Where We've Been, What We Are, Where We're Going.

EVENT

Iraq War¹
Also known as: Operation Iraqi Freedom
Date: 2003
From: Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In its wake President George W. Bush proclaimed a global war against terrorists and those who aided and abetted them. While the initial focus of American military action was on the Taliban government of Afghanistan, many within the Bush administration lobbied for expanding the war against terrorism to include Iraq. Numbering among them were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. All served President George H. W. Bush during the Persian Gulf War when the decision was made not to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. Secretary of State Colin Powell was also a member of that administration, but he alone of these individuals opposed war with Iraq.

President George W. Bush did not endorse including military action against Iraq in America's immediate plans for a war against terrorism. However, once the war in Afghanistan was successfully concluded, he signaled that an expansion in the war against terrorism was about to begin. In his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address Bush identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as comprising an axis of evil. Additional evidence that the United States was about to go on the offensive came with the release of a new national security doctrine rejecting deterrence and emphasizing preemption, the logic being to strike an enemy before it became too powerful.

The key issue argued diplomatically and politically in 2002 was whether or not the United States would seek United Nations approval for military action against Iraq and, if requested, whether it would be given. The leading advocates of military action against Iraq asserted that the United States could act unilaterally. Not only did the United States have a right to self-defense, Iraq was still in violation of UN resolutions issued after the Persian Gulf War. President Bush decided to move forward and seek formal international support for military action. In a speech delivered at the UN on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Bush challenged the UN to face up to the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq or stand aside and allow the United States to act. In following this line of action Bush was endorsing Powell's position and overriding the objections of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

What $33,900 will get you in Flint²

Within a week of Bush's address Iraq promised to permit weapons inspectors "without conditions." At the UN, this announcement was hailed as "an indispensable first step." The Bush administration dismissed it as a "tactic that will fail." Iraq's offer led Russia, France, and others to question whether a new resolution was now needed. Opposition arose in the Security Council to the expansive language of the American draft resolution that gave the United States full and automatic authority to use force if Iraq did not comply and the right to conduct its own inspections. An attempt at a compromise in October failed. The Bush administration was insisting that American military action could not be held hostage to a Security Council vote. France argued that only the Security Council could make a decision on going to war. The revised U.S. draft resolution did not request UN authorization for military action nor did it contain language that made military action automatic. But it did call for intrusive weapons inspections and warned of "severe consequences" should Iraq fail to comply. It also held that Iraq was in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations. A successful compromise was not crafted until November 8, 2002, when the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, giving Iraq 30 days to give a current, full, and complete report on all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction program. UN weapons inspectors were to update the Security Council in 60 days. Iraq accepted the UN resolution on November 13. On November 18 UN inspectors began arriving in Baghdad.

Iraq's report to the UN was submitted on December 7, 2002. It was 1,200 pages long. UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix judged it to contain little new information and that it was "not enough to create confidence" that Iraq was disarming. Blix filed a similar report in early January regarding Iraq's compliance, but he also indicated that inspectors had not yet found any "smoking guns." Subsequent reports referenced Iraq's increased willingness to participate in the inspection process but continued to identify failings in the quality of its participation.

Unhappy with the pace and tenor of the verification process, in December the Bush administration set late January as the decision deadline for Iraq and began moving forces into the region. An estimated 125,000 American troops had already been ordered to the Persian Gulf when on January 20 France indicated that it would block any new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The Bush administration then repeated its position that it was willing to go to war without UN support. Intense diplomatic maneuvering returned to the UN in late February when the United States and its principal ally, Great Britain, indicated that they would soon introduce a new resolution that would declare Iraq to be in "further material breach" of UN orders to disarm. This brought forward renewed opposition from Germany and France. They advocated sending more weapons inspectors to Iraq along with UN troops so that they might gain access to all desired sites. On March 5, Germany, France, Russia, and China all announced that they would vote against any resolution authorizing war with Iraq. Once again President Bush indicated that he was prepared to go ahead without UN support.

What $104,900 will get you in Flint

In preparing to go to war without a supporting UN resolution, Bush moved to put together an alliance of supportive states. This grouping became known as the "coalition of the willing." Prominent among its members were the former communist states of East Europe that were seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Rumsfeld collectively referred to them as the "new Europe." Shortly after the war began the administration claimed that the coalition of the willing had grown to 46 states, exceeding the number of states that supported the United States in the Persian Gulf War. The extent of many of these contributions, however, was quite limited. Six states—Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the Solomon Islands—had no army.

Absent in this coalition was NATO. As early as September 2002 Rumsfeld indicated that he did not see NATO as having an important role to play in a war with Iraq. The American position changed in November when on the eve of a NATO summit President Bush invoked the image of Nazi Germany and urged NATO to take a stand against Saddam Hussein. Germany and France, however, remained opposed and blocked NATO action on the American request for support. French president Jacques Chirac asserted that "war is not inevitable" and that there should be no rush to a decision. This action prompted Rumsfeld to label France and Germany as part of the "old Europe." Their opposition continued in February 2003 when they opposed Turkey's request for NATO help under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty that pledges states to come to the defense of those whose security was threatened. They argued that it was Turkey's actions that would force the crisis into war, thus invalidating Article 4.

Turkey was going to be a key participant in the war against Iraq. It would serve as a transhipment site for war matériel and a staging point for a northern invasion of Iraq. In the end this did not happen, and Turkey largely stayed on the sidelines. Problems in both Turkey and the United States contributed to this result. On the U.S. side, the Bush administration was unable to meet Turkey's demands for economic assistance and postwar security guarantees. On the Turkish side, a newly elected Turkish government was unable to muster the political majority necessary to overcome widespread domestic opposition to the war.

What $59,000 will get you in Flint

President Bush had also moved to establish a basis for unilateral action by obtaining congressional support for war. Bush turned to Congress for support reluctantly. As late as August 2003 signs from the Bush administration suggested that it did not feel that the formal support of Congress was necessary in order to conduct a war in Iraq. Bush's pubic statements only went so far as to indicate the he would consult with legislators, something that fell short of obtaining their approval. Such support was not guaranteed. In early September, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee and a strong Bush supporter, indicated that he was not prepared to vote for war at the time. Pressed by leaders in both parties to obtain congressional support, President Bush asked for such authorization on September 19. The White House–drafted resolution authorized the president to "use all means that he determines, including force," in order to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, defend the national interest of the United States against the threats posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

Congress was supportive of the proposal, but many felt it was far too open-ended an endorsement of presidential war-making powers and was reminiscent of the situation that existed during the Vietnam War. Others continued to call for a multilateral approach to the war. In early October the Bush administration reached a compromise with Congress. The revised resolution was passed on October 10 by a vote of 77-23 in the Senate and 296-139 in the House. The resolution supported efforts by the president to obtain action by the Security Council but then authorized the use of force. Borrowing language from the War Powers Resolution it required the president to notify Congress no later than 48 hours after exercising his authority and required that he report at least once every 60 days to the Congress.

The diplomatic maneuvering leading up to war entered into the endgame phase on March 16 when the United States, Great Britain, and Spain held a one-hour summit conference in the Azores. It ended with President Bush issuing an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to go into exile or face military action. The next evening President Bush addressed the nation and gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq. On Tuesday, March 18, Saddam Hussein rejected Bush's ultimatum.

What $83,500 will get you in Flint

The first blow in the war was struck in the early morning hours of March 20 when President Bush ordered a decapitation air strike against the Iraqi leadership. U.S. intelligence sources reported that they believed Saddam Hussein and one or both of his sons were inside one of the bunkers targeted in this attack but were unsure if they were killed. Throughout the war Saddam Hussein would appear in broadcasts urging Iraqis to resist the "aggressors." American intelligence was unable to confirm when the tapes had been made or even if it was Saddam Hussein making the speeches. The ground war began early in the evening on March 20 as American and British forces crossed into Iraq from Kuwait. Their progress was uneven. American troops met with little effective resistance, but the British encountered stiffer resistance, especially around Basra. As the invasion supply line grew to more than 250 miles, voices of concern were expressed that U.S. troops were becoming overly vulnerable to attacks by marauding Iraqi forces. A central premise of the war plan was that the United States would be welcomed as a liberator. This was now in doubt. In late March a week-long pause in the ground offensive took place as Pentagon officials reassessed their strategy. When the offensive resumed, American ground forces rapidly advanced on the elite Republican Guard units defending Baghdad. Baghdad fell on April 9.

Along with the ground war, the United States pursued a robust air war. After the initial decapitation strike the air force engaged in "shock and awe" bombing that was designed to destroy Iraq's willingness to resist. As American troops advanced on Baghdad, another attempt was made to kill Saddam Hussein by dropping four 2,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs on one of his fortified underground command centers. As with the earlier decapitation strike, intelligence officials were unable to confirm if he had been killed.

