jmoiron.net

I might just take all of my title names from classnamer from now on. It really saves me from the hardest part of writing these damned things.

This past weekend (and even now) I've had some foul flu-like disease which has really destroyed any Joementum I've had coming into the stretch here. I was ready to go to 2 concerts this week and reconnect with some old mates when this bug came in and kicked me straight in the ass. I was out even worse than Bear Stearns this weekend. It's pretty funny, right? Hah, Hah! But I'm actually extremely pissed off; I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. It's just so far past "I told you so" that I can't say that anymore. Doesn't have the requisite OOMPH. The only thing I can think to say is fuck you; It's the new black.

Lets put things into a ludicrous perspective. Anyone can go onto Yahoo and find out just how bad the dollar has taken a tumble since 2002 against the Euro (protip: it was on parity, now it's around $1.60 for 1 EUR), and it's very startling to an American's sense of idiotic superiority to learn that the CAD is worth more than the USD, but to me the anguish really concerns Japan.

A mere 2 years ago, I went to said island nation and was able to fetch 127 JPY for a single greenback.
Not 1 year ago, I revisited the land of the rising sun with my younger brother, and we received not less than 117 JPY per hard earned American Dollar at the very same money change counter in Narita. In those 15 months, something that I enjoy doing got 8% more expensive purely because our economy is in the shitter and nobody trusts the complete idiots in chief to right it.

This monday, the dollar hit as low as 96 JPY. 96. That's a roughly 18% drop in 9 months. In January, it was already down around 106, 105. Something that I liked doing in January 2006 is now 25% more expensive to do purely because our economy is in the shitter and... you get it. I'd love ever so much to blame this on Ohio, and I do; but the problem is really a sociopolitical perfect storm that can only be described as completely fucking retarded. I mean this with the utmost respect to the actual mentally retarded, because they don't deserve to be compared to the intellectually indigent beltway assholes steering everyone straight into the shit pile.

This is what happens, America, when you allow anti-intellectualism to become the dominant culture; you get people trying to stress already underfunded schools by making them teach idiotic filth alongside evolution, you get a hulking mass of voters who want their political representatives to be typical instead of exemplary, and you get a bunch of deified capitalist idealistic monsters who have just plain have no fucking place in reality as we know it. And you ruin my fucking trips to Japan. So if you are out there, and you voted for Bush because Kerry seemed like he was too boring, or his face looks like that of a horse, or you think John Edward's hair and plastic smile and double chin looked a bit too perfect, or (and I sincerely hope against hopes this doesn't apply) that you actually agreed with anything that ridiculous, impish conman said in his first 4 years, then I say to you fuck you as emphatically as a sick man can.

Glenn Greenwald, whose writing is better than mine is and will likely ever be, put into words quite succinctly the major problem with media in the united states in a column today. As is all too often, Chomsky's propaganda model is at least peripherally relevant to the discussion, and in fact (as elegant as a logically flawless mathematical theorem) is but a superset of the specific observed behavior.

Greenwald recognizes and illuminates with great aplomb what many people have known without being able to put properly into words, illustrating it concisely and masterfully in the following passages (emphasis in the original):

The Number One Rule of the bi-partisan Foreign Policy Community is that America has the right to invade and attack other countries at will because American power is inherently good and our role in the world is to rule it though the use of superior military force. Paying homage to that imperialistic orthodoxy is a non-negotiable pre-requisite to maintaining Good Standing and Seriousness Credentials within the Foreign Policy Community.

Conversely, one who denies that premise reveals oneself to be deeply unserious and unworthy of meaningful discourse. While differences on the "when" and "how" are permitted, there is virtually no debate within the foreign policy establishment about whether the U.S. has the right to continue to intervene and attack and invade and occupy other countries in the absence of those countries attacking us. Hence, to Cohen and his colleagues, it sounds perfectly normal and natural to say that the U.S. has "good reasons" to start wars against a whole host of countries because -- as bizarre and abnormal and unfathomable that idea is for most of the world -- it is an implicit, unexamined belief among our foreign policy elites that the U.S. is entitled, more or less, to use military force even in the absence of being attacked or threatened with attack.

This orthodoxy is not merely passively accepted, but actively enforced. The principal goal is to ensure that it remains a bi-partisan view so that, in turn, the question of America's role in the world is never subject to any real debate. The three "crazy, insane, wacko, fringe" presidential candidates are Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. Yet the only thing they have in common (other than having been elected multiple times to the U.S. Congress) is a belief that the U.S. has been using its military force illegitimately by using it against other countries that are not attacking us. But that belief, standing alone, is enough to eject one from the mainstream, because it violates the central consensus of the establishment.

Before I comment about this statement, I want to urge you to read this whole article. As a country, we are so "off course" now that there might as well not be an actual course. When people started referring to these United States as the "homeland", I knew there was trouble brewing. It is at the very least brashly imperialistic to presume we have rights to lands other than "our own", for which our claim is historically tenuous but at least long established. That this word (imperialism) has become somewhat acceptable in modern discourse is about as disconcerting. It is on par with how uncomfortable it is that the tactic we call "terrorism" is accepted in the middle east, and the sooner we come to realize that Imperialism (in it's classical form which we have begun to assume, or even in it's economic & cultural form) is more destructive than terrorism the better. But, to completely tip the scales into that land from which return is impossible, that hegemony is used, as quoted by Greenwald, by an established political thinker as anything other than illigimately evil, let alone in a neutral or even positive light, is something to look upon with great disdain. How long until the people who truly love the "ideals of freedom" elegantly described (and dreadfully administered) by our secular deities "the founders" (today a mere token to lend support to utterly unfounder-like ideas) are robbed of their ability to even claim they like this country?

Back on topic, Greenwald's point about the 3 "crazy, insane, wacko fringe" presidential candidates is actually quite salient; I have taken a lot of flak (privately) for treating Mike Gravel somewhat more harshly than a lot of people thought I would. The reason isn't that he isn't way better than the other candidates (it brings to mind the turdblossom vs. douchebag south park election), but it's that were it not for our completely diseased and nonfunctional system, Gravel would not stand out as a crusader for liberal ideals. A lot of his economic ideas are downright regressive, and I'm hesitant to come out and enthusiastically support someone just because they challenge the framing of the debate!

The idea that I elude to is borrowed 100% from Chomsky's treatment of the subject. In a functioning propaganda system (about the only thing functioning properly in our government), voices are allowed to be heard and in fact are encouraged as long as they fall within the accepted range. The discourse on a subject is framed a certain way, and discourse falling outside these lines is simply ignored as being too "extreme" or "left/right wing". Indeed, you can't even find a candidate (even among "the three") that is willing to come out against the war because it was preemptive and had no legal basis whatsoever; itself a complete cop out on pressing ethical questions that should be (but never are) explored fully by any country or culture that is going to war.

This is my forum, so I don't even have to be excused here, so what the fuck is wrong with our culture and our country when you can't even say that war is a terrible evil without being dismissed as a lunatic? Is it the just the same completely dangerous and deadly (just ask an Iraqi) cynicism with which the many absolutely shocking scandals coming out of the capital are covered?

Let's explore it briefly. Libby's sentence being commuted was absolutely criminal and to suggest that he is somehow personally damaged by a fine and disbarment (compared to months of "hard" time) is so batshit insane that even Chris Matthews had to call bullshit. Gonzales' contempt for congress has become a joke among reporters; "Wow, what gall! I wonder how far he will go?" Are they not Americans themselves? Do they have such disdain for democracy that the only mildly democratic branch of the government deserves their contempt?

When you start to distance yourself from the situation you put yourself in danger of saying things that are utterly stupid. Regardless of whether or not reporters and major media are merely operating within the carefully framed debates set by those in power (and they are, because these outrageous actions deserve outrage not merely surprise), it's absolutely shocking that they absolve themselves of any responsibility for the situations they have helped create. The complicity of "even" the New York Times (which, as the "challenging" paper of our time is utterly farcical) in creating this original daylight robbery called Iraq goes mostly unacknowledged in their day to day operation; one could even describe it as somewhat conveniently forgotten in their daily op/ed columns. Besides the irreparable damage they have caused hundreds of thousands of dead and injured in Iraq and potentially hundreds of thousands more in seemingly all but inevitable future wars, what possible defense can there be for their blase treatment of these critical issues? Critical if only to replace a dangerous "turdblossom" with a slightly less dangerous "douchebag"?

Noam Chomsky, one of the few extant political intellectuals and perhaps the most prolific of modern times, has taken a lot of flak for his early treatment of the Khamer Rouge. Because the press' treatment of the enemy regime (basically, a regime outside our influence) was in line with what Chomsky's own models were to expect, and because they ignored similar treatments elsewhere in the world (notably East Timor, which some people claim he was a bit "late to the show" on), he disregarded or otherwise unfairly dismissed fair reports of the significant human suffering in Cambodia. That the coverage there was accurate is not even contrary to the propaganda model. It turned out to be far more accurate than he thought, but the model only predicts a huge disparity between the treatment of client and enemy states, not that enemy states are necessarily treated unfairly in coverage (although, as a corollary, they often are). He eventually and repeatedly reneged his early statements, but they've stuck (especially with his critics) and although he probably personally feels that it's time has passed, his writings that fall under that somewhat cold treatment of victims as mere supporting evidence for a statistical model leaves a regrettable stain difficult to forget.

So what do these people (the punditry, op/ed, & established media powers) plan on using to defend these already indefensible acts? What can we do to restore an honor that was never truly deserved (we've been self-serving imperialists for our whole existence given that the situation made such actions militarily and politically viable) and is now forever tarnished?

John McCain's 2000 campaign for president was nicknamed the "Straight Talk Express." The theory was that he was going to give people what everyone assumes they might want: a politician that speaks frankly and truthfully about the government. He failed to do so in 2000 and lost his parties nomination. He's running again in 2008, and again he's failing spectacularly to live up to his campaigns moniker. It was kind of to be expected, since he was a politician, but still it's still a sorry reflection on our political climate. Even a terrible ordeal in a Viet Cong prisoner of war camp couldn't persuade someone to be honest to their constituents.

