a room together, they could have quite the bitch-fest about the president). What I'm struck by, though, is the ballsy nature of the speech. It's the Audacity of sumpthin to take on Israel-Palestine, nuclear Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, and centuries of Muslim blood-feuds all in the same 55-minute time slot.

What are we capable of as a people? I think many have been wondering this indirectly since President Obama blew into office four-ish months ago. Health care, Iraq, Iran, budget, economic crisis, GM, banks, the Supreme Court, Hugo Chavez playing face-saving games, North Korean missiles, Gitmo closing, stimulus packages, global warming.....lyrics to a Billy Joel song? No, this is our life. What are we capable of as a people? I don't know, but our new president seems to think that we can do a lot of stuff all at the same time.

I really don't know the answer, but I love the attempt. Why not? What's the alternative? In the words of Aaron Sorkin, "America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad"(The American President). Is the president being reckless or bold? Only time will tell. In the meantime, I'm really proud of my country and my president, and I think our best days are still ahead of us.

Swing away, Merril

Darth Cheney?

2009-06-02T17:06:00.006-06:00

(I just need to say...I was going to use a photoshopped picture of Cheney as Dr. Evil, but I couldn't resist the reality of him on a Segway.)

Our former vice president has been doing a lot of talking recently. About torture. About President Obama. About terrorists. About lots of stuff.

Last night, on Greta Van Susteren's show, Mr. Cheney said some of the more interesting and unexpected things we've heard yet. He is, apparently, for example, in favor of gay marriage...at least in the sense that he believes states should be able to decide for themselves whether or not it should be legal. I didn't really expect that.

What really got my attention, though, was his thoughts on the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda:

"on the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that. There was some reporting early on, for example, that Mohammed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. But that was never borne out."

I find this statement...alarming. It's alarming especially because the connection between the two was one of the key rationales for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is the same man who, as recently as 2007, said:

"[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence [in Iraq] before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June."

Does this divergence merely represent an unfortunate misjudgment about a crucial detail in an important national security decision? Or does it suggest something more sinister? I'm bothered either way.

In October 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" by a substantial margin. Among other things, this joint resolution listed the numerous reasons for invading Iraq and displacing Saddam Hussein's regime. The several page document breaks down, in my opinion, into two main categories of reasons: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the harboring of and collaboration with terrorists and terrorist organizations. Regarding the latter, the resolution said:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."

The Bush administration proposed the Iraq legislation after having vigorously argued the case for WMDs and a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. It's interesting, therefore, that Mr. Cheney would so flippantly dismiss the very same claims that were a bedrock concept in the set of policies that got the United States enmeshed in the internal strife of another sovereign nation half a world away.

I suppose I'm being a typical liberal in getting worked up about this. A defendant of the Bush administration(although there are few) might accuse me of being critical simply because President Bush is a Republican. Perhaps. Perhaps I would be quick to jump to the defense of a similar Obama administration decision. I can't say for sure.

Mr. Cheney's seeming position change is bringing up a somewhat deeper issue that remains relevant to any national security decision, including the current Guantanamo Bay issue: how far should a nation go in order to maintain the safety of its citizens? As disturbing as it is to think about the sequence of events and ideology that brought us to war in Iraq, I admit that I believe that even Darth Cheney had his version of the nation's best interests in mind when he advised the president to invade.

And even though it now seems that the Bush administration arranged information to meet their needs and convince the world of threats that turned out to be non-imminent, I remain convinced that the underlying motivation was some twisted form of patriotism. The former vice president's reversal on al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11 suggests either gross incompetence or outright subterfuge but not anti-American scheming.

It's times like this, with issues like this, that remind me how little desire I have to be president. I don't want to be the one to decide what means are justified in protecting our way of life. It tires me to think of the weight of the choices that must be made to keep us strong and robust. What if we remain true to our principles and yet fail in the effort to stay safe? What if New York or Chicago is leveled by a nuclear explosion because we didn't extract information from a terrorist that could have stopped it from happening? Is that potential cost worth our ideological purity? These are questions that Dick Cheney has the answers to; I'm not sure that I do.

President Obama seems to have a different set of answers:

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations...We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Is he right? Should we trust him? Is he even trustworthy? Is he naive? The election focused heavily on those questions, but the American people seem to have decided that he has the right perspective for the job. It is remarkable that the electorate decided this even in the midst of being more fearful than at any other time in the last 20 years. I guess only time will tell whether or not that choice was justified. In the meantime, it's probably useful to let go of the feelings about past decisions.

The Death of Nostalgia

2009-05-27T21:18:00.008-06:00

-A notebook from a high school economics class
-The nameplate from my teller station at Harris Bank in Palatine
-A dolphin key chain
-The sweaty, mylar blanket I got after finishing the Chicago Marathon in 2005
-A picture of a bathroom from an English bed and breakfast, circa 1993

What do these things have in common? They're all meaningless items I recently threw away while rummaging through a really heavy box in my closet. Why did I ever feel obliged to save any of these things? I don't know.

