Some of you have seen this picture before. I've just set up an account at flickr, and am testing out its post to blog feature.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Sunday, November 28, 2004
The Outsourcing Demon?
As many of you know, I am a frequent reader of The Economist. I read it for its clear analysis (mostly), witty insight, and excellent prose. It is one of the few publications that has actually convinced me of views which I did not previously hold, and it has done so repeatedly. Broadly speaking, The Economist could be said to espouse a view of capitalism and liberal humanism, and it is one with which I tend to agree. Though I might uphold postmodern views of indeterminacy in a metaphysical debate, when it comes to the material conditions of day-to-day life, I think one must assert something. I assume that no one will find fault with liberal humanism (at least in part because I've left it undefined), but that perhaps many have at least a partial sense of revulsion when the word 'capitalism' is uttered in a positive light. As horrific as the products of capitalism sometimes are, I think it is the best we've got. I'm not supporting completely unregulated markets—indeed, there are many instances in which markets fail—but, on the whole, freer markets produce better outcomes for all involved.
All this is a rather long preamble as to why I was so excited when last week's Economist arrived: inside, I found a survey on 'outsourcing'. However, much to my disappointment, The Economist simply presented the already extant American debate within a slightly more nuanced narrative. I had hoped that more analysis and space would be accorded to both the principal problem, and to one oft ignored benefit.
Before I go any further, let me add that The Economist very rightly points out that 'outsourcing' is not in fact the correct term for the phenomenon that has occupied so much political discourse over the past year. Strictly speaking, a good or service is 'outsourced' when a company stops producing it and instead purchases it. When production is outsourced, it is not necessarily moved overseas. What concerns so many critics of 'outsourcing' then is not actually 'outsourcing', but the movement of jobs overseas, something which does not require outsourcing as a company can—and many do—set up shop overseas. Unfortunately, having made this distinction, The Economist reverts to standard usage, I'll do my best to avoid this.
The problem with moving jobs overseas is that those jobs no longer exist at home. The western world has seen this before with manufacturing. Indeed, some have even referred to America as a post-industrial society because it now manufactures so very little. I think it more correct to see Mexico or China as the home of America's working class, but I digress. What has alarmed white-collar workers and their politicians is that the movement of jobs overseas is no longer limited to manufacturing. Service jobs have joined the pack, and now, when you phone American Airlines, or your credit card company, you may be speaking to someone half a world away in India. Thus, alarmists talk of greedy unpatriotic companies (Lou Dobbs), or Benedict Arnold companies (John Kerry), who are destroying American jobs.
Proponents retort that moving jobs overseas actually creates more jobs at home. The logic goes that the savings companies accrue by moving these jobs will translate into lower prices at home, which will, in turn, stimulate demand for other goods and services, some hitherto unheard of, and thus create new jobs at home. Whether or not we accept this as true, the problem that specific people have lost certain types of jobs remains. Whether or not these people will get new jobs depends on the availability of other jobs, and on their willingness and ability to retrain for those jobs. What needs to be discussed then is how society should deal with these people. Should their jobs be protected? Should they be offered compensation of some sort? Or, should they simply be left to fend for themselves? In the 'outsourcing' debate, the second question is seldom asked. Unfortunately, The Economist, by ignoring the material reality of the workers in question, does no better.
But this is not to say that I think moving jobs overseas is a bad idea. The oft-ignored benefit that I mentioned above is that jobs are created overseas. The Economist does mention this point in passing, but, with the exception of an anecdote about Indian workers' tastes for brand name clothes, offers nothing in the way of facts or figures to support the argument. Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so myself. But I will offer that, surely, all the anti-globalisers of the world can learn to appreciate a phenomenon that creates jobs in many underdeveloped countries around the world. They might retort that it's not really jobs that companies create, but opportunities to exploit underprivileged workers who have no recourse to a system of established rules and regulations. Though this has happened with manufacturing, it has by no means been the rule. As far as service jobs are concerned, the great majority require a fair degree of education, and thus such exploitation seems much less likely. More importantly, when exploitation has been made an issue, companies have often been forced to improve their practices. Unfortunately, this has not usually been a quick process, and many deplorable practices have gone unchecked for many years. Even so, change for the better has occured, and continues to occur—in large part thanks to the efforts of activists who have seized on the association between a corporation and its products. Thus, capitalism has, built in, a mechanism for dealing with such deplorable practices: it is called branding, which allows the exercise of consumer power. For example, since the campaign to eradicate child labour began, Nike has begun to pay a lot more attention to its supply chain, making a concerted effort to ensure that toddlers are not manufacturing its shoes. For a less hackneyed example, look at the rise in non-financial reporting, something that was almost unheard of ten years ago. At present, Britain is considering making such reporting mandatory.