This is a very old story, and shouldn't need any recap, but it has relevance today because finally stark contrast exists in the form of former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. I'll admit that I did not know who he was, either, going into the democratic debate aired by NBC (a debate they tried to control in a strong-arm maneuver). He spoke a bit of truth, which was actually quite surprising, and started stirring up all this interest all over the internet. It's really interesting, but 2004 has shown us that this doesn't really translate to the polls as well as it should (Dean was destroying online, but failed to win the primaries).

A lot has been made on the diversity of the democratic candidates. The front runners are an African American male and a female. The most diversity you get on the republican side is a Mormon. But that's not the real diversity that we need in the political system. People don't understand that the issues of yesterday are alive today: the real diversity you need in political candidates is economic diversity. You need a Eugene Debs, you need working class citizens to run and to gain notoriety. Gravel has been able to run on a shoestring using his (impressive) congressional record to garner support until the explosion in interest from the debate.

But even given this, there's something that doesn't ring right with Gravel. He doesn't seem to command many facts to support his rhetoric, however much I agree with him. He is undoubtedly a skilled (gifted, probably) politician and political strategist, given his record, and we align on many things. But he's for a so called "Fair Tax" and a repeal of the income tax, which seems to fly in the face of the working class. The fair tax is an incredibly regressive flat sales tax with a rebate system that will undoubtedly become more trouble than the current IRS.

There's a lot more I want to add, but frankly I can't bring myself to add it all. I can't place myself within the framework of this laughable "race" and these laughable "debates". The biggest difference between the republicans is how eager they are to jump directly up ex-president Ronald Reagans ass and throw a parade. Oh, and one of them wants to fire homosexuals, another one might not maybe perhaps be pro-life sometimes.

The democratic institution in this country is beyond repair. The economic system that we are using has failed to provide the people of the world with the basic necessities for survival; it's not even enough for our people. Smart people I know flock to libertarian ideals without thinking about how these ideals impact those among us (in the human race) who are not fortunate enough to start with anything.

There are a lot of interesting philosophical questions I still struggle with. Is democracy really democracy as long as you have capitalism; isn't there a more democratic way to deal with the wealth of a company? Our money supply is built entirely off of loan interest payments and debt; is this good, bad, or neither? Is ownership theft? Government has the power to help people (socialism), but it also, without fail, becomes tyranny (see: human history); is there a way to leverage the power of governments safely?

These questions are not anywhere near the discourse in this country; in fact, if they aren't laughed at, they are dismissed as nearly treasonous. As Mitt Romney said, and I paraphrase, "America is the greatest country in the world and Americans are the greatest people in the world." You can't buy this kind of denial. While his hero lowered taxes and increased spending dramatically (on the military), our infrastructure has fallen into disarray. Roads in New Jersey are in worse shape than roads in Egypt, education here is worse than nations with less assets than any one of our top corporations, and our once beautiful environment is being destroyed in the name of logging, oil, factory farming; any one of the rapacious industries that, guided by capitalism, value short term profit over long term sustainability.

But you just can't talk about it. Gravel can't either, because the discourse is framed by the media and the government to dismiss this discussion as ludicrous. I hate to be contrarian, but is it really?

I saw Chris Hedges on the Colbert Report a few weeks ago, and frantically scoured the internet for material he had written. He seems to have a pretty good handle on the Robertson/Falwell Fascist movement, and it's something that I wanted to learn more about. He's also a plain spoken, intelligent graduate of harvard divinity school, which is something I did not know even existed.

It turns out that Mr. Hedges has also won the Pulitzer prize, and was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for "many" years. He was on Democracy Now! this morning, and had some absolute gems, including this one which needs no polishing:

Amy Goodman: I wanted to ask about Michael Gordon, your former colleague at the New York Times, the person who was so-called breaking the story, who was deeply involved with the weapons of mass destruction myths also in his writings with Judith Miller, and now this latest today, the Iranian government accusing the US and Britain of being involved in an attack last week that killed eleven members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Chris Hedges: Well, that’s probably the best reason to watch Democracy Now!, rather than read the New York Times, about the war in Iraq. It’s almost -- one’s left sort of speechless. I guess it’s proof that some people never learn anything. I mean, I was on the investigative team and got briefly sort of tarnished with that dirt. I was based in Paris covering al-Qaeda but did get sucked into one of these sort of sham Chalabi stories. It was the one where they supposedly had a defector in Lebanon. It wasn’t my story -- you tend on investigative units to work as teams. It was Lowell Bergman’s story, which was broadcast on Frontline, but he could not fly to Beirut to interview the guy, so I did.

Amy Goodman: Explain who he was, the person you interviewed?

Chris Hedges: Well, he was an impostor. Supposedly, he was a general, and he was talking about training camps that were being run in Iraq for al-Qaeda. I think it’s been pretty well discredited.

It's kind of shocking. I mean, you'd assume upon finding this out that this would blow up big time. There's a lot of really important things that get swept under the carpet here, especially when big "scoops" like this get discredited. "Oh I'm sorry, we beat the drum for war in an inappropriate and foolish manner and failed the public as a news apparatus. Here's 1 apology. There you go. And now to our next story, Iran is supplying weapons ..." It all seems so clear but there is just a huge majority out there that doesn't get it. Hedges wasn't out of brilliance, and he's certainly not wont for humor:

Amy Goodman: What will you do if the US attacks Iran?

Chris Hedges: Well, I’m not going to pay my income taxes.

It's pretty funny, but if you think about it, if done en masse, it would cause trouble to the machine.

I am virtually surrounded by this chuck klosterman article. People who know me well know that I am never really interested in one thing for very long, and that my interests almost always run deep. Such is the case with virtually all of the things I write about, and it just so happens that video games.

People like tim rogers and eric john-rossel waugh et al have sorta changed or shaped or molded the way I think about video games by writing honestly (or in tim's case extremely dishonestly) about the way they feel about video games. It was a concious attempt to apply gonzo journalism to games journalism in an attempt to create a "New Games Journalism" (where the New refers to the New Journalism of Thompson et al.) I've been reading about and playing video games for quite some time now; made what was virtually a pilgrimage to the mecca of gaming, and have even written about them from time to time.

Many of the articles I read now are by people that I know, pretend to know, or at least stalk on forums. Maybe they're no Bangs or Thompson, but they get it a lot more often than most of the mainstream do. What it is like to be a video game player, to devote yourself entirely to that sector of entertainment.

The klosterman article was referenced everywhere I turned. Eventually, someone over at Pitchfork wrote an article that basically said "Today is about technology, and technology is not sexy like drugs are." This article was somewhat of a direct answer to klosterman, and somewhat not. It eventually got linked to by slashdot, where someone linked the exile as an example of New Journalism. I remembered reading pretty much everything Dolan wrote about 10 or 12 months ago, but decided to go back there and check out some stuff from Ames and Taibbi. Then tonight, reading amit's blog, I see a reference to the war nerd.

When does it end? My video games, politics, music and even friends are all tied up in this thing. It was just odd.

Also, I'm an arrogant linux nerd.

Politics isn't dead, public service is dead. Selfless acts are dead. When John F. Kennedy wrote Profiles in Courage, he wanted to pay tribute to unsung (political) heroes who risked (and quite often sacrificed) their careers by taking a position they deemed necessary regardless of becoming political pariahs. In some of his chosen cases, the public servant was cornered into his decision. Others actually risked (and lost) everything for what they did.

But gone are the days where you have brilliant orators in congress. Gone are the days (if they ever even existed) when you even have meaningful debate in congress, or in the public view at all. Even at the fringe, people don't often get it.

One of the best tools that we have to keep track of our congress members is Thomas. Named after Thomas Jefferson, it is a searchable online repository of recent bills and resolutions from the United States Congress. Many of the search results link directly to PDF's of the congressional record. If you search Thomas for records from the 109th congress matching the term hezbollah, you find many results. Virtually all of them condemn hezbollah for their actions, and virtually none of them similarly condemn Israel for their escalation (although most of the other G8 countries saw fit to censure).

The members of the House typically get 1 minute of floor time to speak about whatever it is they are wanting to speak about, and it is very illuminating to see what they speak of and how well they speak of it. The recent condemnation (across the board) of hezbollah has been markedly low brow and entirely unconvincing, usually leaving out any mention of any Israeli retaliation except by claiming that they have the "right to defend themselves."

The bald political pandering is sometimes too much to bear. Note Rep. Wilson of South Carolina's remarks:

Madam Speaker, on June 25, Hamas terrorists from Gaza carried out a cross-border attack into Israel, killing two soldiers and kidnapping a third. Shortly thereafter, Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon attacked Israeli soldiers, killing three and capturing two.

Note that the fact that Israeli retaliation for the kidnapping of Shalit had resulted in the death of dozens of palestinian citizens is conspicuously absent, and that Mr. Wilson apparently believes that the situation is one of unlimited and multi-lateral unprovoked agression against Israel. Furthermore:

I agree with President Bush when he said yesterday "The root cause of the problem is Hezbollah." President Bush further said that Israel has a right "to defend herself from terrorist attacks." The kidnapped Israeli soldiers need to be released. Hamas and Hezbollah need to turn away from the current path of terror, violence and intimidation. We must stand with Israel in her fight against misguided religious extremism and those who glorify death over life. We must stand with Middle Eastern allies to establish peace.

In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11.

In conclusion, indeed. (Note that the Lebanese prisoners of war whom Israel has admitted exists, which number 3, need not be released, nor do the whereabouts of the hundreds of other known detainees resultant from the 18 year Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Nor do the Muammar brothers. These people simply do not exist.)