Nostalgia serves little purpose for me anymore. I remember that as a serious, analytical youth, I often held onto box-loads of objects I was sure would be worth something to me some day. I even hesitated to throw away old toothbrushes; I reasoned that a toothbrush was a very intimate object due to it being in one's mouth so often. What did this "material nostalgia" do for me? Not much apart from provide a lot of clutter.

What's my main beef with nostalgia? By definition, nostalgia presupposes a longing for the past. Billy Joel taught me a long time ago that "the good old days weren't always so good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." It's possible that the dried-out marker I once used in Mr. Puhy's 8th grade social studies class is an obstacle in my path. The rusty, dented Pennsylvania license plate from my first car might just be an anchor to the past when what I really need is a shove into the future.

So I'm choosing to set aside the silly urges to save pieces of paper and memorabilia. No more pack rat for me! Why do I need that copy of the Daily Illini from 1999? When will I go back and reminisce about the time I got that blue and white bracelet made of yarn...especially since I can't remember who gave it to me or what it means. Instead of trinkets and knick-knacks, I'll trust in random sounds and smells to call forth distant memories of elementary school, for instance. Fallen leaves scraping along the pavement often remind me of a Halloween parade our school had when I was in fourth grade. I went as Indiana Jones, and one girl was a clock...

If I'm honest with myself, though, I recognize that I can't give up nostalgia cold turkey. I threw away the economics notebook, but I couldn't bring myself to toss the one from English 251 that had one half of a note-passing conversation with a classmate. I felt fine throwing away the syllabus for a history class, but I couldn't pitch my University of Illinois day planner with scribblings like "meet at the Union 2:30" in it. I didn't think twice about chucking an old thank you note from someone, but I held on tightly to a folded-up letter from a girl who meant a lot to me. The lined paper torn from a spiral notebook reminded me of how good things often pass us by...sometimes we don't realize the good until later.

It continually surprises me how often I rediscover that things aren't as cut-and-dry as I initially thought. Perhaps even the collection of gold-colored pencils with my Mom's name on them have value; they help me remember the face of the girl who found one of the pencils that I had lost in Mrs. Witucke's third grade classroom. I scolded her when I saw that she was using the found pencil, and the look of shock and sorrow at the harshness of my words is burned into my memory.

Maybe I'll give nostalgia a second chance.

The Death of Star Trek

2009-05-17T15:21:00.007-06:00

OK, I admit it, I like Star Trek. I'm pretty sure I've seen every episode of every series and all the movies(except for the weird animated series..who really counts that?). Suffice it to say, I am an informed Star Trek watcher. Does this truth embarrass me? A little, but I'm already over it.

As one would imagine, based on my aforementioned Trekdentials, I went to see the brand new Star Trek movie this past week. It's clearly not possible for me to keep my opinion to myself.

As an action movie, I thought it worked about as well as an action movie can ever work. If you were to catalogue the various elements of Star Trek, you'd find a garden-variety action/super-hero/origin story. All the obligatory parts are there: explosions, blood, a chase, a kiss, insurmountable odds, and a thrilling conclusion. It won't win any major, non-technical awards, but at least it does what it was made to do: pump up an audience.

For the more astute observer, though(or at least for those who are more Star Trek universe-savvy), the real news is J.J. Abrams' message to the franchise: so long, and thanks for all the fish. I haven't decided yet how I should interpret this death blow to a 40-year old story arc. Is Abrams shooting Star Trek in the head with a put-you-out-of-your-misery sort of attitude? Like a cinematic Dr. Kevorkian? Or is it more gentle? Perhaps Star Trek is like an elaborate funeral pyre set ablaze to send the Trek world peacefully into oblivion.

Whatever the motivation, it's clear that the Star Trek world as we know it is now dead. I didn't get it at first. When Spock's planet is obliterated in massive explosion, the movie tells us that there are only a handful of Vulcans left. Furthermore, the Vulcans that are left are not the overly-logical, stone-faced stoics that we've come to know and love. I thought to myself, "What? They can't do that! How will they possibly be able to connect this movie and the rest of the story line? They'll never be able to....Oh..." And then it hit me: they don't have any intention of integrating this story into the rest.

Thus the death of Star Trek. The main purpose of the movie was to wipe the slate clean and sever all ties to the canon of Trek lore. It's over. Not even the Vulcans are the same. Sarek tells Spock to allow his feelings to guide his choices. For Star Trek fanatics, this is a development of gargantuan proportions.

After some internal deliberation, I've decided that I think this is great. Star Trek needed an enema at the very least. What it got instead was death and resurrection. The beauty of Star Trek is the exploration of humanity: What does it mean to be human? What is our nature? Can we make ourselves better? What is better? It is these questions, and not the endless techno-babble, alien masks and Klingon intrigue, that made Star Trek the brilliant experience that it was. If it's possible, then, to keep asking those questions with this fresh start, then I'm definitely on board(pardon the pun).

From the first Captain Kirk on the warlike tendencies of humanity:

"Alright, it’s instinctive, but the instinct can be fought. We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes, knowing that we’re not going to kill today."