At this point, there is an important digression that I'd like to make. If we don't like a company's practices, we need not support them. There are often many alternatives available, fair trade coffee (Equal Exchange, Fair Trade Federation, TransFair USA, Global Exchange, and others) and Rugmark come to mind. I admit, such alternatives are not always available, but this does not mean that the whole capitalist system ought to be trashed. NGOs and other assorted activists of the world deserve a great deal of credit for raising awareness about issues concerning the environment and social justice. Their work is important in large part for the information that it adds to the table, without which consumers would be unable to make choices that properly express their preferences (I don't mean to advocate market solutions in all cases, but in many, such solutions can work very well). A few years ago, a book by the name of No Logo achieved widespread acclaim. I should first admit that I have not read it and, unless someone convinces me otherwise, I don't plan to. Though I imagine that the author and I share a general distaste for contemporary forms of advertising and the consumer mentality that they engender, I believe that branding is very important. Brands are the mechanism through which consumers can hold companies to account. Without branding, a lot of the work that activists do to raise awareness would be useless. Again, if we don't like a company's product, we need not buy it. How do we know it's their product? Because they've branded it. Similarly, if we don't like a company's practices, we need not buy their products. Without branding, we would have neither fair trade coffee nor Rugmark rugs.
But back to why moving jobs offshore is, at least in part, a good thing: if the western world bogarts all the jobs, there will be none for other countries. Activists often decry the deplorable poverty that plagues much of the majority world, and so, I should think that a phenomenon that creates jobs in these countries would be applauded. What gives?
(comments wholeheartedly appreciated)
All this is a rather long preamble as to why I was so excited when last week's Economist arrived: inside, I found a survey on 'outsourcing'. However, much to my disappointment, The Economist simply presented the already extant American debate within a slightly more nuanced narrative. I had hoped that more analysis and space would be accorded to both the principal problem, and to one oft ignored benefit.
Before I go any further, let me add that The Economist very rightly points out that 'outsourcing' is not in fact the correct term for the phenomenon that has occupied so much political discourse over the past year. Strictly speaking, a good or service is 'outsourced' when a company stops producing it and instead purchases it. When production is outsourced, it is not necessarily moved overseas. What concerns so many critics of 'outsourcing' then is not actually 'outsourcing', but the movement of jobs overseas, something which does not require outsourcing as a company can—and many do—set up shop overseas. Unfortunately, having made this distinction, The Economist reverts to standard usage, I'll do my best to avoid this.
The problem with moving jobs overseas is that those jobs no longer exist at home. The western world has seen this before with manufacturing. Indeed, some have even referred to America as a post-industrial society because it now manufactures so very little. I think it more correct to see Mexico or China as the home of America's working class, but I digress. What has alarmed white-collar workers and their politicians is that the movement of jobs overseas is no longer limited to manufacturing. Service jobs have joined the pack, and now, when you phone American Airlines, or your credit card company, you may be speaking to someone half a world away in India. Thus, alarmists talk of greedy unpatriotic companies (Lou Dobbs), or Benedict Arnold companies (John Kerry), who are destroying American jobs.
Proponents retort that moving jobs overseas actually creates more jobs at home. The logic goes that the savings companies accrue by moving these jobs will translate into lower prices at home, which will, in turn, stimulate demand for other goods and services, some hitherto unheard of, and thus create new jobs at home. Whether or not we accept this as true, the problem that specific people have lost certain types of jobs remains. Whether or not these people will get new jobs depends on the availability of other jobs, and on their willingness and ability to retrain for those jobs. What needs to be discussed then is how society should deal with these people. Should their jobs be protected? Should they be offered compensation of some sort? Or, should they simply be left to fend for themselves? In the 'outsourcing' debate, the second question is seldom asked. Unfortunately, The Economist, by ignoring the material reality of the workers in question, does no better.