In another somewhat telling display, the record shows Dennis Kucinich (for those of you caught in the memory hole, he was a democratic candidate for president in 2004; among the most liberal) speaking directly before Rep. Poe from Texas. Kucinich's statement, titled This is the Time For Peace, is summed up by the middle paragraphs (both in elegance and in content):

Now is the time to stop the disintegration into a worldwide conflict. Now is the time to show the world that the United States is strong enough to be a leader in peace, not war. Now is the time to call for an immediate cessation of violence in the Middle East. Now is the time to commit the United States diplomats to multiparty negotiations with no preconditions. Now is the time to reaffirm our support for Israel by showing leadership and diplomacy.

Unilateralism breeds unilateralism. And then the awful dialectic of conflict moves as a force beyond our control and takes its deadly toll. One hundred civilians a day are being killed in Iraq. Things are spinning out of control. The war on terror has become a war of errors. We must bring a halt to this march of folly.

Poe follows, showing off his profoundly small mind and exceptional ability to create analogies in which he does not understand the original situation nor the one towards which he refers entitled Israeli Cowboys v. Hezbollah Outlaws:

There is a basic human right to selfdefense. There is a basic right to shoot back when shot at. You don’t have to duck, run or hide. And there is a further right to keep on shooting back until the bad guys stop shooting.

This is taking place in the gunfight with Hezbollah outlaws and Israeli cowboys, just like the Old West. Hezbollah, a fancy name for a gang of terrorists, are kidnappers and killers, and they are hiding out in the hills of southern Lebanon. They are a state within a state. They are spreading terror.

That’s what terrorists do. They started shooting at Israeli citizens, kids and soldiers, and they won’t stop no matter what we do. The outlaws have fired 1,100 rounds, and they will shoot thousands more because they preach death to Israel.

So, Madam Speaker, what’s a cowboy to do? Well, shoot back and keep on shooting until the Hezbollah gang stops, gives up, or is rounded up and locked up.

It is a basic human right to defend yourself and take out the outlaws. And that’s just the way it is.

Poe's world is painted with white water and black oil with little opportunity for a gray. Things are simple to him: Identify the bad guys (brown people), shoot them, and then ride off into the sunset. Even with Kucinich, we're a long way from Eugene Debs, but at least we have something. Our endless anti-intellectual spiral has never been so painfully evident to me... to have a recitation of a cartoon depiction of history as justification for the murder of hundreds of citizens by a foreign state on the floor of congress. Indeed.

A few days ago, as we rode home from Japanese Class on the 126 bus, I was speaking to ceache about the current situation in the middle east, and what it has to do with the history of the region and the history elsewhere. I drew heavily upon material learned from various sources, but particularly unsettling was the conclusion of the conversation.

The world really isn't all that far from World War III right now. We might be in it right now, but that depends on the future. Nobody said "Oh shit, World War I." when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was gunned down, and although times have changed and pulpits are surely more numerous (and soothsayers more audacious), not many people are saying "Oh shit, World War III." today. But if they were, they'd be thinking "Gilad Shalit" and not Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The interesting part is why.

June 24th, 2006. The IDF invades Gaza and arrests Osama and Mustafa abu Muammar. The event isn't exactly a shot heard 'round the world. Although Agence France-Presse, one of the world's largest news wire services, pushes a story about it, it falls largely through the cracks. The next day, cpl. Gilad Shalit is kidnapped and a bloody retaliation ensues. This of course is widely reported, not as retaliation but as some unexplainable move made by a terrorist organization. As you can see, the Muammar incident essentially does not exist in western literature.

I've read a lot of Finklestein lately, and what he says largely rings true to me. His two basic theories (provided with copious well-researched documentation) are in a nutshell:

The Holocaust is something bears no connection with the historic event the Nazi Holocaust, and is a tool by which a circle of wealthy jews in the west deflect critizism of Israel and elicit funds from governments to spread zionism. Central to The Holocaust Industry's claims is that the Nazi Holocaust was unique, that jews suffered uniquely during it, and that they are uniquely entitled to reparations.

This same circle of wealthy western jews deflect criticism of Israel through the invocation of "anti-semitism". A corrolary is that "anti-semitism" is inherently irrational, rather than a reaction to the behavior of the state of Israel or the wealthy jewish organizations belonging to The Holocaust industry.

If you think that such findings are baselessly cruel, I implore you to read some of his work and determine their validity after witnessing the surgical way in which he goes about proving his theses.

In any case, both the coverage of the Shalit story and the recent Hezbollah attacks have elicited no media attention to the first kidnapping (I myself only learned of it through an interview of chomsky's on democracy now, and apparently i'm not alone). In fact, it has mostly fallen in line with Chomsky's propaganda model, and whats more much of the justification for Israel's actions has fallen in line with what Finklestein cites as 'typical deflection'.

The scenario that ceache and I were talking about involved a simultaneous escalation of the Middle Eastern Conflict (the introduction of Israel (nukes) and Iran into the 2 extant conflicts) and of the North Korea standoff. In this situation, the United States and United Nations would be spread far and wide, and the escalation of two other high-tense low-coverage situations would not be too hard to imagine: China opportunistically plucking Taiwan and adding a notch to their belt of "historically our territory" imperialism, or the conflict in Kashmir which hasn't been as chic in recent years and somehow escaped coverage even as hundreds were killed by bomb in Mumbai.

Either one of those ancillary conditions would by themselves garnered extreme ammounts of dread in years past, but in "this post 9/11 world" where baseball is more important than the fate of our 100,000+ troops involved in 2 bloody occupations, they seem somewhat diminuitive to the escalation occuring in Israel and North Korea. (Indeed, the Kashmir struggle has been on top of everyones World War III prediction lists since both countries went nuclear) It just shows how sadly jaded we are that these are merely straws to break a camels back in the epic piles of war we've recently erected.

Things have been pretty hectic at work recently, which kinda makes me cherish free time a little more. Work always seems to heat up right as I get enamored with a personal project of some sort. I know hiragana damn solid now, been reading comics to facilitate in trimming recognition time. This is just some stuff I was thinking about, falling under my favorite subjects: music & politics. And I guess, movies too.

Podcasts are the new Shoutcast are the new Napster are the new sliced bread. Since people are all the rage about Apple, and about the iPod (except in South Korea), it figures something that would combine "free" music and the latest fashionable bourgois accessory would spread pretty quickly. In the case of Podcasts (basically mp3 + rss), they're actually a good idea. Radio on demand means that less content needs to be provided, which in turn means that time and effort can be directed towards making quality content.

I found a few gems from startup podcast outfit 75minutes, thanks to a link from indietorrents: avante garde jazz artist John Zorn, whom I previously hadn't heard yet, and the Brazillian post-rockers Hurtmold. Hurtmold's website tried some interesting voodoo, so they wont get linked, but their sleek and jazzy groove on their latest album, "_Mestro_" should not be missed. The title of this post (which means "black rain" in portuguese) is one of my favorite tracks. If only I could stop reading "Hurmtold" when I look at their name. In any case, if you hunger for new artists, grab a few indie podcasts and head on over to your local record store (Tunes or Kims or whatever)!

And, on the subject of Africa and of movies, Kyle Smith of the New York Post wants you to know:

The documentary tries to pin Africa's suffering on capitalism, but dances around the real problem. Africa starves because corrupt governments own the natural resources and export them to buy weapons to keep their people at bay.

I suppose that on a review of documentary Darwin's Nightmare, it might be somewhat topical, to insert your own political dogma and hold in the same esteem your subject matter. Nobody's stopping you. But Smith's comment struck me quite oddly; nary did I blink an eyelash before the thought popped into my head: "Isn't that obvious?"

You'd think that, with a comment like Smith's, he is trying to gain influence in an overwhelmingly anti-capitalist audience, one which I don't think the New York Post has much of a mindshare in. But what's really interesting is that Smith doesn't realize the implications of his own statement; or at least, doesn't follow them through past a superficial good vs. bad analysis (which I'll admit would have been outside the scope of his movie review). His claim isn't backed up by his evidence in any non-semantic way.

People in Africa are suffering; is the immediate cause capitalism? Well, they have worse problems; namely the warlords and corrupt governments that Smith mentions, who stripmine material wealth and ship it off in exchange for weapons. Smith then misses the connection that stripping natural wealth for short term gain and making a sale indiscriminately of that sales impact (for the sake of, again, short term profits) are distinctly symptoms if not tenets of capitalism. Naomi Klein said, rather than Africa get its debt cancelled, to let Africa pay off its debt with its tremendous natural resources. Of course, it came along with a wink and a nudge and a hint hint that western corporations own most of them, and the rest lie in the hands of brutal administrations.

Conservatives (even if Smith is not one, but one could only assume that as a writer for the Post he is) love to blame people for things, rather than systems. Unless that system is poorly understood, in which case it can probably be safely equated with some other posterchild pre-hated system like communism, socialism, or nazism. Why is Africa in poverty? Bad leaders, apparently; not the European imperial system which decimated its people and stripped much of its wealth; not forced economic policies that result in African budgets going largely to pay off interest on debts; not systems that are in place to the detriment of Africa. The system is something set in stone; the rules are there, and if people are suffering its because someone is being bad, not because the rules allow and encourage the behavior that is causing the suffering to take place.

And quickly, I rounded out Bill Murray's "Meloncholy Trilogy" by watching Jaramusch's "_Broken Flowers_" this weekend. Together with "The Life Aquatic" and "Lost in Translation", this film pretty much rounds out the canon of intelligent, dry, deadpan and meloncholy humor that I have enjoyed over the past few years. Broken Flowers was the least movie-like film I have ever seen, but very satisfyingly so. I highly suggest catching it at one point, if you are a fan of the other titles I mentioned (and if you aren't, you probably have poor taste).

For most of today I was trying my hand at developing an object oriented framwork that would result in generated code that would look as if it was handwritten. My preliminary results are pretty encouraging. The main idea comes from the the design of PHPhtmlLib, but I wasn't happy with the generated code from that library and wanted something a little more XHTML friendly.