The Grand, Flannelgraph Canyon

2009-05-03T02:47:00.010-06:00

Before shoehorning every item I owned into my '92 Acura Integra and driving 1000 miles to find a new life, I had heard that Colorado Springs was a veritable hotbed of conservative Christian activity. I never imagined, though, that some would be so nutty.

Earlier this week, according to the Gazette, a middle school student was accosted by Christian proselytizers near her school. Evidently, some members of the Cornerstone Baptist Church approached her and asked her to enter a church van with them, ostensibly to share their faith with her. I suppose it's possible that it's all some misunderstanding, and the child blew the scene out of proportion. It's telling, however, that the church declined to comment on the accusation...even to deny it.

I, being the hack journalist-wannabe that I am, decided to poke around Cornerstone Baptist's website. You can learn a lot about the sociopath quotient of a church by noting the first item on the church's statement of faith: The King James Bible. This church is part of the astonishing fraternity of Christian organizations who believe that the King James version of the bible is the ONLY acceptable translation. It's not just that they prefer it over other versions; in their view, all other translations are wrong and useless.

I'm tempted to catalogue all the absurd and mind-numbing beliefs listed on the site, but that would probably only deepen my cynicism. Instead, I'll just say that it's difficult to understand how some people arrive at the conclusions they construct their world around. The underlying issue here goes beyond the disturbing nature of Cornerstone Baptist's recent actions.

The divide between the social left and right is, well, as big as the Grand Canyon. There's a little voice inside me that occasionally cries, "Why must it be so? Can't we stop it?" Then, usually, a bigger voice replies, "No, dummy, we can't." Abortion, gun control, gay marriage, the role of the federal government, bible translation, salvation, end times, beginning times, school prayer, the ten commandments, the supreme court, affirmative action...it goes on. This discourages me.

It discourages me that the gun-toting, pro-life, Left Behind-reading conservative Christian from Texas will never see eye to eye with the gay, pacifist, bleeding heart liberal atheist from Oregon. This, of course, is a truth that transcends time and geography. It will always be this way. People will always be able to sniff out the things that divide them from their fellow humans.

My sense of sadness is somewhat mitigated, though, by the thought of how bad it would be if everyone were the same. Perhaps, upon examining the yawning gulf of difference, one's only recourse is to appreciate the value that those differences bring. After all, one of the most beautiful things about the U.S. constitution is the fact that it depends on the tension of opposing viewpoints for government to function.

I'm reminded of the movie Grand Canyon. The cast of characters in that movie also come up to a great divide. The movie doesn't present a set of answers or a "get along!" message. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find its exact meaning or purpose. At the end of the movie, the ensemble cast takes a road trip to the Grand Canyon, and they, black and white, simply look out over the expanse. What's the message? I don't know. Maybe it's that we can't change the truth so we must deal with it. How do we deal with it? Maybe it means that if someone can look at a fellow citizen, hate everything he stands for, yet is still able to stand in line behind him at the Taco Bell, that someone has achieved something that is unprecedented in history. Too grandiose? Probably. But maybe there's some truth to it anyway.

Bear Down, Chicago Bears

2009-05-01T17:27:00.005-06:00

I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks of giving birth when I hear that fight song. This time around it might be more true than even I realized, because clearly the Bears are poised to give birth to a championship season in 2009.

Perhaps I'm being outrageously optimistic. For those who would cast aspersions forthwith, I'd ask them to consider the following:

This is Jarron Gilbert. He's one of the Bears' recent draft picks. Although the ability to jump out of a pool in this fashion doesn't necessarily indicate future football greatness, it certainly gives Rexton-weary Bears fans something to "Oooo!" about. That's something we haven't had in...

So let the record show: I feel optimistic about Chicago's chances in the NFC North this season. This feeling is obviously intangible, but not all such feelings are silliness. Isn't it just possible that Chicago could give her people a new President AND a new Champion all in the same year? Yes, I think so.

(Oh yeah...they also have that new quarterback. Maybe he won't suck too bad.)

I Don't Want to Hurt You

2009-04-30T16:50:00.011-06:00

This image is one of the many images of Jack Bauer not wanting to hurt someone...but hurting anyway. And, as I recall, the guy in the scene is his brother.

What is it about Americans and Jack Bauer? We love him! Over 12 million viewers tune in each week to watch Jack kick ass and take names. As a veteran watcher myself, I often wonder what it is that causes me, and millions of my closest friends, to follow the disturbingly violent antics of this barbarian. I can say this for sure: it's not Chloe.

I was reminded of Jack when I saw this new Pew Research Center poll about American feelings on the use of torture by the U.S. military and the 'clandestine services'. The most surprising statistic is that self-described evangelical Christians were among the most comfortable with torture being used in the name of national security. 79% of polled evangelicals believe that, at some point, torture can be justified. The irony of that statistic is self-explanatory, so I'll just leave that alone. (Hint: Prince of Peace. Doves. Thou shalt not exposeth thine enemy's testicles to raw, electric shocks.)