On May 1, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush declared victory in the war in Iraq. Celebrations of peace were shortlived, as looting and anarchy soon became the order of the day. American forces found themselves engaged in a series of highly charged encounters with Iraqi civilians in several Iraqi cities. In a very short period of time the United States had gone from liberator to enemy. Tens of thousands took to the streets in Baghdad to protest the U.S. presence; 10 civilians were killed in Mosul, and 13 were killed in Fallujah. Angry Iraqis, for example, blamed the United States for fuel shortages and power outages. Press reports in mid-May 2003 noted that Iraqis were tracking down Ba'ath Party members who were affiliated with Saddam Hussein's regime and killing them because they felt the United States was being too lenient on them. By mid-May congressional concerns had grown to the point where Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld promised that an additional 15,000 troops would be sent to Iraq. At the time, about 142,000 troops were in Iraq, about 49,000 of them in and around Baghdad.

What $249,900 will get you in Flint

American officials were particularly unprepared for the manner in which Shi'ites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq's population, were able to organize themselves for political action. Shi'ite clerics spoke out in fervent tones against the United States. The deputy leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iran said, "[T]he American presence is unacceptable and there is no justification for staying in Iraq." Shi'ite demonstrators, who in some cases numbered in the tens of thousands, chanted "[N]o to imperialism, no to Israel, no to America, and no to Saddam." Such pronouncements led some in the Senate to openly worry about the establishment of a theocracy in Iraq.

Before the fighting ended, the Bush administration announced the appointment of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner to oversee reconstruction efforts as head of the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. The growing violence in Iraq led to a sudden change in plans, and in early May career diplomat L. Paul Bremer was named special envoy and civil administrator in Iraq, placing him above Garner in the chain of command. One of the key decisions American officials faced was which Iraqis to work with in their reconstruction efforts. Initially the United States indicated that it would allow Ba'ath Party members to continue to hold government positions in the reconstruction process. Some 2 million Iraqis were members of the Ba'ath Party under Saddam Hussein, and this initial announcement indicated that only the 55 "most wanted" were by definition excluded from holding office. This decision angered many in Iraq, and soon the United States reversed itself, banning 15,000–30,000 party members from holding jobs in a new government. American authorities also faced a decision regarding how closely to rely upon the Iraqi exile community in the West. Working in favor of giving them an important role in postwar Iraq is the fact that unlike local Iraqi leaders, they are known figures possessing established relationships with U.S. authorities. Working against giving them an important role is their lack of contacts and ties within Iraq that are important for making things happen on the ground.

A final cost analysis of the Iraq War will not be done for some time. The United States has indicated that, unlike in previous conflicts, it will not do a civilian casualty count. The economic costs are also uncertain. In late March the Bush administration submitted a request to Congress for $74.7 billion for the next five months: $63 billion for the war itself, $8 billion in relief funds, and $4 billion for homeland security. In May one think tank estimated that $1 million per day was being spent on reconstruction. The Bush administration, through the Agency for International Development, was also earmarking money for private firms to engage in reconstruction. Especially controversial was the decision to allow some firms, including Halliburton Co., for which Vice President Dick Cheney once served as chief executive officer, to obtain these contracts without going through a competitive bidding process. Early estimates placed the value of some of these projects at $900 million. Another scenario pegged Hailliburton's potential profit from Iraqi reconstruction at $7 billion.

* * * * *

"In our minds, she's already made it a success," Young said. "She's put Flint on the map for something that's positive. She's a talent, and she's one of many, so we just want to celebrate that, and that's what we're doing."³

---

1. "Iraq War." Staff Sergeant Cherie A. Thurlby. U.S. Department of Defense. Facts On File, Inc. American History Online. www.fofweb.com.

2. Re/Max Performance Realty. http://performancerealty.michigan.remax.com/default.aspx (28 February 2007).

3. Doug Pullen. "City Rallies to Support LaKisha." The Flint Journal on Michigan Live, 28 February 2007, http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-42/1172677827264300.xml&coll=5(28 February 2007)

END OF POST.

The New York Times is as obsessed with American Idol as I am.

CONCEPT

Seriously, this is the second article they've written on the thing in the last week or so.

I happen to know that Pambdelurion is working on his rebuttal... it might be good to read the article. Virginia Heffernan is basically saying what I've said all along, except more succinctly and persuasively.

ANYWAY... it's gotten personal in the past week, when I discovered first that LaKisha Jones, one of the entrants favored for winning is from Flint. In fact, it turns out I probably was at the same prom as her in 1995. She knew Sam and sang in choir with Emerson.

The Flint Journal has written about it here.

I did not know this two weeks ago when I launched on this defense of a contentious commercial behemoth. As of now, I'm officially biased. For the first time, I will be voting on the show.

END OF POST.

Occludine 8, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Ember Day. Vincent Massey became the first Canadian-born governor general of Canada, 1952.

- PICTURE OF THE WEEK -
Linked to by Kennedy: It's The Seven Deadly Sins.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
How do you waste time that you would most like to change?

END OF POST.

I Feel Like Wasting Time.

DIARY

This is from Gemma...

ONE - Spell your first name without vowels:
Cnnr

TWO - Are you single
No.

THREE - What's your favorite number?
8.

FOUR - Favorite color?
Violet, followed by blue-green, followed by teal, followed by ultramarine.

FIVE - Least favorite color
Orange-pink-puke.

SIX - What are you listening to?
Mayonnaise, live, the Smashing Pumpkins.

SEVEN - What do you smoke?
Anyone who gets in my way.

EIGHT - Are you happy with your life right now?
I give it a 7.8 out of 10.

NINE - Anyone ever said you resemble a celebrity?
Actually at the supermarket once a guy followed me around yelling "What's in your wallet!" I thought he might be trying to mug me, but then I realized he was just commenting that I evidently resembled David Spade.

TEN - What was your favorite class in school?
Grad. School? My poetry seminar: Myself and Strangers.
College? The Slavic Vampire, History of Western Civilization I, and Tennessee Williams. But there were many.
High School? Global Issues.

ELEVEN - Do you shop at hollister/abercrombie/AE?
Nope.

[Where is twelve?]

THIRTEEN - Where do you go to school?
The New School

FOURTEEN - Are you outgoing?
Yes.

FIFTEEN - One word to describe you?
Intense. (same as "Gemma" said)

SIXTEEN - Favorite pair of shoes?
The hipsteresque shoes I'm wearing now. With the little portholes for the shoe laces to go through.

SEVENTEEN- Do you own big sunglasses?
I own dozens of sunglasses.

EIGHTEEN - Where do you wish you were right now?
Belize, Pitcairn Island, or Flint.

NINETEEN - What should you be doing right now?
Roller skating.

TWENTY - Do you have a crush on anyone right now?
Yes.

THE CANS:

Can you blow a bubble?
I can.

Can you dance?
I can "dance."

Can you do a cart wheel?
I can.

Can you tie a cherry stem with your mouth?
I can not.

Can you touch your toes?
I can.

Can you whistle?
I can very well.

Can you wiggle your ears?
I can not.

Can you wiggle your nose?
I can not.

Can you roll your tongue?
I can not. (Starting to feel a little inferior.)


THE DIDS:

Did you ever get into a fist fight at school?
I did. (Often)

Did you ever run away from home?
I did not.

Did you ever want to be a doctor?
I did not.

Did you ever want to be a fire fighter?
I did not.


THE DOS:

Do you believe in God?
I do.

Do you know how to swim?
I do.

Do you like roller coasters?
I do.

Do you think you could be on those reality shows?
I do. Except American Idol. Maybe as one of those awful people who can't sing.

THE DOES:

Does hair loss run through your family?
It does.

Does your family have family picnics?
We do occasionally.

THE HAVES:

Have you ever been to the ocean?
I have.

Have you ever gone fishing?
I have, especially when I was younger.


THE HOWS:

How did you find out about Myspace?
Your mom.

How many of your friends on it have you seen?
That's right this was a Myspace survey. Probably 75%.

How much money do you have on you right now?
$36.


THE LASTS:

Last person you hung out with?
Jessica and Hallie.

Last thing you said out loud?
"This caption says that the Iraqis dumped 125 gallons into the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm. That doesn't make sense. That's like a big bathtub."

Last thing someone said to you?
"Yeah. That might be a mistake. Better check that out." (It was... it was supposed to say 125 million.)

THE WHATS:

What is the temperature outside?
Perfect for late February. Floating around 28 F.

What was the last restaurant you ate at?
Juniors.

What was the last thing you bought?
Bagel/Coffee/Donut.

What was the last thing you had to drink?
Water/Coffee.

What was the last thing on TV you watched?
South Park and/or Good Morning America. (Always a little comatose for the latter).

THE WHOS:

Who is your newest friend you added to Myspace?
Your mom.

Who was the last person you IM'd?
I don't do that.

Who talked to you on the phone last?
I don't remember. I don't like the phone.

Who was the last person you took a picture of?
Probably myself. Vain me.

Who was the last person to leave you a comment?
Cody.

---

If you like, you can cut and paste and answer yourself.