The last week has been somewhat of a hell on earth: at work I struggled with creating a decent reusable web framework (as many others have struggled and failed before). I am pretty hesitant to do much work on a framework at this point, although I'll definitely go on with what I've got because I see potential for a lot of great things, but I view them as largely personal things. The more you know about HTML the more control you will want over HTML code; the more you want your source to look hand-written, the more apt you are to simply hand-write your source.

On the other extreme are those who want a web-based web framework, who want to create their entire websites from a web backend. I wrote something along these lines but it was very constricting; the layout of my page was basically established, and I could fit different data into that layout, but not really do anything else. I like the current direction I'm going with; so far the obvious code reuse has been extreme: without inheritance a 300 line library would be around 1500 lines and have errors hidden all over.

The real reason the past week has been a hell is that my apartment lacks any air conditioning and its been about 90 with high humidity every day. Night brings little relief, and even though a fan is on duty all day and all night trying to bring cool air in, the net result is less than encouraging. My room has been so hot as to make computer use somewhat impossible, and ever item that I own is hot to the touch (including, most amazingly as I took a cool shower last night, my bathtub and my shampoo). I don't know how people can do it; how my life falls apart without the luxuries of personal climate control even as millions of Africans get by in worse conditions with worse amenities.

I have been speaking to Fred Rassam recently about politics, and have promised him something of a dossier explaining my position on international economics structures. He is a hardcore libertarian and somewhat of a human darwinist; I have a hard time explaining why I feel that certain systems are bad to him because something that I see as a moral absolute (exploitation is bad) he sees as a healthy side effect of a bustling capitalist system. How do you reason that economic systems should focus on income redistribution when the person you are reasing with is upset that the price of a shirt made by people getting paid $.06 to make it should be $2 instead of the current (and equally ridiculous) $8? Combine that with the fact that the system of economics he pushes is a largely purist system that has never been put into practice, and the system of economics I push is a largely purist system that has never been put into practice, and its tough to draw comparissons that don't come laden with a bunch of conditionals.

Tonight I watched The Take, a film made by Naomi Klein who I very much respect for her insights and reporting in Iraq. It follows the struggles of occupied worker-run factories in Argentina and somewhat excitingly affirms that many of my beliefs about the virtues of worker control and cooperative economics. Its not available in the US yet, but if you can find it anywhere (it is up on the dissident torrent site Chomsky torrents) I highly recommend watching it.

It brings up a kind of interesting situation (to us relatively rich aristocratic outsiders) in Latin America at the moment; and it draws upon interesting feelings from my childhood which I'll go into later. Currently though, conservative governments are getting thrown out on their asses and replaced by more left leaning popular regimes. If you look at the history of the last 15 years (Its alarming, but its now 15 years when you're talking about the whole of the 90's), it has been building for a while.

What did we think would happen when our international and unaccountable institutions (IMF, WTO, World Bank; the triad) make policy demands as conditions of loans to desperate and usually unpopular regimes? It would appear that Menem's firesale of Argentina did not fare well, and with Guiterrez now in exhile in Brazil, more riots in Cochabamba over privatized water, populist movements in Mexico (which has been heavily thrashed by NAFTA) with the rise of Obrador, and Chavez apparently in a decent position to challenge the United States as harbouring a terrorist in the recent developments of the Posada Carilles case, the age of Latin America's bending to the whims of its neighbour seems to be waning if not being violently shattered. At least, in the popular view.

Its so encouraging to see democracy actually at work, to see movements of and by "the people", not highjacked and watered down by intellectuals, publicists, and corporate media shills. The United States will of course challenge these movements as toppling their established governments, but this is really all farce: the United States had a vested interest in the former governments; not only in diplomatic contacts but also in favors and control. It seems like communications is at the point where we can only afford to violently overthrow and occupy one or two countries at a time, so that option is probably out. "There is a cancer in our land mass", and that cancer is a public voice gaining power over its masters in an age where violently stamping it out might no longer be an option.

But institutions to keep the positivity of these movements from the people of the United States are still strong; and I have first hand proof. I grew up in a household where "nicaraguan rebels" was used as a general term for "bad people". For the son of an imagrant I was raised in a climate where there was quite a remarkable resentment for new immagrants who did not learn the language like my family did; nurtured by subconcious offhand remarks at home and strengthened at school. It didn't matter that my best friend growing up was Dominican or It continues to this day, largely subconcious I'd imagine, since I can't comprehend the massive ignorance and moral corruption that would really believe this; my brother uses mexican as slang for someone he doesn't like, regardless of abundant proof that there are beautiful, enlightened, talented Mexicans among us. Regardless of the injustice done to the democratically elected Sandanistas.

I must stress that none of this is a racial thing explicitly; race is simply a conduit for easy identification in the bitter class war that exists at every level of our society, and it takes an incredible ammount of effort to fight through it without an intense ammount of education. Growing up, you know who among you are in gangs, you know who is suffering from the epidemic of teen pregnancy, you notice which of your classmates are disappearing as classrooms stop being random and start bearing an organization based on supposed difficulty. Its easier to see whats going on and come to a conclusion subconciously that minorities to a large extent carry with them these problems, because you cannot look at a person and determine their family's economic standing, nor do you at that age. It would be almost irrational to consider otherwise, for a growing child. I can recall with very little variation that classes (AP, Honors, Regents) were in the end separated by the economic situation of the parents; its just as plain as day. Why weren't my best friends growing up my best friends in High School? Its not that they were bad, or minority; they were just poor. I know this, of course... now if only the United States Senate could follow my lead.

Newsweek has been in the news a lot lately for an article they published by Michael Isikoff about Qu'ran and religious abuse at Gitmo and Bagram. This was published on the 9th, and on the 12th there were riots in Afghanistan. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan assailed the article, saying:

"The report had real consequences. People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged." -- Scott McClellan

In similar fashion, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita blasted the story saying on the record that there were no substantiated reports of Qu'ran or religious abuse. Pressure from the DOD and the west wing soon pushed Newsweek to issue an apology for the effects of their story and then finally for a retraction.

The story had claimed that some military report yet to be released was going to document the Qu'ran and religious abuse that was happening with regards to those prisoners we spirit away from their countries and hold as enemy combatants. The White House and the DOD both vehemently denied that this was the case; that the report contained any such information; and turned up the heat on Newsweek who eventually caved. So Newsweek issues their apology and their retraction, McClellan calls it a "good first step", the green light is on to now refer to this report as "disavowed", "flimsy", "retracted", etc., the allegations quietly go away undenied and officially unsubstantiated, and nobody is surprised.

The left and right have both made a huge stink over this; and both reactions could have been written ahead of time by anyone who ever watches these situations. Typical of the right (or: the extreme right wing, as most of them seem to be known as now adays), they have gone to work attacking Newsweek, calling the magazine names and trying to hurt its feelings. Cries that the magazine is anti-american were futher fueled (and the real issue further obscured) by a recent Japanese Newsweek cover roughly translated below.

The left, on the other hand, have focused (as we always do and usually mistakenly) on the facts: the Newsweek story retraction was not because of the inaccuracies of their allegations, but because they lost their anonymous source amidst the shitstorm. Some start to get it and decide to try to shift the attention to the real issue, that the United States should not be mistreating its prisoners of war, torturing people, or disobeying the Geneva conventions on a whim. They bring into the party people like Saar who look good because they are not left wing or look good because they were in the military, but most of the military outcry has centered around the fact that torture and mistreatment is simply bad intelligence gathering practice.

In the immaculate words of George Galloway, this is all; the so called story, the retraction, the west wing theatrics, the right and left's compulsory reactions; it's all "a massive smokescreen."

Does this prisoner abuse happen? Of course it fucking happens. It shouldn't take a Newsweek story to tell you this, just look at American history (which is tough if you went to school here, since you didn't learn it). The way our military is designed, the way all military is designed, they are trained to hate the enemy. Rhetoric about "Iraqi people" doesn't change the fact that on the ground we've had some manner of slur for our enemies (usually racial) in every war in our history, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that this one is no different.

But you can't print that; you can't print historical analysis combined with heresay and call it news, because you'll be torn apart in the echo chamber. So what can you do? You wait for a report by someone important and you create a story around that report. The Newsweek story wasn't a story because we abuse prisoners; that is known already; it was a story because this information was in a government report.

Was the story responsible for the riots in Afghanistan that resulted in death? This question could just as easily be: "Are the American people so oblivious to the situation in Afghanistan that they believe the populace follows Newsweek and riots on abuse they are already aware of from testimony of their few returned relatives?" But of course, you can't print that; you can't just point out the obviousness of the situation and leave people to realize it themselves. It was only after it was brought up that you can't plan such a riot in 3 days, that it was a statistical impossibility, that McClellan and Di Rita finally started to back off of this obvious fallacy. Its too bad because it was serving their cause well. Only a cursory observation at the events yields the following timeline: Afghani's plan a riot and use a Newsweek article (America's own press) as an inflamatory story to get peoples fire going, McClellan notices the riot, the largest anti-US activity in Afghanistan in months, and passes the blame for this to the recently published Newsweek article; he uses it exactly the same way as the Afghani riot organizers.

Even though nothing assaulting the Newsweek article holds up to any sort of common sense overview, the battle has already been fought and won. People will tout this article as proof of the liberal media, as a ridiculous counterexample to Chomsky's US Media as a propaganda machine model (read this interesting article for insight into this; how the DOD had passed the report as credible before press time); and one side or another will argue over a debate that has no consequence. The Isikov article will go down as disavowed, factually incorrect, flawed, and the abuse can continue until someone else gets caught (when this will repeat, or we'll blame it on some grunts). The 50% of Americans who seem to readily absorb this brand of bullshit will put Newsweek under "France" in their list of things to harbour irrational hatred for, and the real story here, how the scope of conversation on this issue was changed from "Is there abuse" to "Lets talk about Newsweek"; how we chain taxi drivers to the roof and kill them but would never desecrate the Qu'ran; how "well, reports now show that someone might have accidentally touched the Qu'ran or accidentally dropped it near an Asian style toilet" will carry the conversation into June; how the whole character of discourse in this matter will center around some insignificant factual error or lack of official substantiation.