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, then, by how many people love watching 24. I suspect, though, that a deeper truth lies lurking beneath the surface. Sure, Mom, Dad, Bobby and Sally love sitting around the TV watching Jack shoot terrorists' kneecaps at point blank range in order to get vital info about the location of a ticking time bomb, but I think they allow themselves to forget a key element: in 24, there's always some like Jack Bauer to do the dirty work. Families sit back and watch the carnage, thanking the heavens that there's a real Jack out there who is willing to become the darkness in order to do what 'must' be done.

I think Aaron Sorkin was right on when he wrote Colonel Jessep's speech in A Few Good Men:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom...my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall...I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

The movie presents Colonel Jessep as a somewhat despicable man(although there is simultaneously a sympathetic aura left intact). The real question is, though: Do most Americans really feel that way? Do we really want Jack Bauer on the wall torturing, murdering and hurting in order to keep us safe? And even if we do, should we definitely put him up there with a SIG Sauer and that wacky towel-down-the-throat torture method he almost used on a guy in season 2?

Apparently this question is still alive in the hearts and minds of citizens all across America; after all, the flood of recent polling alone says something about how front-page this issue is. Although the president has at least temporarily officially closed the issue, I doubt we'll settle it any time soon in a personal way. The fear of terrorism and rogue nuclear powers is certainly palpable right now, so I can understand the instinct to protect our families and our way of life. I wonder, though, if some time out from under the burdensome weight of fear might cause us to rethink who we are.

It's a President Thing

2009-04-27T23:06:00.005-06:00

"On the other hand..."

One of my favorite movies is Fiddler on the Roof. Among its many messages is the notion that tradition is simultaneously important yet not immutable. The protagonist, Tevye, is ruled by his instincts and his preconceptions. His dedication to belief and tradition is what makes him the dependable, loving and honorable man that he is. What is truly admirable about him, though, is his ability to adapt in the face of seemingly catastrophic attacks on those thing which he holds most dear. When confronted by a truth that seems to go against everything he believes, he turns to his brilliant refrain, on the other hand, and is able to emerge with a brand new perspective.

I experienced what I'm choosing to call a 'Tevye moment' the other day while reading this article. It seems that former President Bush has, in a huge departure from his neo-con colleagues, chosen to back up the new prez:

"I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena...He deserves my silence."

President Obama has been getting a lot of heat from Republicans recently for being, well, not a Republican: He's a tax and spend liberal! He's making us less safe by not letting the CIA torture people! His dog wants to take our guns!

I don't blame the opposition party for taking shots at the president. After all, he represents the ideological equivalent of an enema, and I understand the impulse to at least say something even if you can't really do something. That being said, I think some of them need to sit down and shut up. Dick Cheney is at the top of my list. Come on Dick! Even Meghan McCain agrees that you need to "go away."

So you can imagine my surprise when I heard what President Bush had to say. I thought my feelings for his administration would never go away. On the other hand...maybe I had him all wrong. Maybe he's more akin to a victim than anything. There must have been a lot of pressure from a lot of annoying people to do things a certain way while he was in office.

Anyway, I suppose it's only human of me to look for a place to hurl blame. Perhaps my Tevye moment isn't so magical after all. Perhaps I'm just transferring my malcontent to other, more onerous members of the Bush administration.

Either way, I feel a new flush of OK-ness with the 43rd president, and that's not something I totally expected. Moreover, I have a fresh batch of respect for the presidency in general; it's like opening the dryer and feeling the clean heat and smell of detergent waft over you. (yes, it's laundry night, so my analogies are more likely to be washy and dry-y)

Relational Blah

2009-04-10T00:03:00.007-06:00

I hope quoting long-ish passages won't become a major pattern for me. Sometimes, when I'm stunned by some amazing thing I've read, I can't help but share it. So it is with this passage from The Good Soldier by Ford Madox Ford:

"With regard to man, a love affair, a love for any definite woman--is something in the nature of a widening of the experience...A turn of the eyebrow, a tone of the voice, a queer characteristic gesture--all these things, and it is these things that cause to arise the passion of love--all these things are like so many objects on the horizon of the landscape that tempt a man to walk beyond the horizon, to explore. He wants to get, as it were, behind those eyebrows with the peculiar turn, as if he desired to see the world with the eyes that they overshadow. He wants to hear that voice applying itself to every possible proposition, to every possible topic; he wants to see those characteristic gestures against every possible background...The real fierceness of desire, the real heat of a passion long continued and withering up the soul of a man is the craving for identity with the woman that he loves. He desires to see with the same eyes, to touch with the same sense of touch, to hear with the same ears, to lose his identity, to be enveloped, to be supported. For, whatever may be said of the relation of the sexes, there is no man who loves a woman that does not desire to come to her for the renewal of his courage, for the cutting asunder of his difficulties. And that will be the mainspring of his desire for her. We are all so afraid, we are all so alone, we all so need from the outside the assurance of our own worthiness to exist.