END OF POST.

Lenten Babble, #1.

BODY

• I like the lead into Lent. The "porch" as they call it.



• It has been beautiful here. For the first time this winter (at the end of winter), a wet snow has fallen, and has not melted. Brooklyn is pretty with snow. I wish I got to see more of it.



• During Lisa's visit this past weekend, she was interested in talking about religion. She went to Mass at the oratory with me on Sunday, then we talked over pizza in the Fulton Ferry District. We discussed the intent and import of liturgical seasons, the difficulties and possibilities in translating religious texts, and ultimately fundamental similarities and differences between religions.



• During Hallie's visit yesterday, she was also interested in talking about religion. We talked (again, over pizza) about canonical beliefs and who listens to them, and how one might raise a family within or about a particular faith.



• I enjoy these conversations. I don't get to have them often because I never want to be tedious in my underestimation of somone's faith. That is, it is an issue we resolve in ourselves, and to broadly evangelize is to assume someone has not resolved the issue. It's a prejudicial assumption. So I try to step into conversations only when the opportunity is conspicuous...



• ... which debatably makes me of dubious use as an evangelizer (even if I were more inclined). On the one hand, I believe that the sharing of ideas is extremely important, and I have to be a supporter of the ideas to which I've committed. On the other hand, I have the occasionally awkward view that religious arguments most often articulate similar truths through different vocabularies. These truths can be superimposed on each other.



• It's becomes a headache, sorting it all out, sometimes.

END OF POST.

Occludine 7, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
The heart has its summer and its winter.

- QUOTE OF THE WEEK -
A lot of people say to me, 'Why did you kill Christ?' 'I dunno... it was one of those parties, got out of hand, you know.' 'We killed him because he didn't want to become a doctor, that's why we killed him.'
- Lenny Bruce

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
How do you waste time most frequently?

END OF POST.

Occludine 6, 29.

DIARY

Had a nice visit with Lisa this weekend. Coffee, hookie, Indian food, mystery, party, church, and pizza. Last night, I saw the oscars and read about serial killers. Ewww. Last night it was snowy and lovely. But tonight Jess and I are meeting with Hallie.

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Moon rides rough. Grand Canyon National Park established, 1919.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Victor hugo.

- NEWS OF THE WEEK -
The 'Departed' Winds Best Picture, Scorcese Best Director.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What is the weirdest way that you waste time?

END OF POST.

Occludine 3, 29.

DIARY

- Howdy there. I haven't felt much like blogging this week. Next week will be more like normal around here.

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Song "As Time Goes By," from movie Casablanca, copyrighted, 1943.

- COUNTRY OF THE WEEK -
Angola.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What everyday accidents do you think warrant an apology?

END OF POST.

In February 1977.

DIARY

Where were you in February, 1977?

END OF POST.

Political Stuff.

EVENT

END OF POST.

Blog Lite? Schoolyard Bully? Anyone?

CONCEPT

I blogged a lot last week so I'm going to go easy this week.

Read this: For Fox’s Rivals, 'American Idol' Remains a 'Schoolyard Bully'.

Does this, we feel, shore up Christian's points, or does it argue the opposite? Or something in between?

END OF POST.

Nimbus 30, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Shrove Tuesday. John Glenn first American to orbit Earth, 1962.

It's also Mardi Gras.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Derek (who I haven't seen in years).

- QUOTE OF THE WEEK -
Here.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Shock me.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 29, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Pure Monday. Moon on equator. Moon at perigree.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Nicolaus Copernicus.

- NEWS OF THE WEEK -
Guinea Military Chief relaxes curfiew.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What book should be made into a video game?

END OF POST.

Nimbus 26, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Winter's back breaks. Canadian Pacific Railway Company incorporated, 1881.

- COUNTRY OF THE WEEK -
Spain.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Dammit, I wish I could get through my thick skull...

END OF POST.

Nimbus 25, 29.

DIARY

Oh, okay, I guess I'll post a post.

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Susan B. Anthony born, 1820. Life is made up of tomorrows.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Gallileo Gallilei

- LINK OF THE WEEK -
Retro Junk: The Watcher in the Woods.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Which fate do you dread the most: the black hole at the end of Black Hole or the hellborn tornado at the end of Something Wicked This Way Comes or perhaps the alternate dimension in which Karen Aylwood is imprisoned?

END OF POST.

February, 2004.

DIARY

I was in the middle of a very frustrating year.

I lived in McKinley Park on the South Side, a trapdoorey and secret-passagey neighborhood with all sorts of holes and paths. But I was also forty-five minutes from my friends by CTA, even further psychologically, and close to broke from saving up to propose to Jessica and for other future events.

Two other factors were worse than these two combined.

First was my work situation. I was working at the hospital on an assignment that had circumstantially become not much fun. The pay was mediocre but not awful, the work impossible and stressful but not stressfully impossible, and the people nice for the most part. But I couldn't finish the tasks, and probably let this fact damage the progress I did make and there it was. There were no windows.

Second was my extracurricular situation. I'd taken all of my undiminished and undefeated theater hopes and dreams poured them into the Nocturnal, a group that was a partial inspiration for the Gothic Funk. However, in 2004, the Nocturnal mainly just gave reasons to hate theater and mistakes to avoid in the future.

A few things kept me afloat in the midst of all this. It was quite a cold and snowy winter as I recall. That was nice. The Thorn Soujourn D&D campaign was in full swing, and we brought Dan S. onboard. Scavhunt planning was starting to pick up, moving into its most tumultuous, and debatably most glorious year ever. What else? Oh, yes, saving for the ring itself could be kind of exciting.

Where were you in February, 2004?

END OF POST.

Activism 2: This is Our Sound.

EVENT

After writing at excessive length on Global Warming and American Idol, I think I can express my thoughts more directly here. Because they are simpler. I'm involved in politics (et al.) in the sense of thinking about them, writing a letter or four, and voting. It's rarely gone much further than that.

DC characterized my own self-reservation as a sort of liberal guilt. I don't know objectively whether to agree or not. I always thought liberal guilt had to do with "who you are"... ie. a liberal desire to improve/enfranchise the world coupled with dismay at ones own relative prosperity, equals upset tummy. If that is the case, I'm safe. I don't feel guilty for my circumstances, because I am as little to blame for them as I am to credit, in a meritocratic sense.

My own self-reservation about political involvement has to do with effort not kind. I'm not under the misguided notion that showing up and protesting is much better or worse than other forms of action. It serves a purpose under some circumstances, for example, to provide an emphatic example to the rest of the world of American dialgoue and dissent, and the conditions under which they occur. But alan1 is also right that protests are too effectively corralled and regulated to accomplish their loftier goals. I also think that is correct.

So sometimes I wonder if maybe I should be doing more, regardless of where and how "more" takes place. My typical excuse is that my writing is politically vigorous, it is my protest, and my perfectionism in that regard is activism.

We'll see.

But is that another breed of liberal guilt? I'm not sure.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 24, 29.

DAILY

I did comment further on Global Warming here, but inadvertantly obfuscated the post with an unrelated title. Oops.

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Saints Cyril and Methodius. Valentine's Day.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Garrett, aka "Orestes"

- PICTURE OF THE WEEK -
The Open Heart: A Fractal.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What sign are you (of those offered up below)?

END OF POST.

American Idol 2: And for my Next Trick I will pull a Rabbit Out of My Hat.

CONCEPT

Here's the original post.

Pambdelurion and I had a lengthy discussion on the subject here.

And here is his most recent comment in its entirety, because it is well thought out, and doesn't deserve to languish at the bottom of a comment thread:

---

PAMBDELURION says:

All right, I get you--and again, sorry for being so snarky before--I will try to give a more substantative response to your post, because I do disagree with it pretty strongly. By far my largest problem with your stance is the way you phrase the question of whether American Idol represents a positive force in pop music. I feel that this is putting the show in far too narrow a context. To properly evaluate the merits of American Idol, I would argue that you have to ask whether it represents a positive force in pop culture as a whole. Because while it is certainly designed to affect the music industry, American Idol is first and foremost a television show and show be analyzed as such. And looking at things from a television perspective, I would say that overwhelmingly American Idol is a negative influence on pop culture. Because together with Survivor, American Idol forms the vanguard of that blight on the modern television landscape: the reality show. Now, I'm not saying, blanket statement, that each reality show is, on its own, "bad." But if we're talking about positive/negative effects on pop culture, we must look beyond individual merit and examine larger-scale effects. And the effect of American Idol and other successful reality shows was in essence to put a stop to creative, high-quality television in the US for nearly a decade. Reality shows are almost unbelievably profitable: they may look expensive when they're doling out million dollar prizes to the winner, but this is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what is usually required of a studio in paying actors, building sets, etc., etc. In a reality show, you put in a relatively small initial investment, get some regular folk like y'all at home up on the screen, and sit back while the profits roll in. Because of this, well-written shows with name actors and high production values simply could not compete, and the networks hurled increasingly wacky reality premises at us year after year. Happily, that era of television is nearly at an end. But the only reason it did end was because of shifting means of profitability linked to advances in technology, not public renunciation of reality show shoddiness. Namely, studios execs realized that creating glossy, nicely put-together series with complex scripts and story arcs would not only keep viewers coming back week after week, but also get them to buy DVD season box sets and download episodes onto their iPod. Reality shows, lacking real rewatchability, were not eligible for these "double dip" purchasings, and as such no longer completely dominate the television. But like I said, there were years worth of promising shows jettisoned because of the profit shadow of American Idol and its ilk.