This past Thursday; the 28th of April 2005; I went to see a show at the Knitting Factory. The effects of listening to music can sometimes take a while to sink in, and sometimes it takes something else to make you realize why what you've just listened to was incredible. Any band with a keyboard and a disco beat can make you dance; it takes a special band to make you smile. Thank's Palomar.

I rode home on the train from the Melt Banana show with a girl who had a FSRN shirt on; it reminded me of things that are important in life (girls, clothing, and politics) and I've started podcasting Democracy Now! on the way to work and Free Speech Radio News on the way home. Just slowly slipping into that dreaded lifestyle I guess. At least I am at the forefront of Gentrification.

Prompted by his lifetime of political activism, a few co-authored works with Noam Chomsky and a recent interview with Amy Goodman, I decided to pick up 2 of Howard Zinn's books; one of which is the famous "A People's History of the United States". I plan to start it tonight.

Finally, I must urge all of you who know me personally; please do not invite me to weddings via a mass email! My old roomate Joe did it, and now a good friend of mine Wtsang did it. Your wedding should be something personal that you remember for a long time; even past your divorce! Humor aside, regardless of outcome it will be one of the most significant days of your life, and you should feel compelled to share it with your closest friends. I'd rather not be on that list than show up as part of some group who was given an umbrella invitation. Maybe (probably?) this is me just being selfish, but if you want me there please ask me personally; the odds of me going to an invitation whose title starts with "Re:" are slim indeed.

Completely different:

Whistler: "Your majesty is like a stream of bat's piss."
(all): "What?!"
Shaw: "I-I-I meant that your majesty shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark!"

Monty Python are not remembered as comedic geniuses for no reason. Recently I have been reminding myself of that; If I can figure out a Halloween party to go to, I will probably dress up as Cardinal Ximenez; for sure, nobody would expect it.

There are a few things going on of late worth mentioning; my struggle for self diagnosis (or: My fight with the night), the presidential debates, and my frequent forays into the land of the hip. For the sake of adequate blockquote spacing, they will be discussed in that order.

I can't really figure out if I have a real (read: medical) problem with sleep, or if I am just good at fooling myself, or what it is. I can, however, present you (and myself) with the following facts:

• 95% of the time, it takes me over an hour to fall asleep
• I find it fairly easy to stay up for over 20 hours
• left to my own devices, I live on 28 hour days (10 sleep, 18 awake)
• I find it easy to convince myself that 5 hours is "enough"
• I find it almost impossible to sleep before midnight
• I fidget constantly (knee shaking, hand wringing, etc.)
• I almost always set overly lofty goals and get heavily dissapointed for not meeting them

I feel that I might have some manner of anxiety problems, which explains fidgeting and lack of sleep, but the problem is that they never improve, regardless of my situation. If I am incredibly anxious, I will stay up later; when I do not conciously feel anything, the condition doesn't really improve.

The other explanation (in the scenario where there is actually something wrong) is that I have some kind of mild insomnia and that my difficulties with this somehow create my neurosis. Of course, I might be fine in which case I basically lack any and all self control and should really make a conscious effort to fix things. Still this pattern of behavior has been extremely difficult for me to deal with lately; and I've known about it and tried to understand it for the better part of 10 years with little or no success.

On the subject of presidential debates (!), I watched the first two and (regretfully) only the last 40 minutes of the third one. Before the debates had started, I was effectively sick and tired of the whole process; did not care one bit for either Bush or Kerry, and in fact was so turned off by the innability to enact any progressive change when in the past 4 years it has been so obviously necessary that I had stopped reading even my usual (quite liberal) stops.

I knew plenty why I and nobody I know should be voting for Bush: he's incompetent, dangerous, quick to wage war and equally quick to erode civil rights. But why bother with Kerry? Why bother in an election between two coorperation friendly old-money billionaires?

The only thing I knew about Kerry before the debates was that having ties to the ketchup industry seemed like it would ammount to less sinister actions than having a cabinet full of Big Oil Barons (tm). I doubt Theressa would be pushing for war in New Jersey to liberate its people, basing economic questions on the ability to take over the famous Jersey tomato fields.

After the debates, I suppose I know a little more about Kerry. I know that, while he soundly won the first and last debate, many of his complaints about Bush were not that his policy initiatives were flawed (which I believe they were), but that they were underfunded. It seems that liberals in this country no longer believe that our ideals are fit enough for mainstream policy; that in order to win against conservatives, they (we?) must claim to be able to better administer conservative plans rather than offering more traditionally liberal counter-plans.

Not to blow steam without examples, take the No Child Left Behind act. The act didn't work; it leaves more and more children behind, and not only that but oddly (as the children left behind are high school dropouts who are encouraged to drop out to increase high school scores) enough it puts these children that are left behind beyond the elaborate testing mechanism (which by the by made George's brother Neil profit handsomly) that the act itself created. Why, then, can it only be argued that the act failed because it was underfunded? Why can't you pose the logical thought that inflicting rigorous testing standards on understaffed schools is a mistake and the money is better spent on teachers and books?

The Clear Skies Act, or whatever (to quote Kerry) Orwellian name Bush and his cronies came up with (most likely in order to disparage political opposition; Kerry voted against the clear skies act? He is not in favor of clear skies?!) for their environmental plan, is broken. Why argue that it is underfunded or ignored? Why not just say it is stupid and broken? You do not protect swampland by changing the definition of swampland to include that which is not swampland; you do not, contrary to what the president thinks, protect forests by cutting them down. You do not liberate Iraqi's (which of course was not even the reason to invade, anyway) by killing a great number of them.

I found that this was a disturbing trend in the debate; that liberal ideologies were not used to fight conservative ones, instead opting to point out the presidents gross inneptitude and claim that the plans would work under different stewardship. What was I supposed to get out of this? That if I like Bush but concede he is an imbecile, I could just vote for Kerry?

What about those of us; like what I am only assuming was a large portion of the 1 million people who were with me on the streets of New York City on the ides of February a few years ago; who think that these policies are just bad? You know; maybe we are not down with the doctrine of preemption, or an ill defined, mostly unilateral global war. Maybe we'd rather have higher paid teachers and text books that feature presidents beyond Nixon than standardized tests? Maybe we want accountability and a working Superfund rather than weak, volluntary coorperate polluter cleanup programs.

What the conservatives, but more precisely the handlers in the Republican Party, have managed to do is create a political climate in which not voting for their initiatives is considered unpatriotic bordering on treason; worthy of public ridicule and scorn. They've made public ridicule and scorn of their own policies taboo; all the while being reclusive in their responsibility to report to their boss, the average citizen of the United States. In this kind of climate, this "either with us or against us" mire, they were able to ensnare many a spineless democratic senator; and now that they've all voted together for what have turned out, even in this tightly controlled media, to be widely held as idiotic initiatives; they have to argue in favor of them for fear of being called a flip-flopper.

What we need is strong resolve? Steadfast, resolute, principled leadership? Who the fuck made those a presidential requirements? A group of people who would most definitely be destroyed if it was suggested that a good leader be flexible and be able to adapt to different situations and new information; be able to incorperate the views of those who do not agree with them into their own, or to weigh all viewpoints in a discussion before making a decision.

Enough of my political ranting though; I end with recommended listening and a most flattering (and coincidentally funny) quote:

(Screen Name Hidden To Protect The Guilty)
(02:08:13) Christian Tsuraun: your stylishness is a plague
(02:08:31) Christian Tsuraun: I've gotten two people addicted to woxy
(02:08:40) Christian Tsuraun: if they get two people addicted in turn
(02:08:45) Christian Tsuraun: you know the math
(02:09:08) Christian Tsuraun: you're in danger of becoming mainstream at this rate ^_^

Recently, I have reached out to people in an effort to get them to listen to the Woxy (internet) radio station; and it seems that people are actually listening. I'll have to find some utterly unlikeable music to attach myself to soon.

I began what was quite an interesting day waking up at 8:47 and wondering just exactly what time it was. 8:47 was apparently not enough of a reference point, and was certain alien when compared to the likes of the "7:30" that I had set my alarm for. I stumbled out of bed anyway, donned some ostensibly business-like garb and set out for the bus, which thankfully arrived on Ferry St. shortly after I did. I sat next to an odd fellow this morning; Long hair, beard, and an "Independent" backpack with a button that I liked very much. It read: "The problem isn't Bush" in small letters circling the top, and in large letters on a white banner "It's Capitalism!".

This was a molehill in the elevation map of oddities on this, the weirdest routine day in the history of mankind. I hacked my way through the same PHP code I've been working with for much of the day, making pretty decent progress and eventually leaving only 1 bug yet unsolved. It was around the end of my stay at work that I decided to check Slashdot, and noticed its new politics section. Not one to leave well enough alone, I ended the day skimming the ranks of republican bloggers and reading extensively on North Korea.

But first, politics.slashdot.org is what you'd expect from Slashdot: lots of discussion, and no content, which is actually perfect for Slashdot. Do you think that maybe the recent activity at Lessig's blog and Groklaw were the real impetus for Slashdot to join in more political discussion, and that the upcoming election served as only a convenient and unquestionable excuse? I certainly do.

Anyway, some poster mentioned JWZ's friends list as an interesting place to get news. JWZ is of course one of the old school Netscape hackers and the founder of X-Emacs. I wrote at one point about his quaint rant on Java, and it is in this respect that I have come to set aside some personal space in my brain to keep track of the dignity that I hold for him. His friends list led me to a rather right leaning (to me everything is right, but bear with me; he's at least right of center) blog titled The Shape Of Days. I knew at this point, knowing the subject matter somewhat ahead of time, that I was in for a lot of interesting research at wikipedia. Equip your middle-click-for-new-tab powers on this one ladies and gentlemen.