So, for a time, if such a passion come to fruition, the man will get what he wants. He will get the moral support, the encouragement, the relief from the sense of loneliness, the assurance of his own worth. But these things pass away; inevitably they pass away as the shadows pass across sundials. It is sad, but it is so. The pages of the book will become familiar; the beautiful corner of the road will have been turned too many times. Well, this is the saddest story

...For every man there comes at last a time of life when the woman who then sets her seal upon his imagination has set her seal for good. He will travel over no more horizons; he will never again set the knapsack over his shoulders; he will retire from those scenes. He will have gone out of the business."

I've found myself dwelling on these thoughts a lot in the past couple weeks. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that a woman is so central to a man's sense of worth. If so, should it be? Isn't this a description of some kind of codependent relationship? Even if it is, maybe it's the best that can be hoped for. Or maybe it's a generational concept that has receded into the past; this novel was written in 1915. Perhaps men and women relate in a totally different way in 2009.

I don't really know. I admit, though, that as weak as it might make me seem, I feel the burden of Ford's words:

"We are all so afraid, we are all so alone, we all so need from the outside the assurance of our own worthiness to exist."

What's wrong, Kim Jong?

2009-03-29T11:24:00.006-06:00

It should be distressing that North Korea is preparing to launch a test missile in defiance of international opinion; it is a test missile, of course, whose chief purpose is to allow North Korea the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to distant shores.

This is indeed disturbing, especially since Kim Jong Il is, by far, my favorite despot. :) Come on! He's got style, class, and a whole lot of starving people. What I love most is the pseudo-Orwellian denial of reality. He's big brother incarnate! (OK, so were Hitler and Stalin, but this guy definitely has better shades.)

As I said, it should be distressing...and, I admit, I'm marginally distressed. On the other hand, I think it's important to remain light-hearted, even when a maniacal adversary is threatening to blow you up. In that spirit, then, I recommend this hilarious video I found on youtube. Additionally, I offer my micro-collection of Kim Jong Il haikus:

Kim Jong, what is wrong?
Cult of personality
not enough for you?

What's on your iPod,
Ill-Kim? Turn down the volume
Before you get hurt.

Back in the saddle
Kim Jong-il, we love your style
Show them who's daddy

City on a hill
Pyongyang puts Paris to shame
Yay for concrete bling

Dyspeptic

2009-03-26T22:52:00.004-06:00

Language is a funny thing. There are certainly rules to be followed, but I also sense a great deal of freedom in the formulation of words and sentences. I feel, for instance, that I should be able to add the prefix 'dis' to any verb I wish. I would say things like: I'm disenamored with such and such. I used to enjoy The Jetsons, but now I'm disintrigued by it. So and so said yada yada, and now they're really diswelcome in my house. That would be grand.

I suppose part of the reason this is on my mind is because I just got back from 9 days in Europe...4 of which were in Paris. I had to reach deep down into my memory and pluck some distant and malformed ability to speak French. I remember thinking that it was mildly miraculous that I was able to force myself to adapt to a default pardon in French instead of the English 'sorry' when bumping into someone, for instance, on a crowded sidewalk. This became so much my default, in fact, that I actually said pardon(with the fruity accent, of course) to customers at work today as I passed by. Silly language.

I probably should have jotted some thoughts down on paper whilst gallivanting around Europe the past week and a half. Sadly, though, I'm goofy and I didn't do that. So now I'll just have to reach again into my memory and find out if I'll be able to experience delayed catharsis here on the blog. More to come.

The Lost Generation

2009-03-10T00:30:00.003-06:00

I've always had some sort of respect for Ernest Hemingway. I didn't really know why until I finished reading A Moveable Feast, though.

"Sometimes when I was starting a new story and I could not get it going, I would sit in front of the fire and squeeze the peel of the little oranges into the edge of the flame and watch the sputter of blue that they made. I would stand and look out over the roofs of Paris and think, 'Do not worry. You have always written before and you will write now. All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know.' So finally I would write one true sentence, and then go on from there. It was easy then because there was always one true sentence that I knew or had seen or had heard someone say. If I started to write elaborately, or like someone introducing or presenting something, I found that I could cut that scrollwork or ornament out and throw it away and start with the first true simple declarative sentence I had written...I decided that I would write one story about each thing that I knew about. I was trying to do this all the time I was writing, and it was good and severe discipline."

If I were to ever fancy myself a writer, I think I would go back regularly and study this passage. The elimination of wasteful, flowery language seems to be what set Hemingway's work apart from many others. Sometimes the simplest realization is the foundation for genius.

Concerning Special Relativity

2009-03-05T23:15:00.008-07:00

There's so much stuff to know! I'm overwhelmed by this fact, but there's also something strangely satisfying in never running out of things to learn. It's as though all of humanity is floating in a bottomless ocean; it's very disconcerting that there's no bottom, but there can be solidarity in that we are all treading water together.

This thought was prompted by a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. This is like a condensed version of a physics class I took in college: Physics for Non-scientists(we rounded the acceleration due to gravity to ten!). Greene takes science civilians like me step-by-step through some of the fundamental discoveries in physics of the past century.