In considering American Idol as a TV show, I come to different conclusions than you do regarding the nature of the chosen contestants. You note surprise "at this shows circumspection in choosing a contestants with a wide range of styles, experiences, backgrounds, physiques, and abilities." What I'm reading is that if American Idol is as musically shallow as critics would argue, we ought to see nothing but a selection of pretty boys and vapid bimbos of the Britney-mold coming up to the top. Instead, we have the more interesting likes of Mandisa and Taylor Hicks. I interpret this with a much greater cynicism towards the American public than you do. These people, or perhaps they might be better termed characters, are retained specifically because they are interesting in a TV context, not because of the public's circumspect musical tastes. If the show was nothing but shallow starlets, Joe American would rapidly grow tired of it, but things are kept fresh by having a wide array of colorful characters. As I will argue later, American Idol's effect on the musical landscape is largely insignificant--but it is very important to television viewers. I would say the vast majority of people watching and voting for American Idol have no intention of ever buying an album produced by the winner of the show, and even less vote specifically because they want the opportunity to. They vote to keep their favorite TV characters on the air. The musical ramifications of this are only secondary.

But let's step back a moment and look at American Idol solely in the context on which you originally posted: the face of modern American pop music. In this regard, I don't think American Idol is a positive force, but I also wouldn't call it negative. Rather, I would say it is irrelevant. Assuming that the process behind American Idol is significantly different than the usual "closed doors" process used to manufacture stars, it's still only one person a year. For everyone else, the process is the same as it ever was--and I see no indication that the success of American Idol has done anything to change that. Talented, groundbreaking musicians still claw their way up from local clubs, and major record companies still manufacture instant celebs to suit changing demographics. The winners of American Idol occupy an uncomfortable middle ground, and end up with the perks of neither. Sure, American Idol winners usually have a hit or two fresh out of the box, but has any of them ever done something that could be musically described as "groundbreaking"? And on the other hand, has any of them ever had the superstar success of what I believe you are pegging as the worst offenders in recent "manufactured" superstar history, the boy bands? Ask any random person on the street to sing the number one song of an American Idol winner, then ask them to sing a hit by Backstreet Boys or N'Sync. I would wager that replies would tend strongly towards the latter. I know, it might sound crazy, but it ain't no lie, chicka-bye-bye-bye. Bye bye bye! Honestly, the only post-American Idol work by former contestants that really sticks in my head is the abysmal Kelly Clarkson-Justin Guarini summer beach movie From Justin to Kelly. Not exactly a noble legacy for American pop music. And because of their limited success in the actual music industry rather than as television characters, American Idol itself, for all its (either well-meaning or insidiously, corporately-manipulated, you decide) populism, can have little discernable influence on the pop music scene in general.

I can't help but be a hater 'cause I got no other way to be.

---

MY present response:

1) Re: "Sorry for being so snarky."
No need to apologize. I was a little confused, but greatly enlightened.

2) Re: I should evaluate Idol as a television show.
I will, but for the record I don't think I need to in the way you describe. There is no reason why something could not have a positive effect on the music industry and a negative effect on television programming, and for that matter why I cannot consider them independently. I won't go into examples now, but if you like there are plenty.

But that aside, I don't think your attack on Idol from the POV of television is coherent.

First, you attack it as a reality show. Strictly speaking, it is not. In both structure and presentation it is much closer to American Bandstand (1952 - 1989) and Showtime at the Apollo (1987 to present). Both used the device of bringing groups out and subjecting them to popular approval/disapproval and both launched careers in pop music. Both required minimum overhead... star-power would have been the greatest expense, presumably Dick Clark for Bandstand and the Apollo in Harlem for Showtime. In fact, Showtime even used the same serial schedule as Idol, with a "grand prize" being awarded to one act each year. I'm baiting you a little here, because I think you'll be reluctant to attack either of these shows as crappy TV.

But suppose I give you that Idol is a reality show. After all, the thing is fairly bundled with similar "contest shows" like Skating with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, and Bagpiping with the Best of Them. While I don't know that either of us are ready to prove that these shows are marketed to the same people as Survivor, Big Brother, and so on, it seems likely.

Let's go with that, then.

You'll say that "the effect of American Idol and other successful reality shows was in essence to put a stop to creative, high-quality television in the US for nearly a decade." I don't think so. If reality shows are put on the air simply because of low overhead, we ought expect to see a more random spread of ratings vs. other kinds of shows. In other words, if they are without merit to a viewing audience, their ratings will not be particularly impressive, inasmuch as they generate a profit even with low ratings. People would choose to watch other shows, dramas, the news, etc., but reality TV would remain profitable.

This spread has not been the case, however. Many reality shows get among the highest ratings on television. Which means that there's a very large niche they're filling for the viewing audience that other programming is not. Personally, I would say this is true drama. As manipulative as it may be (something else Idol has in common with reality TV) the shows are good at generating drama. If other programming was doing this, if the writing and acting was really so superior, it ought to be able to compete, right?

In truth, it has. Good new dramas like House and Monk and Lost, and even some lousy ones like Grey's Anatomy have flourished in the last decade. Everybody Loves Raymond and Frasier are doing fine in syndication. On the one hand, this does have a lot to do with DVD sales, as you mentioned. On the other hand, I think that the DVDs for American Idol have been doing pretty well. So, there's that.

Regardless of cause-and-effect, the brunt of the reality TV bite is mostly borne by already washed-up shows like The O.C. (which I once loved) that have had shitty writing. Are you really that upset to see The O.C. go? They're dying, and frankly they deserve to.

But the other thing that is happening that you half-acknowledge is that reality TV is on the wane. And I think there is also some meaning in the seeming contradiction that while some "reality" formatted shows that have done very well in the past are faltering, Idol is still the highest-rated show on television after dix years. DVD sales notwithstanding, if Survivor and co. were pulling higher ratings, their future would be more certain. Survivor is gimmicky and it's languishing. Fear Factor was cheap and pointless, so the same. Idol consistently is dramatic and catchy, full of gossip and slander and enticing flaws (not the dull kind), and on top of that the diverse and interesting, and often surprisingly unusual, music that I mentioned before. And, for all that, it's not fundamentally gimmicky. It's a search for the musician America wants... not a lot of contortions in that premise.

We may even be on the edge of a more discriminating era in reality TV.

Now to the music, and then I will go to bed.

3) Re: Evaluating American Idol as music.

You write with regard to the diversity of successful performers that "these people, or perhaps they might be better termed characters, are retained specifically because they are interesting in a TV context, not because of the public's circumspect musical tastes." You may be right as far as the judges' decisions go. But it's a fact that all of the performers selected can ultimately well. From there, it's a much more significant fact that some of the more "unexpected" performers do very very well in the voting stage of the program. Mandisa was on for quite awhile last year. Rubin Studdard won the second season. Taylor Hicks won last year.

If as you say the production's calculation for drama overwhelmingly directed these choices, then it would make sense for such performers to make it midway through the season with the judges support then to be voted off by an impatient and intolerant public. I think the truth is only slightly different. The public is as circumspect and engaged as I claim, and the producers wisely recognize that fact. It's the only way to account both for the fact that the performers are selected in the first place, and then go on to say on through the second half. You say that "they vote to keep their favorite TV characters on the air. The musical ramifications of this are only secondary." And yet when a lovable character sucks it big time (like the waifish Buddy Holly wannabe last year) they're promptly voted off. Customer loyalty only works as long as their singing does.

Finally, You also say that "the vast majority of people watching and voting for American Idol have no intention of ever buying an album produced by the winner of the show," but nine albums produced by involved performers have gone platinum and five have gone gold.

...

(I'll skip the part now where I explain why the show has an impact on the musical landscape. Pop being pop, all that gold and platinum has to stand for something, right? If it doesn't, it's not pop. Period.)

...

Not all of these albums, for that matter, which were released by actual winners ("it's still only one person a year")... the majority were released by people between the runner-up and the sixth place spot.

My last point, then, is in response to the problem of none of these stars having done anything "groundbreaking." It's been between one and five years for each of these performers. Were people immediately blown away by Prince? Would you call Teena Marie a flop? And dude, Stevie Nicks was just weird until she met up with Fleetwood Mac.

So give them a little time...

---

No hate here... I do understand and respect your point of view.

But I still think I'm right. I think that twenty years from now, American Idol will have been a force comparable in magnitude, if not style, to Sub-Pop, CBGB's, The Ed Sullivan Show, and all that other stuff. :)

END OF POST.