The original post that drew me to Shape Of Days was one about the Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang. Seeing as some people believe we have a good chance at a repeat, we might be needing to spell these places in the near future as our bombs start to tear them apart. Anyway, I largely agree with the Shape Of Days commentary on the Hotel; it is the most horrifying structure I have ever seen; not only what it stands for (maniacal dictatorship and egotism starving millions of people) but also how it stands, some evil spectre overlooking a forgotten city. In a clearer closeup picture, you can truly take in the massiveness of it, as well as cringe at its ominous appearance. It pierces up from the ground to heights near that of the tallest buildings in the world, a bleak and uninhabitable stone shell, simultaneously a testament to madness and some massive hideous barb dominating the landscape.

Needless to say, that such a freightening and large structure could be built completely under my radar intrigued me, so I decided to check out wikipedia to see what it had to say about this and other tall structures. Unbeknownst to me, man has previously erected structures in excess of 2000 feet; the tallest that currently stands being The KVLY TV Tower. A similar tower, 80 feet taller, existed in Warsaw until 1991 when it fell and killed 3 people (much to my surprise; hardly the most disastrous building collapse of all time; a record that I feel is evenly contested between the Twin Tower Collapse and the destruction of the Library of Alexandria). Wikipedia, never to disappoint, proved to be a veritable font of knowledge on the subject of tall structures. After reading on about the collapse of other large structures; especially the upcoming Burj Dubai in the United Arab Emirates which is expected to reach heights of 2100 - 2300 feet (700 metres), I became obsessed with large buildings that have fallen. I was especially intrigued having read of the poor quality of concrete used in the Ryugyong's construction and seen the World Trade Center collapse from within earshot.

Armed with this curiosity, I happened upon the case of the Avala TV Tower in Bosnia, destroyed in 1999 by US war planes in an attempt to "destroy the communications systems of serbia", but probably more in an effort to diminish their pride. Newly invigorated by the notion of attempts to diminish pride and war, I went back to the article on North Korea and through a separate post about the train collision in NK (or DPRK as it wants to be called) to find the most interesting piece I have had the privilege to read since I happened upon the case of Bob Kolody v. Coca-Cola. An American living in South Korea's Travel Log on a rare visit to the North, replete with pictures including an illegal one of a shrine to Kim Jong Il. This was an absolutely fantastic, 100% illuminating read that I think should be required reading for any American unsure of what they are calling evil.

The last nail in the coffin for this day's odd binge of education was a (admittedly somewhat dubious) first hand account of political imprisonment, famine, and corruption in North Korea. The shit this guy describes makes second guessing the American political process seem idiotic; and although I firmly believe that the public systems in our country are made for indoctrination, we are at least (by and large) free to flee it if we decide its bullshit, and free to complain about it at length while we're here. Still, in a night where I loathed washing my dishes and bitched at uncooperative nooks and crannies in my Thomases English muffins, first hand accounts of sustained periods of torture that make Abu Ghraib atrocities sound like lush, first class California penitentiaries really puts an odd perspective on things. And leave it up to me at the end of the day to be thinking about that anti-capitalism pin and still be firm in my belief that a true socialism will someday be the next greatest government created by man. Not headed by some idiotic egotistic despot, not headed by some power hungry vanguard, and not headed by some mustachioed racist prick (all of whom succeeded in dragging socialism's name through the mud rather than actually practicing it), and on the flip side not controlled by the capital of multi-national corporations who seek markets and not human rights.

When I first saw Michael Moore's 2nd film, Bowling for Columbine, I was amazed that there were people in a position to make films and get them distributed that actually looked at some of the problems I saw. Of course, his 3rd comes after an Oscar, a Palm d' Our, and much controversy; so I viewed it with different people under different circumstances.

Many people are going to come out against the film saying that it isn't patriotic, or that it's anti-American. Anyone who has seen the film or knows anything about politics would realize that this is a purely political stance that has no bearing on truth at all. Anyone who is a liberal and has been active in the past 5 years would realize that truth has a smaller part in informing the people than politic does.

The film was good technically speaking. It was edited well and at many parts it was powerful; at others hilarious. There were a lot of surprised "Oohs!" and "Aaahs!" from the crowd, which meant that Moore had hit his target audience quite well. From this camp, however, I've been party to all of the things that Bush and his cronies has done as they have done it, so all I could do was smile with satisfaction as I mentally went down and removed items from my checklist.

7 of us went to see the movie, including a member of the Air Force, a man who drives a truck with "In Reagan We Trust" and "Clinton Happens" bumper stickers, and an Israeli citizen. The opinions that I got from the different people on the film were varied and interesting; one of the most interesting points was that Moore leaves Israel out of the film. Since he had left it out of the film to such an extent that I hadn't even noticed its omission, I was quite surprised. It seemed to be a deliberate maneuver.

Of the many both positive and negative reviews of the film I have read, the most interesting point I have seen was this point from this review:

Administration apologists will say that he took cheap shots at the Bush family, that he is unfair in the way he ambushes people and edits out of context to prove his point. But isn't that what the supposedly impartial news media has been doing, especially in the last couple of years? The press and TV have been overtly and unabashedly cheerleading the rush to war in Iraq. It was all done under the guise of news while they shamelessly broadcast the administration's lies that convinced a majority of Americans a preemptive war with Iraq was just.

And how has the movie done? Well, reports from Box Office Mojo had it at the estimated #1 documentary film after only the first weekend. By all accounts, the film is #1 in the country, ahead of what looks like a very poor comedy in "White Chicks" and shameless slapstick in "Dodge Ball". The film is already #8 all time for Palm d' Our winners, and is poised to easily overtake the next 5 and sit comfortably behind Pulp Fiction and Apocalypse Now. This is of course on a release of only ¼ the amount of theaters of the next 10 movies in the current box office charts.

As far as Moore's politics go, its no surprise that the film has a decidedly liberal slant, but in no way is it an endorsement for Kerry; in fact, he isn't mentioned. I think that Moore, as well as the editors of The Nation (my subscription finally started being mailed) believe that its more important to get rid of Bush than it is to get a decent replacement. We can withstand another 4 years to find a good president as long as the one who's in there is not doing the irreparable damage that Bush has done.

I felt that the film was actually fair to Bush. Most of the times, it painted bush as merely inept, rather than conniving and deliberate. It painted a man who was misdirected rather than one who was purposefully steering us foul. The feeling that 9/11 was done for the mutual profit of the Bush family and the Saudi Royals and Bin Laden family did come off from the film, but I think that was a mistaken impression that unfortunately many people will get.

The first theater we tried to get tickets at was sold out 2 hours in advance; the next theater we successfully got tickets to, and there were quite a few people being turned away at the door by the time we got there. I think the reception of the film was pretty good for the people who watched it (there was much applause), and hopefully it will galvanize many people into action this November. It might be muckraking sensationalism, but its about god damned time.

Inevitability rears its inevitably rearing head recently, in the form of exhaustion from overwork, the death of a terminally ill 93 year old ex-president, or in the form of an MPAA takedown notice.

I cheered when I heard that Ronald Reagan died at 4:09 a few days ago; not because someone was made to suffer, or that someone died, or even that I disagreed with his policy: I cheered because he was the turning point that led us to these times which I dispise so much. I cheered because I don't believe that he was a great world leader; I cheered because I remembered 45 of those 66 things to think about when flying into Ronald Reagan airport.

I told an ex-coworker today that I was sick of "this Reagan shit", and he promptly told me to die and blocked me, before dropping this: "He was a great world leader and deserves to be honored." I of course could rebut this statement, but does it even matter? Of all of the things he did that I hate, he did one thing that saved the world: he was able to get past his hardline-rhetoric, bite the bullet, and actually work with Gorbachev.

Christian told me the other day that "I was a lot like Tim; incredibly opinionated." The exception cited was that I was more readily to admit that I was wrong. I told him, jokingly, "I love admitting when I'm wrong. I so seldom get the chance to do it, that I take every opprotunity to heart and try to excel in it as best I can." Maybe I shouldn't have cheered so much this man's death who, despite our disagreements, was able to swallow his own bad medicine and go into talks?

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet's the "Evil Empire" as he was supplying Iraq and Iran with weapons to destroy eachother. He called them the Evil Empire, while our own (still not self admittedly an empire, but I'm confident that history will fix this mistake) supported oppresive regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador; regimes that were even killing white (gasp) people.

He tried to make ketchup a vegetable and cut federal programs for lunch money for under-privaledge kids. He lowered the income taxes on the highest tax bracket in the United States by something like 35% (actually I think it was more, but I'm willing to settle for 30%). In the 1980's, he spent as much money on the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) as George W. Bush, in all of his double speak rhetoric, spent on an actual war with actual results. Despite the quagmire, Afghanistan is ours to build our pipeline and westernize, and Saddam Hussein, who was bad, is no longer in power.

Reagan at the very least allowed and most likely encouraged the filtering of moneys through Iran to rebels in Nicaragua to overthrow the democratically elected Sandanista government. He also single handedly dismissed the results of their democratic election, at odds with several independent international comittee's and organizations. Had he gone in with Gorbachev earlier, we could have saved the $80 billion we spent on Star Wars.

But he eventually did; he did something that wouldn't have been done by Bush the senior (who was too much a part of the cold war intelligence game). His coaxed or coerced involvement in the talks that brought the worst war in history (remember, the war involved the slaughter of millions of vietnamese, hundreds of thousands of central and south americans, and the prolonged opression of millions of eastern europeans, not to mention the world itself was put to the brink of destruction) to a close are still commendable; to go from where he was to achieve what he did still deserves mention, even from this left wing nutbag.

So maybe I should ask myself, what would I do? If my principles turned out to be false, of Voodoo Economics really were the way to go, if supply side Jesus was an actual deity, would I be able to change? I can't say that, were I in his position, I'd be as loved as revered by people as he is today; I can say with some certainty that for 20 years after my presidency, it surely would not be in anyones advantage politically to align themselves with me. Would I be able to, however much I meant to spin it (as Reagan did), back down on my own beliefs for the sake of a greater good? Or, in the process of attempting to save everyone, would I save no one? In the process of leading by example and condemning the Russians, would I have weakened our defense enough to encourage an actual war by making it seem winnable? If I had signed the disarmament treaty with Gorbachev before starting Star Wars, would it have worked?