One of the things that really caught my attention was Einstein's theory of special relativity. In a totally inadequate nutshell, this is the idea that the perception of space and time are relative to the motion of an observer. In other words, if I'm standing still and Jack Bauer is moving past me, his observation of the passage of time will be slightly different than mine; if we are both keeping track of the time duration via stopwatch, a tiny bit less time will have passed according to his stopwatch compared to mine.

There are various experiments done over the last century that have pretty clearly demonstrated these, and other effects. While Einstein's work is still considered a theory, it seems clear that his discovery is a monumental step in our understanding of how the universe functions.

What are the implications for the average citizen of Earth, though? It probably doesn't change much in a day-to-day sense. After all, I doubt I'll be too caught up in the thought that my loogie's perception of time is nanoseconds different from mine as I spit it to the curb.

In a philosophical sense, though, I wonder what this might mean for those who choose to engage in the knowledge of special relativity. An example of a potential conflict comes from the Christians; Church-going people have long been warned of the dangers of the philosophy of relativism. While much different from its scientific counterpart, philosophical relativity(as I'm choosing to call it right now) shares the possibility of paradox. I've heard many speeches about how problematic it can be to hold to the "believe whatever is right for you" mentality because some worldviews are mutually exclusive. In other words, Joe Christian might believe he's going to heaven because he has faith in God and Bob Muslim is going to hell because he believes in a different God. Bob Muslim, on the other hand, believes his god is the right one and therefore he will be the one going to heaven. They both can't be right, right? If they were, that would be a paradox. They both can't be simultaneously going to heaven and hell, right?

(Disclaimer: In the grand scheme of things I don't really know much about anything, so poking around in these old, deep questions is, admittedly, an exercise in failure...but one I feel free to explore anyway as an official part of humanity.)

Einstein's discovery 'problematizes' that anti-relativist conclusion by showing that yes, in fact, a paradox can exist in at least some form. Time and space are not, even though they sometimes appear to be, invariant and absolute. They are demonstrably relative to my own personal viewpoint. That blows my mind! In the Jack Bauer example from before, not only is Jack's stopwatch slightly different from mine, but, from his viewpoint, my stopwatch is simultaneously slightly different from his. Both stopwatches can't be wrong, right? It appears that indeed they can.

So what does it mean for the claims of the devout? Does it mean that they have no basis for insisting that they know what's really, absolutely true? Gee I don't know. I don't think physics could ever appropriately speak to that question. Perhaps the only thing Einstein can do for faith is inject a little freedom into the personal deliberations of billions of humans. Maybe he can encourage even the most sure among us to step back and rethink what we're so sure about.

Other than that, I suppose we can leave eloquence on this matter to the Prince of Denmark(and Harris K Telemacher for the steal):

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Budget! Budget! Budget!

2009-02-26T14:00:00.004-07:00

I've been fascinated by the politics surrounding our current economic crisis. That's probably why I keep nerding out in these posts. That's also why I'm glad C-SPAN exists. :)

The President just unveiled his budget proposal this morning. It's intense. The $3.5 trillion budget will almost double the deficit. That's a lot of money. There are lots of useful articles that outline the proposal. After listening to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, it seems to be a budget that's incredibly ambitious but also reasonable and defensibly necessary. As an ordinary citizen, I feel confident about trusting the President and his advisers to make the right choices.

Of course I was also interested in the Republican response to this proposal. It comes as no surprise that Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin were hostile to say the least. Through an allusion to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Gregg and Ryan criticized virtually every point of the President's proposal.

While I understand a typical conservative's deep discomfort and horror at such a flurry of spending, I have a problem with the nature of their criticism. Besides the standard suggestion that we take care of Social Security first, I didn't hear anything that wasn't mostly ideologically oriented. In other words, their argument could be summed up like this: "We don't like it because we don't like it." The most frequent jab was at the increase in the size of government that will inevitably result.

It's shocking, in a way, that the GOP continually warns against big government without effectively articulating why that would be such a bad thing...especially since the former two-term Republican president presided over a form of a reduction in the size of government that seems to have accomplished very little. This fact is at the heart of why President Obama won the White House and why many Republicans lost their seats in the House and Senate. The GOP seems to think that a lot of Americans are eager to jump on board the Big Government worry wagon, even when there really haven't been any successful iterations of conservative policy in recent years.

To be fair, the neo-conservative Bush administration didn't really light the fire of fiscal conservatives who were looking for restraint and responsibility. That's precisely why, though, the current rhetoric is so hard to swallow. How can you criticize when you've got no track record? At this point, I hope the President pretty much railroads over those voices and does it his way for a while. Bipartisanship can wait. :)

One last thing. I couldn't help but notice this bizarre comment about Social Security reform from Congressman Ryan today. I'm kind of paraphrasing since I wrote it down from memory, but this is very close to what he actually said. Is it just me, or is there something wrong here?

"We've got to check ideology at the door...but if it involves massive increases in the amount of government, then obviously we're not going to be interested."