A List of Powerful Things.

BODY

• Copper wire


• Pennies


• A marquis in spades


• Hand lotion


• Chap stick


• A backpack that also functions as a record player


• A map of the United States


• Coffee


• Hair spray


• Disco Rout
by Legowelt

• A friend


• Hills


• Binders, typically of the Trapper Keeper^TM kind, but just as easily the canvas backed ones


• Graph paper


• Dice


• Miniatures


• Incense


• A shawl


• Armpit hair


• A fountain pen


• A sharpee marker


• Horses


• Voudun


• A checkerboard and checkers


• Risk


• A brother and a sister


• Another friend


• A storm cloud


• A clover


• One of those cheap trolls everyone was collecting a decade-and-a-half-ago


• A sedan with manual transmission


• Earl Gray


• Barbed wire


• Concupiscence


• Djuna Barnes


• Estonia


• thimble-sizer synthesizers


• Gelatin candies covered with little mints


• The forty-hour work week


• Lightning


• Sepia


• Cattails


• A sturdy walking stick


• Evergreens


• Tile Mosaics


• Lite Brite


• Spring haze


• The smell of ozone


• A mother and a father


• Further friends


• Thyme, coriander, sage, and vetiver


• Bergamot


• Onions


• Potatoes


• You ditched your friends at Williamson Square


• A hoe


• A rake


• Funk


• Brigadoon


• All organic and stuff, except not, except really really not not.


• A castle


• A limestone cliff


• A secret passage


• A waterfall


• A wife and a child


• All of the others


• A sunflower


• Perigrination


• Sunglasses

END OF POST.

Nimbus 23, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Jesse James robbed his first bank, 1866.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Daniel!

- QUOTE OF THE WEEK -
"I don't think you want to give all the answers, but I think every answer you do give should bring up another question, and not all questions should be answered."
- Kim Novak

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
We Need Three More.

END OF POST.

I Can't Seem To Take You Anywhere

EVENT

How many of you knew about the band Ladytron?

Because I didn't even know they existed just about a month ago, and now I'm saying, "I just discovered this cool group that uses synthesizers live in concert and sounds like rock candy melting on a computer," and everyone says, "oh, yeah, Ladytron."

Anyway, to return to Global Warming (and leaving activism for the moment).

Speaking personally and only personally, I am reluctant to use a rhetoric of apocalypse. There are too many variables which could necessarily interact either constructively or destructively, to exacerbate or mitiagate the effect. Given the prevalence of approximate humans for 1-4 million years (depending on what we define as an approximate human) of which 5,000 - 6,000 years can be fairly called "history" I doubt that we are at an end of plagues/epidemics/disasters with the potential to level the human population. In fact, Ebola was a distinct possibility, and only its immediate recognition and intense quarantine prevented it from becoming a pandemic. That said, I don't think such rhetoric is useful without incontrovertible evidence.

What gets lost in a histrionic debate is that global warming need not result in apocalypse to be hugely damaging. DC has said that "nightmare scenarios all concern mechanisms of positive feedback" but that suggests a false binary. There are dozens if not hundreds of mechanisms to measure, and several operating cooperatively will result in large-scale ick. The fact is that the ultimate nightmare scenario -- global uninhabitability -- is probably unlikely. But there are plenty of nasty scenarios along the way that nevertheless fall short of the worst case. I'll also match this against Kennedy's assertion of standard of living. The fact that our industrial standard of living is so high represents quite a bit of potential backsliding. We could have the global life expectancy drop to forty or fifty. Life would still be quite a bit better than the dynastic line you cite, but would it compare favorably with life now? This also begs the question of what we would owe to developing countries which are not, on the whole, responsible for emissions, but which will bear the brunt of negative effects and are least capable of adapting.

The best and most rigorous angle I can come at this myself has to do with the oceans. I've edited a number of books at work this past year that address the interaction of the climate and the oceans: Oceans by Trevor Day, Droughts by Michael Allaby, and a couple others. I have a better undestanding of these interactions than others.

Now it is a fact that if global temperatures, human caused or not* get much warmer, then the Greenland icecap will melt. This is already happening, in fact. Substantial melting will almost certainly retard the gulf stream, which is the main reason that Europe doesn't have the climate of Siberia or northern Canada.

Now would that mean the end of humanity?

No, it would only mean the displacement of tens to hundreds of millions of people, energy, agricultural, and industrial crisis and so on.

Likewise, carbon emissions alter the acidity of the ocean, making it less sustainable for phytoplankton. Which are basically to the sea what leaves and grass is to the land. Diminished phytoplankton means diminished fish catches, which if the drought issues in Africa continue to worsen (and it isn't getting better), will deprive a very poor part of the world of one of its more reliable sources of food.

Now would that mean the end of humanity?

Probably not. It would only mean that a few hundred million people living in poverty in a semi-arid steppe have their already tenuous food supply desiccated.

I could give an easy three or four other possibilities, from the disruption of nutrient upwellings to the climactic erosion of coral reefs (which are second only to rain forests as ground for developing new medical technology). Any and all are plausible, but none require the others in order to occur. Phytoplankton can be diminished without icecap melting, and so on. Suffice it to say even one such catastrophe would be sufficient to make the next hundred years a "nightmare."

At any rate, our current path seems like a gamble with really ugly odds.

As for prevention vs. technology, we need both frankly. It's not an appropriate comparison to talk about technological innovations in the past, because until this century there was always a frontier ready for expansion; to accept human stress. But I think even cursory objectivity shows that our population is disproportionately high to the availability of resources on the surface of the earth. If we were ready to colonize Mars or the core of the earth, maybe we could make the argument that technology would be sufficient.

But we're not.

We're decades, if not centuries, away.

We'll just have to be careful and make this planet hold out awhile longer.

That's my take.


*And to cynics, everyone has a bias, including Penn & Teller (who are, after all, serving members of the Cato institute, funded by Exxon and co.) If we believe that aggregates cancel out bias or that big business usually has the better hand (either assumption will suffice) then the scientific community is firmly convinced that it *is* mainly human caused. Which is, incidentally, why alan1 is correct. The issue is necessarily politicized, and it could not be otherwise.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 22, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Savannah, Georgia, established, 1733. Abraham Lincoln born, 1836.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Charles Darwin and Julie!

- NEWS OF THE WEEK -
New York Times: Obama Formally Enters Presidential Race.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Are you beautiful?

END OF POST.

Nimbus 19, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Good health is above wealth. 6.5 earthquake near Los Angeles, California, 1971.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Tomorrow - Gemma!

- COUNTRY OF THE WEEK -
Puerto Rico.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Here.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 18, 29.

DIARY

NOTE - Thank you all for making the last several days so interesting. There are a number of comments now on Global Warming, progressive activism, and perhaps most importantly American Idol. I can't afford to spend the whole weekend in front of the computer, so I'll get to these next week.

- ALMANAC SAYS -
JFK administration banned travel of U.S. citizens to Cuba, 1963.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
Jules Verne.

- LINK OF THE WEEK -
The American 1890s: A Chronology.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
We need to work on this until we have twelve answers.
What should be the twelve constellations in our "alternate zodiac"?

END OF POST.

And say, have you heard...

BODY

... that a new Smashing Pumpkins album is coming out this July?

---

I am, right now, at this moment, sitting in a quiet room at Facts on File. The "room" is actually half of the floor, but it has been partitioned into not cubicals, but sub-rooms by cubical walls. Each sub-room holds four to seven people, and I am sitting in one of the largest and farthest from the windows. It's a little depressing during the summer, but on a blisteringly cold night like tonight, it is quite comfortable, and the new carpet they put in a couple months ago has helped things immensely.

I am pretty much here alone. I had to stay after to read a submission for a literary magazine (Lit) that I am helping to edit, and I do not have to go for another ten minutes.

All day I've been listening to two Tori Amos albums... my favorite, which is Boys for Pele and my far-from-favorite, which is Little Earthquakes. While Little Earthquakes is less interesting to me, songwise, Girl and Silent All These Years and especially Precious Things are favorites. I decided that when the Urbantasm movie was made, Precious Things would feature prominently on the soundtrack. Boys for Pele... I love the whole album, but especially three tracks near the beginning. Father Lucifer. Horses. Marianne.

Also, I've had a dream almost every night this week. I should have written them down, but I still remember two of them in their significant details. The first involved me walking through a part of Flint that hybridized Parkside Drive near Woodlawn Park and North Lewis Street. There was an inflatable shark drifting along the river, and it emerged and tried to devour my friends and I as we walked down the shoreline, but then there was a girl inside (it was, after all, inflatable, a submarine of sorts) and she explained that she didn't want to hurt anyone, she just thought she could frighten us. I explained that I wasn't frightened; that my wife and I really like sharks. I told her that I used to live on the Eastside. "It happens," she said, in a commiserating sort of way.

Now What Do You Make Of That?