It seems pretty dubious that things would have turned out better had I been president, especially considering that for the first 2 years of his term I was not yet born. So I'm inclined to think that, maybe I should honor him. Maybe in the end things turned out well, that 10% unemployed, hyperinflation, a terrible economy and a worse popular vision of the future was worth having a president that could, if not admit he was wrong, at least change policy enough to make up for it.

But. But then I remember that partisan flagwaving and party zealotry is going to take this man and paint him as an unparalleled hero, as a "Great world leader who should be Honored" without the equally important passage about his mistakes, about the things we should learn not to do. I'm reminded of this largely because Grover Norquist is a self-aggrandizing conservative zealot who wants to replace Alexander Hamilton, the greatest asset this country ever had, on the Ten Dollar Bill.

Alexander Hamilton had faults, just like Reagan. His contemptuous attitude towards those he did not agree with, after all, led to his death. But the different is that Hamilton is the most under-rated genius that the 13 colonies ever produced.

Along with James Madison, Hamilton fathered the greatest legal document in the history of the world, the United States Constitution, which was completely unparalleled in its time. Hamilton went on to pen 52 of the 85 Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written with acumen that simply does not exist anymore, which can directly be attributed to the constitution's ratification.

His prescience is especially scary. Hamilton's understanding of markets and capitalism basically kept the system afloat for the first 30 years of its existence in the United States, and the systems that he put in place are in large part the reason why it has even survived to this day. (And as much as I am a socialist, I prefer capitalism to feudalism)

Hamilton also argued against the bill of rights, something that Gore Vidal has called "Man's greatest gift to mankind." His arguments against it, while in the short run would have been ruinous, have come to fruition in scarily accurate consequences. Hamilton (and other federalists) argued that any enumeration of rights would later give people in power an excuse to remove other rights not enumerated. Little did Jefferson know that this was so true that people would eventually use power to remove rights that were enumerated.

Because of his work in the treasury department and his enormous contributions to the start and success of this country, we have honored Hamilton on the Ten Dollar Bill. Benjamin Franklin, who is on the $100, is the only other non-president to reside on United States paper money (Sacagewea and Susan B. Anthony are among others who have been commemorated in coin) still in print.

No matter how much I believe what I've said, I see Norquist achieving his goals. I don't see how Reagan can be considered a greater president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, or a greater public servant than Alexander Hamilton, but I can see why people think he should be commemorated by U.S. currency. My answer is this: Put him on the penny. Lincoln already has the 5 dollar bill. By the time the revisionists reach Reagan and tear him to shreds, hopefully his coin will be out of circulation and he can avoid posthumous humiliation that would be admittedly a little undue given his single great achievement. Perhaps then, when there's more understanding of recent history, we can re-evaluate our position and make an informed decision. For now, I just can't forget that he comitted a greater act of theft than even 1.2 terabytes of movies: he stole the lives and dreams of 2 sub continents, and dishonored them in the process. And we live with this still.

I read the whole archive of Elf Only Inn the other day, mostly at the impersonal behest of Tycho, who's on comic has left me somewhat empty these days. This archive reading of course reminded me that I haven't read the Thin H Line/Sexy Losers in a while, so maybe I'll eventually get to doing that.

Unlike Lorde Omlette, having a blog doesn't help me remember my past any better, and as such I have no idea what I've been doing the past week. I picked up my graduation tickets and worked lots; I'll start full time on monday, which is good. Nico (my boss) told me that he could find me an RA-ship, which makes things all the more interesting. Oh my, what to do? Well, I know what not to do at least; a PhD at drexel.

I'm finding that the math I did not care about as an undergrad will probably make grad school a bit harder, and that I would have to take comp arch. That prospect alone is giving me second thoughts. Still, being an RA would be fun, and at least give me a taste of what its like. If it's more agreeable than coorperate work, which I'm sure it is, I might stick around a bit longer. In any case, if I get an MS, I can teach in New York, which might be possible, too. I wonder if they'd still take me in Japan.

I've been coding solely in python for a few months now; I can't even remember the last significant C program I wrote. I still haven't finished anything, which is a problem, but I have the first levels of software development down pat, so in just a few days at work I was able to cook up some python/qt sweetness at work.

What I have been finishing, contrary to my actions since college started, is video games. I had the pleasure of beating Eternal Darkness, whoose story was a joy that I cannot convey without simply giving you the game. I've beaten Shikigami no Shiro countless times (mostly with dev), recently on "Hard" difficulty using 0 continues. I also had the pleasure of completing Prince of Persia - The Sands of Time. While I wouldn't call the game's ending masterful, I'd have to say it is very good. Sorry ubisoft, you won't get more than that out of me.

I've been having some political conversations lately, and they've reminded me that I need to both read more and to keep up on current events a bit more. The "me" of last year would have been reading the red cross reports about Abu Ghraib for the last 6 months, making everyone else around me know about it before the pictures came out.

After carefully reading my own writing, namely RPGd which takes up so much vertical space as to make me somewhat embarrassed, I realized it was rife with errors. It's not the grammatical or spelling errors, since those don't phase me; its the stylistic errors that bother me. Repetition. Repetition. Ugh.

Jerumu, who was apparently signed up to Howard Dean's mailing list by someone other than me (since I use two u's for chibi-him), has decided to attempt to write a lighthearted entry assuring everyone that everything is a-ok. I think he succeeded, and in fact probably believes it himself; It's funny what happens when you meet someone on the verge of possible death and then reflect upon your own problems. I myself, now renewed to the art of listening to Jerumu's mp3's, think that "Coldplay - Clocks" is ideal for such a situation.

I think he succeeded in being light hearted, although I found his previous post funnier. I'm not sure whether to take it (the post) to mean that I am not his friend, I am not a numbered friend (which somehow seems more enticing), or I am not white. Ayala was once again a joy to be around, as it reminds me of back home, where there are hundreds of Ayala's running rampant. Even Jerumu's freedom fighting friend was a pleasure, although, as with my own experiences back home meeting soldiers, he could have been a little more understanding of others; namely, in this case, the hadji's he's been sent to 'free'. (although, in truth, I'm not sure if he was kidding or what: I was too infatuated with link's cell shaded adventure)

This conversation brings my writing to the subject of gayness, oddly enough. Gore Vidal, an author, playright, etc. who I have little understanding of, and who is gay, but does not admit to anything such as a sexuality existing (homosexual can only describe an act, he says, not a person), has written books as interesting in content and structure as the sentence you are about to finish. His adept maneuvering through history has gotten me interested in Timothy McVeigh, the Waco incedent, and even stuff nobody cares about like the 1940's. Most of the things he writes about are interesting, and I have not the historical knowledge to place the thinkings of the small 'r' republicans he claims to be a part of (apparently, the republicans to the far left). However, I can't say I share his taste in sexual preference; for the most part, I prefer the company of a woman, except while in bed, where I prefer the company of two.

But let's be serious. In this world, gay describes all sorts of things, for instance: a happy person, a homosexual, that boss i can't beat in windwaker, my refridgerator, people who don't like broccoli, dick cheney. I propose that "yag" be anything that is like, ultra awesome. Except, that's kinda like the opposite of gay; yag, so I guess that doesn't fix the problem.

My eminent death is upon us again; an announcement everytime I'm about to board an airplane. On tuesday, I board a plane bound for Turkey. I'll be staying most of my time in Izmir, although I will get to sample Istanbul as well. Here's to my imminent return, or prophetic death.

Today's title is brought to you by an old favorite, RPGd, and is brought to you as such because of the events at the end of Fall Semester '03 at Stevens Institute of Technology as well as Christmas '03 back at the Moiron household. In many ways, the last 3 or 4 weeks of my life have been heavily centered around video games and the pursuite thereof. So, I bring to you my thoughts on these matters.

PC games are out this year; they won't be in until the next good batch of 3dFPS come out, probably based on the Doom3 engine. A year or two ago the festivities included games such as Max Payne, Serious Sam 2, MOH:AA, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Shortly thereafter, Morrowind hit the mix, and it was the second coming of comptuer games. Due to the shoddy job done by most developers on their sequels (Max Payne 2, Deus Ex 2) and the fact that the most anticipated games of this past year have yet to come out (Doom3, HL2, etc.), computer games were out this year, and something had to take their place during the great "finals period purge" (where all knowledge garnered from classes is purged for the sake of sanity).

Enter Dev, N3ko and classic RPG's that I never quite beat/played. First up on the list for Dev was the prospect of beating Final Fantasy (yes, just plain Final Fantasy; there is no "I" in the name) with a party of only a single white mage. When he realized that it was more an excersize in stupidity and futility than skill, he decided to get a real party and go after the prize of.. beating Final Fantasy yet another time. N3ko decided that the Phantasy Star games deserved a more in depth look, and perhaps a play-through, and promptly started playing all 4 master-system/genesis incarnations of the series. Dark Falz/Force/Forz/Folz beware!

Enter me, in the same chapter room, on a similar laptop as the previous two, playing Final Fantasy IIj from a save game about half way into it that I had started some 8 months previous. I beat the wretched hell fiend of a game, which required both incredible luck, an attention to strategy, and a nauseating process of HP and MP building. The final chapter of the game, in which you first decend 5 levels of hell and then ascend the 9 levels of Pandemonium, where you fight the Satan himself, the Archangel Asteroth, and the mighty Tiamat; in addition to "The Emperor" of "The Empire" (you know, "the" empire) who apparently turned into some demon-spawned hell-beast after I dispatched him from the lands the first time. Needless to say, you can probably enjoy the game far more than I did by merely reading a faq, as the game itself is innovative, an interesting look into how Final Fantasy made the evolution from the un-numbered to the double digits we know of it today, and a lesson in tedium.