'Status' of the Union

2009-02-24T23:42:00.006-07:00

It wasn't officially a State of the Union address, so what do we call it?

The President addressed both chambers of Congress tonight in a somewhat raucous(for stuffy, government types) affair that included an almost ten minute long round of applause when he entered the room. Were they really that excited about him, or is it merely good politics to appear giddy in his presence?

I love listening to the President speak. Actually, I love listening to ANY President speak; this time around it's just that much more fun. It's weird, though, to watch crowds of grown men and women swarm just to be near him. I would probably do the same thing if I were in the room. We obviously don't have a monarch in this country, but we still seem to have some innate, human need to revere someone. Could that be a weakness? One of humanity's many faults?

Now that he officially has the job, President Obama has settled quite comfortably into a role no president has filled in my lifetime: mentor, sage, Obi-wan. He shares wisdom and encouragement and an occasional rebuke:

"Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. You don't just give up on yourselves...you give up on your country."

Intense! I hope people listen closely. He's like a modern day Solomon...without the multiple wives and baby-splitting dilemmas:

"We can't afford to govern out of anger."

This was a comment on the anger most Americans feel towards fancy CEOs who were using their bailout money to carpet their private jets with solid gold berber. Our gut reaction is to burn them at the stake, but the President reminded us that a hasty approach probably isn't the best idea.

"...government intervention didn't supplant private enterprise...it catalyzed it!"

He was talking about various financial crises throughout American history that required government intervention. He was reasonable enough tonight to address conservative concerns about the federal government potentially over-regulating.

The speech was encouraging to me. No one can confidently predict that the President's plan will be just what the doctor ordered, but I think he deserves a shot to try it his way. What's the alternative? Doing nothing? Tax cuts? I try every day to consider other points of view. I'm finding it hard these days, though, to get my mind around the motive behind the standard Republican solution. I'm sure there are more details in their plans than just "cut taxes!" Maybe one of them would be good enough to stand up and articulate for us. I'd listen!

Pur-don't?

2009-02-10T00:12:00.008-07:00

Football season was depressing for me this year. College. Pro. Whatever. Sports probably shouldn't be, in the grand scheme of things, a terribly important part of life. Nevertheless, I have been known to get a little intense about my teams.

The Chicago Bears sucked. The Illini football team collapsed into a pile of wobbly goo in the second half of the season. I often ask myself why I don't choose some other team: a team that wins everything all the time. Maybe I should be a Tennessee women's basketball fan. Pat Summitt just won her 1000th game. Dang.

2009 has given me reason to hope, though. If nothing else, I can feel joy about the fact that the Illini have now swept Purdue(our, geographically, closest rival) in Men's Basketball. It feels good to dominate every once in a while.

An underlying question leaves me wondering about the validity of my sports passions: Isn't it really just utter silliness to care so much about a game? Why does it matter at all? Look at the picture of Coach Bruce Weber above. Geez! Look at that intensity! Is he just asking for an ulcer, or has he connected with some healthy, pure, human desire? Is there something genuinely noble about competing in athletics? Or is it merely some primitive, grunting impulse that requires an evolutionary escape?

I guess I don't really know. I exult when the Bears beat the Packers. I am sickened by a loss to Northwestern in any sport. I've been known to let spittle fly as I yell about victory or failure on the Ultimate frisbee field. I once barely limped across the finish line of the Chicago marathon, my knees and feet screaming in agony.

I love it all.

Economic Homesick Blues

2009-01-31T08:24:00.007-07:00

Johnny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government

Bob Dylan understood national turmoil better than most. I don't plan on resorting to the personal manufacture of psychotropic drugs in order to deal with our current brand of turmoil, but I can at least understand the impulse.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released some disturbing info yesterday(note the fancy graph above). Our GDP slid 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008. That means our economy actually shrunk by 3.8% in a single three-month period. There hasn't been a drop that big since 1982. Yuck.

My macroeconomics professor from this past summer insisted throughout the duration of the course that our current economic downturn is merely a "garden variety" example of a slowdown. He said that there really wasn't any need for panic. He also said we could blame the media for blowing it all out of proportion.

I'm the kind of guy who tends to trust the words of an academic over another source...especially a guy who, in his prime, was a professor of economics at Stanford. Because of this, I've felt relatively at ease about our situation.

This new info has changed that a bit. Even though it looks like there might be a pattern of generally slower growth in the fourth quarter(I've been nerding out all morning on the BEA website. I even created my own Excel chart which tracks the quarterly GDP change each year since 1990. So ten out of the last eighteen years have had decreases in the fourth quarter.), this year's change was pretty dramatic. Additionally, even though there has been some dispute in the recent past, it would seem impossible to deny now that we're officially in a recession: two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

What does this mean for us? How long will it take to get out of this mess? Can President Obama really help us? Are the Republicans in the House right for unanimously opposing the new stimulus package? I don't know. The only comforting part seems to be that we're all in the same boat. Even if I had an advanced degree in economics, I could still find lots of people to disagree with me about the direction I thought we should go.