In the second dream I repeatedly messed things up at work, in stages, was moved from one work station to the next, and found myself incrementally closer to being fired. Which made me exquisitely nervous, though I couldn't help but notice that it was late spring outside, and if I was fired, I'd be walking through New York City in the sun and the breeze and blue skies, not just looking at these things from a building. But the overall feeling of the dream was a nausea and dread.

Now What Do You Make Of That?

This summer I created a Live Journal to blog about my personal life, but I haven't used it practically at all.

I have to go back to using it, or I have to resume posting such things here.

Otherwise, I forget things, and over time, I lose their meanings.

It isn't for you, like you care Oh So Much about the weather here each day.

It's for me, so I don't lose track of essentials.

Now what do you make of that?

END OF POST.

The New Smashing Pumpkins Album

CONCEPT

1988... The Smashing Pumpkins form.

Gish... 1991

Siamese Dream... 1993

Pisces Iscariot... 1994

Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness... 1995

Adore... 1998

Machina / The Machines of God... 2000

Machina II: The Friends and Enemies of Modern Music... 2000

2000... The Smashing Pumpkins disband.

2005... The Smashing Pumpkins re form.

* * * * *

Zeitgeist

7 / 7 / 07

---

(Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!)

END OF POST.

Nimbus 17, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Last quarter moon at apposition. Conjunction of Venus and Uranus. Mercury at the greatest Eastern elongation (18 degrees).

- PICTURE OF THE WEEK -
It's a discoteque!

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
When was the last time you stayed up all night (ie. until the sun came up).

END OF POST.

Woe is me...

EVENT

I just got a form email from Senator Clinton reiterating her support for Net Neutrality, a subject I had written her about many months ago. I appreciate the response, partly because it's kind of unheard of. I never received a response from Debbie Stabenow regarding her support of the Military Commisions Act, and I often don't even hear back from people I contact at the Flint Journal.

I'm not saying it's altruism. I'm just saying it's nice to hear from people.

---

Anyway. The title is "Woe is me..."

Not "Woe is me!"

In the spirit of my mood these days, (which is the 28-year old version of histrionic) I've been feeling half-disillusioned from my political beliefs ever since around Thanksgiving. It's very strange because I'm most comfortable and at ease with my more precarious positions. Abortion and so on haven't really been providing me with any headaches recently, and perhaps this is because I hold compromised or ambivalent positions. Being ambivalent, I don't have to situate myself within a community. I am only accountable to myself.

On the other hand, given issues of gay marriage, church vs. state, universal health care, the death penalty, and so on -- what remain to me essentially black-and-white issues -- I have to position myself within a very large community of like-minded opinions. I have to decide what I think of their strategies and the justifications for their positions, which may or may not align with my own, commonalities aside.

Again, not to come across as judgmental, but I'm really uncomfortable with myself. And it seems really weird, internally, because these are issues in which I am confident in my position.

Case in point: Global Warming.

I've belived in human-affected warming essentially since I first learned of it in junior high or high school. That's the early nineties, incidentally. I've found the evidence convincing for awhile, and now I find it just barely shy of the smoking gun, if not the actual bullet. Here's my beef.

If it is a smoking gun, aren't I guilty of horrible under-reaction? Firing off some emails and blogging on the subject every now and then... is that really a good resume to present my kids and grandkids with? And I'm not alone in this at all... in fact, the number of blogs warning of "apocalypse"... if it really is apocalypse, shouldn't the response be much more drastic than some emails or blogs? I mean, pardon me, but apocalypse. It isn't a word to be thrown around. Or if we take a friendlier scenario (which, I don't know, seems plausible to me) which still involves drought and malnutrition and epidemics and pandemics... let's be honest, we're heading in that direction even if we factor out global warming.

Doesn't this warrant at least the sort of noise that many of our parents made over Civil Rights and Vietnam in the sixties and seventies?

I mean, as a media-interpreted thing, that whole cohort did and does sound collectively sanctimonious, but they did make a lot of noise very effectively, and did achieve a (granted, compromised) success.

Our efforts today seem somehow lacking in comparison, even as the issues are arguably more severe.

And back to the global warming issue, who is really more guilty and responsible?

Someone who didn't believe that what was happening was happening, and went on doing what they were doing?

Or someone who did believe, and took a basic course of action (emails/blogs/conversation), but oh, nothing that would keep him from watching this or that DVD he's interested in, and certainly nothing he could call more than an slight annoying rupture of routine?

Most of us, most of the time, have chosen option number two. I certainly have.

But I'd welcome being told I'm wrong, and I'd welcome being cheered up a little bit here.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 16, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Massachusetts became the 6th U.S. state, 1788.

- QUOTE OF THE WEEK -
"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."
- Epicurus

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What's the most powerful thing to ever happen to you while you were eating a cookie?

END OF POST.

In February, 2005...

DIARY

I should explain, every now and then, the method of producing these "months"... half of the time the years is determined by a straight randomization of the years I've lived minus one. The month is always synchronous with the month at the time the post is written.

The other half of the time, since I sort time into four year "cycles," there is a 50/50 chance that the year is selected from the most recent complete cycle. If not, there is a 50/50 chance that it is the prior cycle. Once the cycle is selected, the exact year is randomly determined. If I work my way back, though, flipping tails all the way, to the age of eleven (my age when this whole scheme emerged), then I just randomly determine a year from one to ten.

This post was determined via the first method. On a randomizer an integer was to fall between 1 and 27. 26 was the result.

---

February, 2005 was another big month. A big month in a big year. My job temping at the NMFF Laser Vision Center was my favorite and most relaxing assignment; it kept me busy, but in an essentially non-stressful way. It was possible to finish the work each day and not take it home in the form of tension and headaches.

By now I had also applied to almost all of my grad school choices, and while the wedding was eventually approaching, it was still a ways of, and that helped immeasurably. The same could be said of scavhunt. This was, then, the month when we decided to amp up the Gothic Funk First Wave. Party #3 in January had been largely improvised but massively successful. Both Sky and Amber were willing to take on large organizational roles (especially Amber) and so the goal of throwing two parties... and ambitious parties at that was possible.

Party #4 happened the Friday prior to Lent, and so we called it "Vendredi Gras." There are pictures here, and while I think some people wish it wouldn't have happened, I think the event was essential in many ways and an unmitigatable part of our history and canon.

Amber spearheaded party #5, although many people were involved (I was less this time) and Nora got involved. We held the party at Moomers, and with over some hundred people in attendance, it set our numerical record to this date. In some ways it reached the height of the First Wave, and we had to spend some time recalibrating. There are pictures here.

Those two parties seem logical bookends in a way, but a lot was happening.

First, for Lent I decided to study Islam. It was the year of Michael, and I had decided that on these years I would explore different faiths and philosophies, to look for points of common contact. Since the relationship vs. Muslims and Muslim nations is of particular importance, I thought the time clearly suggested I reacquaint myself with Islam. I read The Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam, then the Qur'an, then the Hadiths.

While this was going on, I got really really sick... as sick as I only get about once every couple years. I still dragged myself into work most days - partly because I was genuinely needed there, but also because I needed the money.

And then, Jess' grandfather passed away. He was a wonderful man I'd gotten to know over five years, and we made the trip to Ohio for the funeral. It rained while we were there, while in Chicago it was cold and snowing.

On the way back, Jess got sick herself. Something was moving around.

I started to hear back from grad schools.

Washington? No.

Columbia? Certainly not.

Baton Rouge? We don't think so.

Oh, well.

Where were you in February, 2005?

END OF POST.

More on the Importance of Arts.

CONCEPT

After my post last week Makes You Think... (the Arts are Important), Amber wrote:

do you feel like it's different in writing and visual art? are you constantly bombarded with regulations, and the insistence that those regulations keep your work from having any chance of really accomplishing, anyway, what you hope it will?

and are the publishing industry and editors a brood of blood-thirsty, parasitic hyenas who only keep you alive for their own usurious profit?

A year ago I would not have known enough about the visual arts to think I knew an answer, but I can stab at one now (though I may lack enough examples to really make it stick). My thought is that artists in the two communities have similar problems arising from different contexts. In the case of literature, because books are sold to the public for profit in large numbers, it is undeniably a populist medium, however compromised that populism might be by market forces, another point I made last week.

The visual arts, on the other hand, as I understand it, are directed at a much smaller audience. Their largest public will be people who go to museums which very often are constrained to display either deceased artists (in which case the physical display of the art cannot affect the artist) or those who are already well-established. This means that galleries and private collectors become the economic force in the equation, and determine how much X and X is worth.

Two different problems.

In the first case, the public is large, tends towards a consensus of convention, and even when there is an exception, this can only be articulated via self-appointed critics who may be brilliant or may be idiots. In the second case, individuals determine the fallout, and while some individuals may have very experimental or open-minded stances on art, it still comes down to a few people dictating taste to the rest.

The end result, in both cases, is that I would say in both cases the creation of art is not regulated so much as compromised.