After beating this game, I set out on the brave lands of Final Fantasy IIIj with a party made up of the brave "Paper", "ZaBeef", "Ijin" and of course "Hiro". Unfortunately, although numerous improvements that make Final Fantasy game's Final Fantasy games were immediately noticeable (a job system a-la FF V, attacking the next baddie after one has died a-la FF III - X), the game itself was boring, especially after a few days of Final Fantasy II. I can't say whether it was only because the game is not very good, or because the beginning does not grab me (the beginning of FF II was rather good; the beginning of III is rather weak), but there's something about it that just screams "Don't play me!" Perhaps it was my 3 days of being bedridden with Asthmatic Bronchitis and my week of feeling like complete shit, but something about the time in which I played this game was a total turn off.

But it wouldn't matter how much Final Fantasy III sucks, because I would be heading home for Christmas to spend time with family and to spend time with my brother and his gamecube. Of course; there are two ages at which you can enjoy all of the finest video games; under 18 and above 22. This is because during college, you are slapped around with so much debt that it's not funny, and any job that you do have probably hardly pays for your after-college life style. For instance; if you could skip pizza and Chinese food twice a day, you'd be able to buy a video game in just 1 week. But that'd mean that you don't eat, and eating is a fair bit more important than video games.

My brother belongs to the group of the first category; under 18, which means you probably have or had some sort of a job (which probably payed only slightly less than college level jobs), and you have the added bonus of having little to no expenses. This all translates into tons of video games, especially if, like my brother, you have no actual hobbies other than video games. My $1000 + in guitars speaks of a different story for myself.

So during christmas, I got to see why I should have already had a GameCube a long time ago, and how in the setting of school and my room back at the ranch I probably wouldn't play it that much. All of the best titles are present: The 4 Zelda's in 1 disc, Smash Brothers Melee, Mario Kart Double Dash, Viewtiful Joe, Mario Party 5, Phantasy Star Online I & II, Resident Evil 0, as of Christmas Soul Calibur 2 and as of this morning Mario Sunshine and The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. So, the reason I should have bought a GC a long time ago? Its simple: Nintendo is the best game developer out there, hands down; the competition is not even remotely close.

So how are the games? Double Dash is pretty much exactly what I wanted in the 3rd major installment of my favorite racing game ever (i know its only loosely a racing game, but its the funnest game that involves races). The new gimmick; two characters per cart, combined with interesting "special" items, makes for a good game. The game, however, is not without its problems. 150cc races are virtually impossible; more often than not, as you approach the final stretch in 1st place, the extremely unballanced spiked shell (a shell that seeks out the player in 1st place without fail and knocks em sky high, stopping them in their tracks) rams me right in the ass. My experience in 2nd place was one of bananna's and green shells, but while I was in first there were red-shells homing in on me at every turn. Besides some horribly broken items and a rubber band AI that is based on these items being a pain in the ass (rather than on the enemies just racing superhumanly fast), the game is still extremely fun; I just don't suggest it single player. Its actually quite difficult, and the fun quickly turns into frustration as you drop from 1st to 5th at the home stretch 4 races in a row.

Mario Sunshine, a game which I have only played for an hour or two, is excellent beyond words. The idea of giving our beloved Brooklyn plumber hero a water gun and letting him clean up a dolphin shaped Island is both a tip of the hat to the Cube's codename as well as a surprisingly good Idea. So far, the nozzle's that I've used allow you to attack enemies and allow you to hover for a short time. The format is much like Mario 64, which is probably the best game to come out for its system: Run around one world, dipping in and out of many levels, the object of which is to collect items, usually via beating bosses, in Sunshine's case called "shines" (in 64 they were stars). The controls are so perfect as to escape any reasonable description; the controller once again seems designed entirely for the Mario game for the system.

Windwaker, a game that has been received with mixed reviews, mostly for its graphics, is a lesson to me and everyone else out there who wishes to make a game. Its beauty instills a wonder that would make an old man young again. Opening up the sail for the first time and using the windwaker (the item) to control the strong breezes of Hyrule for a minute made me forget my knowledge on how games are made and how the programming behind games is done, and I really thought that it was perhaps magic working behind the scenes. Of course, it was magic in a way, as Nintendo had managed to create a world of splendor and wonder that simple words cannot describe. It's kind of like the first time you listened to Led Zeppelin's "Battle of Evermore", only visual. Whereas Ocarina of Time, an excellent game in its own rights, took a while to show me just why things were done the way they were, Windwaker makes me wonder just how anyone could want something different.

These games make me wonder just why I ever played RPG's in the first place. The story, which is the focus of most RPG's, is just not as good as most books I read even as a child (Brian Jaques' excellent Redwall series, for instance, far outdoes any RPG I've played). There is nothing fun or challenging about playing RPG's, except playing the numbers game or dealing with statistic diarrhea, as is so often the case. I suppose they are more "grown up" than the Zelda's and Mario's, which is all fine and good, if "grown up" is synonymous with "shitty". The bottom line is, no Final Fantasy game is going to be as fun as Mario Sunshine, because its just not as interractive as the medium allows.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, and in the spirit of giving that is supposed to embody Christmas (although it somehow gets lost in the rush for consumerism) led me to introduce my brother to the realm of Emulators. Of course, not in that evil "pirate all games ever haha!" spirit, but in the "here, this game is basically impossible to purchase" spirit; and in such a mood I introduced him and my cousin "O Keving" (pronounced "ooh keving") to the greatest RPG ever made, Seiken Densetsu 3. The careful thinking that went into this game in particular (definitely, along with Chrono Trigger Square's shining moment) makes it impressive enough, but the fact that the story, which is actually the careful multiplexing of 6 individual stories, is so engaging, speaks volumes of its virtues. Needless to say, it's been hard for me to secure time on his computer to write this update, because ZSNES has owned his CPU this week.

All of this brings me to the other activity I have been partaking in this past month, that being reading. Nobody I know really Read's that much; with the exception of Firu, who seems to be having technical difficulties at the moment. Jerumu reads his christian "god is good" pamphlets every night, and usually you can find him fingering through some passages in the good book, but other than that nobody that lives in ye olde house reads much of anything. I've read about 15 books this year, which is about 15 books more than I've read in other years of my life. The dearth of reading of course is probably due to the fact that so much information gathering goes on in the Internet that theres really no more mental sponge left dry.

However, in a fit of intellectual duty, I finished Al Franken's newest offering, and got more than half way through Michael Moore's newest book. I must say that, while it was definitely informative and entertaining, Al Franken's book was more an attack on the right and a defense of the left than a book outlining truths and dispelling fallacies. Moore's on the other hand, and quite refreshingly at that, exposes some interesting facts and then expounds upon them, holding no-one sacred; Moore Himself, Clinton, the French, all get mentioned when they were also in on the "evildoing". I find "Dude, Where's my country?" better and more mature than "Stupid White Men"; and certainly more open about the wrongdoings of both Republican and Democratic parties than Al Franken's work, which seems to be a bit "Clinton-preachy".

People look at me funny when I tell them that I'm left wing, or that I read Noam Chomsky's work. Anyone (and Firu can attest to this) who has actually read Manufacturing Consent would probably be hard pressed to undermine Chomsky's pile of facts, all of which are in support of his theories. Still, although I lean a bit farther than Franken and even perhaps a bit farther than Moore, I've enjoyed their books. I await Arundhati Roy's newest, which is due out in 2 months. Until then; I'll play videogames.

The need for a subtitle, a la "or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb", which oddly enough came up in political conversation, family banter, and the thanksgiving festivities last night, suddenly presents itself. The need that is, in case you forgot within mhy first of what will probably be many rambling run-on sentences. After all, although most will understand, I'm sure I can probably name at least one person who won't get the title.

Tuesday, a day which was to be a day of merriment, was supposed to include the first trip to Software Design class in which I was actually happy to go. The President Has Been Kidnapped By Ninja's finaly got to give their(our) progress report for the GBA development progress I've been busting my ass over for the past few weeks. We all figured that, since we've actually done work, unlike other groups, we should be a shoe in for favorites in the competition of outdoing other groups. Little did I know that our process would also be touted, and I think we might have introduced the wiki to the program.

But I didn't go to the presentation. Probably unarguably the 2nd most dedicated and as of yet productive person in the group, I didn't make our first presentation. I stopped to talk to Komitee about politics and ended up enduring the cold to find out we agreed on almost everything. It took us about an hour to get to this point, and when we reached the house in search of warmth, we decided (along with wei, who informed me of the presentation's success) to hit up Arthur's for some blackened scrod as a pre-Thanksgiving Feast.

As most of you might already know, I was a participant in the inflation of the balloons for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City. I was on the vehicle team, which basically meant that I was a more valuable human than most of the other people there. Of course, after being part of a hose/valve duo that popped a chamber and dropping my valve to help out Krupnick, one could easily argue that I was actually just another second class citizen in an orange suit. Regardless, the parade was (as always) extremely fun to do, and you can take in my vantage point in all its glory somewhere in this mess.

After the parade, it was a mad dash to Grand Central Station, which ended in varied success. I missed the 11:53 express, as was to be expected, but I was able to both purchase a book and catch a local train that allowed me to read it at length. In one of the oddest coincidences of the past year, a young (attractive) woman who asked if she could sit in the seat next to me (and consequently did) was also reading the new Al Franken book.

After reading so much Chomsky, which, were it not for the devastating amount of evidence in its favor could be boiled down to conspiracy theory, the Franken book was actually a bit too right on the political spectrum for me. While it acknowledged quite happily that, say, Ann Coulter is a piece of shit, it made no mention that the media, which Franken seems to believe is mostly conservative, but liberal on social issues, is actually a massive power structure to keep people in check. Of course, I've challenged Chomsky's model internally many times (as it is rather outrageous and some what outlandish to believe at first glance), and from what I've gathered, it takes incredible insight to ask the right questions.

And sometimes, I see the questions to ask; u