(Just in case anyone was interested...my geeky GDP tracker. Clicking on it will make it bigger.)

Titan

2009-01-28T16:30:00.006-07:00

I recently finished reading Titan. Set in the present day, Titan is a novel about a NASA mission from Earth to Titan, one of the moons of Saturn.

At the risk of sounding snobbish, the novel isn't written particularly well. The dialogue is silly at times, the descriptions are vague and the plot is, at best, mildly preposterous most of the time.

Having said that, I admit that I was intrigued by some of the underlying themes. One of the ways Mr. Baxter succeeds is by poking at some fundamental questions about humanity and our desire for survival as a species.

Early on in the book, a bit character scolds one of the protagonists for wanting to travel to Titan so desperately:

I understand you, Rosenberg. Better than you think I do...Titan is always going to be out there. What's the rush? ...you want to discover it all, before you die...you can't bear the thought of the universe going on without you, its events unfolding without your invaluable brain still being around to process them.

What a fascinating assessment of human arrogance. Or American arrogance. Since it's logical to assume that none of us will go on living forever, it should be equally logical to conclude that any contribution a single human makes is merely one part of a greater effort. If I'm honest with myself, I can relate to Rosenberg. Realizing that one's life is a minor blip in history is a necessary and sometimes disturbing destination.

I can't help but make a jump from that realization to thoughts about my own mortality. Death is unavoidable. Perhaps that fact isn't as bothersome as it should be because my own death is likely still many decades away. Nevertheless, the knowledge that one day I'll fade to black weighs heavily sometimes. It's no wonder that so many seek religious solutions to the brutal certainty of the problem of death.

Likewise, the human race seems similarly doomed to destruction. Whether from some catastrophic natural disaster or our own stupidity, humans are likely to be snuffed out of existence as well. What a macabre thought. What are the implications? Should this truth lead us to God? Away from God? I don't know. It's comforting, though, to recognize that I'm not the first one to ask these questions, and I definitely won't be the last.

The characters in Titan ask the same questions, and they conclude that humans have a moral obligation to survive. They find peace in that conclusion. I wonder if that fictional peace comes from an objective, absolute truth or merely the generic satisfaction that comes from knowing what your purpose is.

Hail to the Chief

2009-01-20T16:20:00.010-07:00

It's a big day for America. We have a new President and a seamless transfer of power.

I was fortunate enough to be in Washington today for President Obama's inauguration. I, and 2 million of my closest friends, got to be part of history. Even though the cold was toe-numbing and inhospitable, a warmth nevertheless spread through the sea of people. A shared sense of wonder seemed to pulse through the crowd.

This collective feeling of awe can't be easily dismissed as mere infatuation with a winsome, dashing politician however. Although President Obama is clearly a unique and gifted man who will hopefully lead the United States to new, great things, he is also obviously just a man. The millions of people packed into the National Mall felt more than just hero-worship; I believe they feel, as I do, that this new President represents a unique chance for the United States to reinvent itself in a number of ways.

Maybe it's all perception. Maybe Barack Obama really is just like any other politician. Maybe his Change mantra is just a vote-getting slogan. What can't be denied or dismissed, though, is that a majority of our citizens feel better about themselves and each other than they have in a long time. Perhaps that's President Obama's greatest gift to us...which, as it turns out, is what he had promised to bring all along: hope.

Obviously only time will tell what kind of President he will be. History's judgment is inescapable. In the meantime, though, I'm going to feel free to be excited about the next chapter in American history. President Obama...that sounds pretty good to me. :)

Some pics from my camera phone:

I've never seen anyone move that fast. You move like they do.

2008-12-14T20:06:00.004-07:00

I thought we had seen it all...until this. Earlier today, an Iraqi journalist took off his shoes and hurled them at President Bush as he was giving a joint press conference with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Apparently the journalist wanted to send a message to President Bush during his last trip to Iraq as prez: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!”

Besides the surprisingly comforting thought that our President has cat-like speed and reflexes, this wacky incident has helped bring some closure to my personal journey of making peace with a President who lives on the total opposite end of the ideological spectrum from me.

No matter how you slice it, being President of the United States is the hardest job in the world, and there are only three other people left alive on the planet who can understand what President Bush has had to wrangle with. Each day he has to stare into the cold, harsh gaze of history and find a way to deal with the imminent onslaught of judgments.

There are a lot of choices I disagree with, and there are a few choices that boil my blood. On the other hand, though, I never doubted his love for his country. In the end, he was a good man with a really difficult job; it could have been worse. Perhaps history will be kinder to him than we are now(26% approval rating).

This seems a little silly...

2008-12-11T00:01:00.001-07:00

I never thought of myself as the blogging type, but I've recently realized the value in having a journal-y kind of outlet. I suppose I could keep such entries to myself in a diary or something, but I think I'm intrigued by the risk of having my thoughts out in cyberspace, quivering and open to scrutiny.

Or maybe I'm just arrogant enough to hope someone will read this and think I'm really interesting. :)

Either way, this is my first venture into the mystical world of blogging...and it honestly makes me feel a little silly.