But I think there's another edge to that sword as well.

If there is a compromise, it's because there is a desire for art to situate itself publicly; to establish worth against a standard. That the standard itself is predominantly subjective, and often very compelling interpretations are at odds, does not mitigate the fact that having such a discussion in the first place that the arts must be relevant.

END OF POST.

Nimbus 15, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Feast of St. Agatha. The moon crosses the equator. The National Zoo's first cheetah litter in 115 years went on display, 2005.

- NEWS OF THE WEEK -
Chicago Sun-Times: Super story, a bitter end for Bears, fans.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
What was your favorite ad during the Super Bowl?

END OF POST.

Thoughts on Billy Corgan.

BODY

I feel very restless today.
I have to get out of this apartment.
Which is difficult to do whilst typing. Hmm.

---

Selfish Wish #1.

I wish I could sit down and drink a cup of coffee with Billy Corgan.
And I don't just say that in an idle, fanfreak sort of way.
For starters, It would help my thesis project immeasurably, to lay out the case I'm making, to also clarify my own intentions, and then hear his response, straight from his mouth. That would be a beautiful thing.

Maybe more importantly, though, we could just talk. I've always felt that getting to know someone is a highly compromised task... that in some ways, we barely know the people closest to us. Do I what you were seeing and feeling at 9:57 this morning? No. Or what music am I listening to right now? What is my full response to it, not simply a sense of approval or disapproval. How does it resonate or alienate?

Anyway...

All that aside, there has to be a highly constrained ability to empathize through a limited medium. In the case of Mr. Corgan, this would have to be the amount of time involved (I've been following his career for thirteen years now), his statements and actions in public, and his body of work. It is offset by the fact that he is inconsistently but purposefully and persistently obfuscating. Which leaves me with, I think, a region of empathy with indistinct boundaries.

He wants to transform institutions. He realizes that he cannot to this in strict opposition; numerically his efforts would be canceled. At the same time, he does not want to conform. He has to be like Andy Kaufman or Loki about it.

Why do I believe this? Because it's absolutely consistent with his statements and actions, his body of work, and most of all, because it is the most compelling explanation I can supply for inconsistent but purposeful obfuscating.

This is the relationship he has established with the press, with the music industry, with God and mysticism (if his statements are to be taken at face value...). This is the relationship he has formed with a fan base that adores him but does not trust him and is often frustrated with him. This is evidently the relationship he has had with most of his collaborators. It goes a long way, in fact, to justify their admiration for the man despite a ten-page resume of personality conflicts.

So yes, I would very much like to speak with him about all this.

---

These are the lyrics to a Smashing Pumpkins rarity I have fallen in love with.

TOWERS OF RABBLE

Be yourself, don't be yourself.
Speak your mind, don't speak your mind.
Stand alone, don't stand alone.
Be on your own, be all alone.

As the bells ring the graces
of a newborn day,
the voices sing the praises
of your promised youth, promised whenever.

No one can see you so do what you want to.
You're invisible next to forever.

Be yourself, don't be yourself.
Speak your mind, don't speak your mind.
Stand alone, don't stand alone.
Be on your own, be all alone.

Take some time to thank the souls
for all their emptiness,
upon the fever dreams of distant sons
and daughters dressed for ransoms, for never.

Nobody knows you even if they pretend to.
They all sure that they're all so clever.
Truth is rare as ivory.
The truth is in their pure deceit.
Blessed in your naivete.
I thank you all.

END OF POST.

Today is Candlemas, the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Groundhogs Day, and probably some other day as well.

BODY

I feel very restless today.
I have to get out of this apartment.
Which is difficult to do whilst typing. Hmm.

---

Selfish Wish #1.

I wish I could sit down and drink a cup of coffee with Billy Corgan.
And I don't just say that in an idle, fanfreak sort of way.
For starters, It would help my thesis project immeasurably, to lay out the case I'm making, to also clarify my own intentions, and then hear his response, straight from his mouth. That would be a beautiful thing.

Maybe more importantly, though, we could just talk. I've always felt that getting to know someone is a highly compromised task... that in some ways, we barely know the people closest to us. Do I what you were seeing and feeling at 9:57 this morning? No. Or what music am I listening to right now? What is my full response to it, not simply a sense of approval or disapproval. How does it resonate or alienate?

Anyway...

All that aside, there has to be a highly constrained ability to empathize through a limited medium. In the case of Mr. Corgan, this would have to be the amount of time involved (I've been following his career for thirteen years now), his statements and actions in public, and his body of work. It is offset by the fact that he is inconsistently but purposefully and persistently obfuscating. Which leaves me with, I think, a region of empathy with indistinct boundaries.

He wants to transform institutions. He realizes that he cannot to this in strict opposition; numerically his efforts would be canceled. At the same time, he does not want to conform. He has to be like Andy Kaufman or Loki about it.

Why do I believe this? Because it's absolutely consistent with his statements and actions, his body of work, and most of all, because it is the most compelling explanation I can supply for inconsistent but purposeful obfuscating.

This is the relationship he has established with the press, with the music industry, with God and mysticism (if his statements are to be taken at face value...). This is the relationship he has formed with a fan base that adores him but does not trust him and is often frustrated with him. This is evidently the relationship he has had with most of his collaborators. It goes a long way, in fact, to justify their admiration for the man despite a ten-page resume of personality conflicts.

So yes, I would very much like to speak with him about all this.

---

Think of it like this. I adore and am obsessed by Andy Kaufman.

But Billy Corgan is Andy Kaufman raised one exponential level.

Andy Kaufman was caught in the act a few times, and betrayed by those he confided in. As a result the world has recognized his genius and given credit.

But Billy Corgan has kept up the act for twenty years now, a full half of his life, and if he's chosen to confide in anyone, they're not coming forward.

It's a very rare, silent type of genius from someone who is not particularly silent.

---

These are the lyrics to a Smashing Pumpkins rarity I have fallen in love with.

TOWERS OF RABBLE

Be yourself, don't be yourself.
Speak your mind, don't speak your mind.
Stand alone, don't stand alone.
Be on your own, be all alone.

As the bells ring the graces
of a newborn day,
the voices sing the praises
of your promised youth, promised whenever.

No one can see you so do what you want to.
You're invisible next to forever.

Be yourself, don't be yourself.
Speak your mind, don't speak your mind.
Stand alone, don't stand alone.
Be on your own, be all alone.

Take some time to thank the souls
for all their emptiness,
upon the fever dreams of distant sons
and daughters dressed for ransoms, for never.

Nobody knows you even if they pretend to.
They all sure that they're all so clever.
Truth is rare as ivory.
The truth is in their pure deceit.
Blessed in your naivete.
I thank you all.

END OF POST.

Nimber 12, 29.

DIARY

- ALMANAC SAYS -
Candlemas. Groundhog day. Full snow New Moon.

- HAPPY BIRTHDAY -
James Joyce.

- COUNTRY OF THE WEEK -
Equatorial Guinea.

- QUESTION OF THE DAY -
Wherever did you find that amazing DJ?

END OF POST.

American Idol Defense.

CONCEPT

I'm not feeling quite as energetic about this post as I was yesterday.
It's my day off, and with my revision finally finished, I don't want to spend it in front of the computer. So here's a short version, and if I get some bites, then I'll wade in a little deeper.

- People complain that the program is mean to entrants.

But the show requires substantial initiative all along the line... getting in front of the judges requires registering, waiting in line for a long time, a preliminary screening in front a set of judges that weed out the mediocre and leave the good and the horrific. Without doubt entrants have to sign disclaimers. Given so much initiative, I don't buy that any entrant is unable to acquaint themselves with the show, and see how they treat people. From a viewer's perspective, I'm not a huge fan of the ridicule, but there are many more outrageous things worth my concern and anger.

More globally, there's even a redeeming aspect of this part of the show. I don't think it's necessary a bad thing if America develops a better sense of how difficult performing can be, of the subjectivities involved in judgment and audition, and the subtlety and nuance of the skills involved.

- People complain that it is a product of Fox, and thereby conservative demon Rupert Murdoch.

I don't like the guy either. He's actually really creepy, and Fox News is out-and-out scary, but when was the last time this prevented you from watching The Simpsons? It certainly doesn't stop me from watching The O.C., which itself has a decidedly liberal bias.

This is actually a difficult point to make in a little space, because it involves a lot of subtleties in how we interpret Fox as an entity and what action we could consider to be in support of Fox. The fact that Fox and Fox News are not strictly synonymous shold not be completely comforting, but it is at least mitigating, in that prime time network programming is held up to a different set of criteria, both generally and by Fox specifically, than their selection and presentation of "the news." Even if we reject this logic, however, the issue has to revolve around influence (the hypnosis argument) and support (the boycott argument). A short version of a response might go something like this: watching a television station is not like buying tickets to a play or a CD or a Happy Meal or whatever. They generate their revenue through advertising as influenced by ratings. Unless we're actually calculated in the ratings ourselves (of which the odds are some 1 in 700, and I think any network is required to notify of you this) and unless you go out and buy the products, you could watch Fox morning noon and night without contributing a cent.