But this is not to say that I think moving jobs overseas is a bad idea. The oft-ignored benefit that I mentioned above is that jobs are created overseas. The Economist does mention this point in passing, but, with the exception of an anecdote about Indian workers' tastes for brand name clothes, offers nothing in the way of facts or figures to support the argument. Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so myself. But I will offer that, surely, all the anti-globalisers of the world can learn to appreciate a phenomenon that creates jobs in many underdeveloped countries around the world. They might retort that it's not really jobs that companies create, but opportunities to exploit underprivileged workers who have no recourse to a system of established rules and regulations. Though this has happened with manufacturing, it has by no means been the rule. As far as service jobs are concerned, the great majority require a fair degree of education, and thus such exploitation seems much less likely. More importantly, when exploitation has been made an issue, companies have often been forced to improve their practices. Unfortunately, this has not usually been a quick process, and many deplorable practices have gone unchecked for many years. Even so, change for the better has occured, and continues to occur—in large part thanks to the efforts of activists who have seized on the association between a corporation and its products. Thus, capitalism has, built in, a mechanism for dealing with such deplorable practices: it is called branding, which allows the exercise of consumer power. For example, since the campaign to eradicate child labour began, Nike has begun to pay a lot more attention to its supply chain, making a concerted effort to ensure that toddlers are not manufacturing its shoes. For a less hackneyed example, look at the rise in non-financial reporting, something that was almost unheard of ten years ago. At present, Britain is considering making such reporting mandatory.
At this point, there is an important digression that I'd like to make. If we don't like a company's practices, we need not support them. There are often many alternatives available, fair trade coffee (Equal Exchange, Fair Trade Federation, TransFair USA, Global Exchange, and others) and Rugmark come to mind. I admit, such alternatives are not always available, but this does not mean that the whole capitalist system ought to be trashed. NGOs and other assorted activists of the world deserve a great deal of credit for raising awareness about issues concerning the environment and social justice. Their work is important in large part for the information that it adds to the table, without which consumers would be unable to make choices that properly express their preferences (I don't mean to advocate market solutions in all cases, but in many, such solutions can work very well). A few years ago, a book by the name of No Logo achieved widespread acclaim. I should first admit that I have not read it and, unless someone convinces me otherwise, I don't plan to. Though I imagine that the author and I share a general distaste for contemporary forms of advertising and the consumer mentality that they engender, I believe that branding is very important. Brands are the mechanism through which consumers can hold companies to account. Without branding, a lot of the work that activists do to raise awareness would be useless. Again, if we don't like a company's product, we need not buy it. How do we know it's their product? Because they've branded it. Similarly, if we don't like a company's practices, we need not buy their products. Without branding, we would have neither fair trade coffee nor Rugmark rugs.
But back to why moving jobs offshore is, at least in part, a good thing: if the western world bogarts all the jobs, there will be none for other countries. Activists often decry the deplorable poverty that plagues much of the majority world, and so, I should think that a phenomenon that creates jobs in these countries would be applauded. What gives?
(comments wholeheartedly appreciated)
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
? what's in a name
rather more than you might think, but first an update on earlier events.
Pumpkin wine was a failure. Too much yeast, not enough pumpkin. May have had something to do with my having effectively aged the wine on the lees (dead yeast cells) as I was attempting to rack it. I do, however, now have some real wine yeast. Things can only get better from here.
I'm in the middle of writing a philosophy paper, focusing on a paper by Saul Kripke called 'Identity and Necessity". I'm mostly through the first step, providing a coherent account of the argument, and am now working on my own response. I've not the time to go into it now, nor I am really sure that you've the interest, but I'll just say this:
1. For any objects x and y, if x is identical to y, then if x has a certain property F, so does y (substitutivity of identity).