There might be something to be said for the idea of influence... that we watch Fox and absorb the news (even in only in advertisements)... I do not have a complete and ready answer for this, except that to say that by scrutinizing our information and its source, we will probably come closer to objectivity than a lack of scrutiny. In other words, the scrutiny itself is necessary, whether we get our information from Fox or the New York Times or the Onion. Knowing that I take what I see on Fox with a grain of salt probably does more to keep me circumspect than simply avoiding all contact.

Very incomplete arguments here, but I didn't really want to wade into semantics, and here I have anyway.


The point I feel most passionately, however, is that this contest has a positive effect on popular music in this nation. Which brings me to the third point-counterpoint, and the most interesting.

- People complain that it benefits the recording company's status quo.

It certainly profits the recording industry, by very effectively generating massive advertisement to new arists that supply and market themselves. In fact, the relationship between the performers, the network, and the recording industry is probably delicate and weird.

The problem with this complaint, however, is that it creates a binary (public control vs. music industry control) that is not representative of the actual situation. What we have is an increased amount of public input.

The usual program for "manufacturing" a pop star involves talent agents, recording execs, and a very small percentage of performers who not only fill out a formula by style, expreience, skill, and subject, but also physique, age, status, and dress. It is a closed door process.

An oversimplified rebuttal might then state that American Idol is an "open door" process, but this is not true. It is, in fact, a heavily mitigated and edited encounter, especially early on in the process. But some level of compromise does not mean that the whole project lacks merit, and frankly the word "compromise" itself implies at least two parties with some measure of influence and a stake.

However we might criticize the judges for their (and ultimate selectors), I have been surprised at this shows circumspection in choosing a contestants with a wide range of styles, experiences, backgrounds, physiques, and abilities. Last year's Kelly Pickler was exactly the sort of annoying dumb-girl stereotype that most of my friends probably identify with this show. Yet the program also featured Mandisa, a marvelous singer, a heavy-set African American woman with a full-out style that seemed to suggest gospel meets Vegas. Perhaps even more to the point, when the competition reaches the point of voting, the public is more circumspect than we might expect.

In five seasons of American Idol, one winner was a very very large black man, one was illiterate, and the most recent winner had salt-and-pepper hair, a face a couple degrees shy of Jay Leno, and a style that seemed like a very over-the-top karaoke. Stylistically, the music at that level has been just as varied. Kelly Clarkson had a straight-on pop appeal. Taylor Hicks sings soul. Last year's running up will soon release her debut album which features heavy electronic sampling. Other performers have done very well with gospel, country, rock, and even showtunes. And another aspect of the show are the "genre series" that dominate the second half of the season. It essentially weed out one-trick ponies by requiring singers to be truly versatile. Last year the contestants sang Stevie Wonder and Queen, for godsakes.

The final word is this:

The Apollo Theater in Harlem, which anyone in her right mind regards as sacred ground, has for twenty years featured a singing competition that might fairly be seen as American Idol's predecessor. The audience is the judge, but they are downright merciless in their treatment of contestants, and sometimes their taste seems to be incomprehensible. This forum, however, has helped to launch the careers of Salt N Pepa, Patti LaBelle, the Beastie Boys, Mary J. Blige, and the Digital Undergronud, as just some stand outs on a long long long list.

So stop hating.

American Idol is not the ideal of populist adjudication, but it gives listerners a more engaging and committed stake in who and what they listen to.

END OF POST.

American Idol Defense.

CONCEPT

I'm not feeling quite as energetic about this post as I was yesterday.
It's my day off, and with my revision finally finished, I don't want to spend it in front of the computer. So here's a short version, and if I get some bites, then I'll wade in a little deeper.

- People complain that the program is mean to entrants.

But the show requires substantial initiative all along the line... getting in front of the judges requires registering, waiting in line for a long time, a preliminary screening in front a set of judges that weed out the mediocre and leave the good and the horrific. Without doubt entrants have to sign disclaimers. Given so much initiative, I don't buy that any entrant is unable to acquaint themselves with the show, and see how they treat people. From a viewer's perspective, I'm not a huge fan of the ridicule, but there are many more outrageous things worth my concern and anger.

More globally, there's even a redeeming aspect of this part of the show. I don't think it's necessary a bad thing if America develops a better sense of how difficult performing can be, of the subjectivities involved in judgment and audition, and the subtlety and nuance of the skills involved.

- People complain that it is a product of Fox, and thereby conservative demon Rupert Murdoch.

I don't like the guy either. He's actually really creepy, and Fox News is out-and-out scary, but when was the last time this prevented you from watching The Simpsons? It certainly doesn't stop me from watching The O.C., which itself has a decidedly liberal bias.

This is actually a difficult point to make in a little space, because it involves a lot of subtleties in how we interpret Fox as an entity and what action we could consider to be in support of Fox. The fact that Fox and Fox News are not strictly synonymous shold not be completely comforting, but it is at least mitigating, in that prime time network programming is held up to a different set of criteria, both generally and by Fox specifically, than their selection and presentation of "the news." Even if we reject this logic, however, the issue has to revolve around influence (the hypnosis argument) and support (the boycott argument). A short version of a response might go something like this: watching a television station is not like buying tickets to a play or a CD or a Happy Meal or whatever. They generate their revenue through advertising as influenced by ratings. Unless we're actually calculated in the ratings ourselves (of which the odds are some 1 in 700, and I think any network is required to notify of you this) and unless you go out and buy the products, you could watch Fox morning noon and night without contributing a cent.

There might be something to be said for the idea of influence... that we watch Fox and absorb the news (even in only in advertisements)... I do not have a complete and ready answer for this, except that to say that by scrutinizing our information and its source, we will probably come closer to objectivity than a lack of scrutiny. In other words, the scrutiny itself is necessary, whether we get our information from Fox or the New York Times or the Onion. Knowing that I take what I see on Fox with a grain of salt probably does more to keep me circumspect than simply avoiding all contact.

Very incomplete arguments here, but I didn't really want to wade into semantics, and here I have anyway.


The point I feel most passionately, however, is that this contest has a positive effect on popular music in this nation. Which brings me to the third point-counterpoint, and the most interesting.

- People complain that it benefits the recording company's status quo.

It certainly profits the recording industry, by very effectively generating massive advertisement to new arists that supply and market themselves. In fact, the relationship between the performers, the network, and the recording industry is probably delicate and weird.

The problem with this complaint, however, is that it creates a binary (public control vs. music industry control) that is not representative of the actual situation. What we have is an increased amount of public input.

The usual program for "manufacturing" a pop star involves talent agents, recording execs, and a very small percentage of performers who not only fill out a formula by style, expreience, skill, and subject, but also physique, age, status, and dress. It is a closed door process.

An oversimplified rebuttal might then state that American Idol is an "open door" process, but this is not true. It is, in fact, a heavily mitigated and edited encounter, especially early on in the process. But some level of compromise does not mean that the whole project lacks merit, and frankly the word "compromise" itself implies at least two parties with some measure of influence and a stake.

However we might criticize the judges for their (and ultimate selectors), I have been surprised at this shows circumspection in choosing a contestants with a wide range of styles, experiences, backgrounds, physiques, and abilities. Last year's Kelly Pickler was exactly the sort of annoying dumb-girl stereotype that most of my friends probably identify with this show. Yet the program also featured Mandisa, a marvelous singer, a heavy-set African American woman with a full-out style that seemed to suggest gospel meets Vegas. Perhaps even more to the point, when the competition reaches the point of voting, the public is more circumspect than we might expect.

In five seasons of American Idol, one winner was a very very large black man, one was illiterate, and the most recent winner had salt-and-pepper hair, a face a couple degrees shy of Jay Leno, and a style that seemed like a very over-the-top karaoke. Stylistically, the music at that level has been just as varied. Kelly Clarkson had a straight-on pop appeal. Taylor Hicks sings soul. Last year's running up will soon release her debut album which features heavy electronic sampling. Other performers have done very well with gospel, country, rock, and even showtunes. And another aspect of the show are the "genre series" that dominate the second half of the season. It essentially weed out one-trick ponies by requiring singers to be truly versatile. Last year the contestants sang Stevie Wonder and Queen, for godsakes.

The final word is this:

The Apollo Theater in Harlem, which anyone in her right mind regards as sacred ground, has for twenty years featured a singing competition that might fairly be seen as American Idol's predecessor. The audience is the judge, but they are downright merciless in their treatment of contestants, and sometimes their taste seems to be incomprehensible. This forum, however, has helped to launch the careers of Salt N Pepa, Patti LaBelle, the Beastie Boys, Mary J. Blige, and the Digital Undergronud, as just some stand outs on a long long long list.

So stop hating.

American Idol is not the ideal of populist adjudication, but it gives listerners a more engaging and committed stake in who and what they listen to.

END OF POST.