2. Every object is necessarily self-identical.
3. By substitution, we can conclude that, for every x and y, if x = y, it is necessary that x = y. [I don't know how to type logic thingies on here, but this is an instance of the substitutivity law stated in (1)]
4. Therefore, for any objects x and y, if x is y, then it is necessary that x is y.
This all might seem rather uninteresting until you apply it to identity statements, things like 'water is H2O', statements that many of us generally take to be contingent. Kripke proposes that the way out of the apparent paradox of (4) above, is not to regard such identity statements as contigent, but as necessary (specifically, Kripke argues the necessity of identity for both theoretical identity statements, such as 'water is H2O', and for names). For Kripke, any identity statement that involves two rigiddesignators, is necessarily true, if it is true at all. A 'rigid-designator' is any term that refers to the same thing in all possible worlds in which that things exists. Kripke eventually uses this position to argue that the materialist, specifically the 'identity theory' (Every mental state is identical with a particular brain state) view of the mind-body problem is problematic.
I must get back to the writing of the essay. I'll be up in Vancouver over Christmas. I hope that there are still some of you left back home.
Love Ev
Pumpkin wine was a failure. Too much yeast, not enough pumpkin. May have had something to do with my having effectively aged the wine on the lees (dead yeast cells) as I was attempting to rack it. I do, however, now have some real wine yeast. Things can only get better from here.
I'm in the middle of writing a philosophy paper, focusing on a paper by Saul Kripke called 'Identity and Necessity". I'm mostly through the first step, providing a coherent account of the argument, and am now working on my own response. I've not the time to go into it now, nor I am really sure that you've the interest, but I'll just say this:
1. For any objects x and y, if x is identical to y, then if x has a certain property F, so does y (substitutivity of identity).
2. Every object is necessarily self-identical.
3. By substitution, we can conclude that, for every x and y, if x = y, it is necessary that x = y. [I don't know how to type logic thingies on here, but this is an instance of the substitutivity law stated in (1)]
4. Therefore, for any objects x and y, if x is y, then it is necessary that x is y.
This all might seem rather uninteresting until you apply it to identity statements, things like 'water is H2O', statements that many of us generally take to be contingent. Kripke proposes that the way out of the apparent paradox of (4) above, is not to regard such identity statements as contigent, but as necessary (specifically, Kripke argues the necessity of identity for both theoretical identity statements, such as 'water is H2O', and for names). For Kripke, any identity statement that involves two rigiddesignators, is necessarily true, if it is true at all. A 'rigid-designator' is any term that refers to the same thing in all possible worlds in which that things exists. Kripke eventually uses this position to argue that the materialist, specifically the 'identity theory' (Every mental state is identical with a particular brain state) view of the mind-body problem is problematic.
I must get back to the writing of the essay. I'll be up in Vancouver over Christmas. I hope that there are still some of you left back home.
Love Ev
Friday, October 22, 2004
Pumpkin Wine
My first batch of pumpkin wine has just begun fermenting. I hope. My kitchen is a mess, the counters are covered in simple syrup, and there is a trail of pumpkin guts from the dinning room table to the kitchen sink, but I have three hollowed out fermenting pumpkins. In two weeks, give or take a week or a few months, I will hopefully have some drinkable pumpkin wine. For this first foray into winemaking, I dispensed with recipes, winemaking equipment, or even standard winemaking ingredients. I'm using a whole lotta granulated sugar, nine packets of dry active yeast, and lots of water. As I mentioned, I'm fermenting in the pumpkin instead of using a large food grade plastic tank. Fermentation will start in my kitchen for a few days as a sort of jump start, after which I plan to move the pumpkins to my storage area to slow down the fermentation in the hope of encouraging greater flavour development. My biggest concern is that dry active yeast, principally used in making bread, may have a low alcohol toxicity (the percent alcohol at which the yeast will be killed off due to alcohol poisoning). If this is the case, I may end up with some very sweet vaguely alcoholic (5% or so) undrinkable swill. Even if it reaches the 11-15% that I'd like, it may still be undrinkable swill, but at least it won't be too sweet. I hate sweet wines that end with a cloying finish, and I doubt that pumpkin must has the acidity to balance much, if any, residual sugar. To this end, I am going to procure some acidifier from a local wine making store for my second batch, and I will also be using real wine yeasts that are already on their way via UPS. But I still have high hopes for my first batch.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Hollywood Bans Fun
Governor Arnold, in cahoots with the California state legislature, has recently made the production and sale of foie gras illegal in the state of California as of 2012. Siding with animal rights activists, he says that the force feeding methods used to produce foie gras are cruel. And he's probably right. But I doubt that the force fed geese are significantly less happy than the chickens, cows, pigs and other animals that are mass produced in factory farms across North America. Is this the beginning in a revolution in animal husbandry? Will we soon find ourselves eating Kobe style chicken and Kobe style bacon? Will all of our animals be massaged, fed luxurious diets and slaugtered when they least expect it? As tantalizingly tasty a prospect as it is, I do not find it to be terribly practical, or fair. If consumers want to pay for humanely raised meat, let them do so. If, however, they'd prefer the economic savings created by cruel factory farms, then let them make that choice as well.
If anyone hasn't tasted the creamy goodness that is foie gras, may I suggest that you get a few friends together and cook some up tonight. You'll need about a two hundred bucks, a hundred for the foie gras and and a hundred for the wine. Besides the cruel force feeding, this is the main reason that I don't eat foie gras. But should you find yourself with the money to spare, a hundred dollars will get you 1-1.5 lbs. of fresh goose foie gras and the other hundred should afford you a fine bottle of a 1983 Rieussec, an excellent vintage from a fine chateau. Don't forget to invite me over.
If anyone hasn't tasted the creamy goodness that is foie gras, may I suggest that you get a few friends together and cook some up tonight. You'll need about a two hundred bucks, a hundred for the foie gras and and a hundred for the wine. Besides the cruel force feeding, this is the main reason that I don't eat foie gras. But should you find yourself with the money to spare, a hundred dollars will get you 1-1.5 lbs. of fresh goose foie gras and the other hundred should afford you a fine bottle of a 1983 Rieussec, an excellent vintage from a fine chateau. Don't forget to invite me over.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Lacan, non-self, and other personal musings
I recently pulled my first all-nighter of the semester. As I see it, I'm doing pretty well. Almost halfway through the semester and only one night of no sleep. I have an upcoming phil paper (Descartes) and a presentation on Foucault's "History of Sexuality", but I think I can get through those without any painful sleepless nights.
Lit theory was interesting yesterday. We discussed Lacan's mirror stage article. I don't know what the title of the English translation is, but in French it's "Le stade du miroir comme formateur de la fonction du Je" (roughly: The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function"). Though Lacan touches on other things, the heart of this article is his analysis of subjectivity. In Lacan's view, at some early point along the line, one comes to recognize oneself as a coherent whole through the experience of seing oneself reflected in, for example, a mirror. The problem with what I have just written are the words 'one' and 'oneself'. In the sentence above, 'one' implies a pre-existing subject that can recognize 'oneself' in the mirror, and 'oneself' implies an existing subject. Please do not be confused by these implications. 'One' does not exist as SUBJECT (this is an important word choice) until one has subjectivity, that is, until one has recognized 'onself'. However 'oneself' does not exist. It is a conceptual ideal, a notion that we construct, but not something we can ever obtain. Be careful, words like 'we' in the last sentence suffer similar problems as those already mentioned for 'one'. So what is subjectivity? For Lacan, subjectivity is simply the desire for coherence, which can also be called wholeness.
This all got me to thinking that it would be interesting to look at different theories of non-self. It's something I might one day write a book on, if I ever do such a thing. Thus far in my life, I have become acquainted with the following:
Ferdinand de Saussure: As far as I'm aware the first person (in the west) to propose that meaning is differentially established. There are probably some who proposed this before him, but his concept of the sign really does a nice job of describing a world in which there is no inherent, pre-existing meaning, or if you will, 'thingness', or you might say 'suchness'
Jacques Derrida: I've read some of his writing, including his exlanation of différance. I'm not going to hasard an attempt to say anything about it at this point. I'll just say that I plan to go back and reread some of his writing as, at least some of it is clear and lucid, despite that much of it is, well, difficult.
Jaques Lacan: as described above
Buddhist Philosophy: In particular, notions of shunyata, or emptiness, that might more accurately by tranlated as 'empty of suchness'.
Contempoary theories of Conciousness as an emergent property: I know little about this. Jedd and I went to hear a philosopher speak at UBC who spoke very briefly about his work on conciousness and his views of it as an emergent property. I remember being struck by the similarities to some of buddhist theory/philosophy. Near the end of his presentation, he read some of the negative reactions that other philosophers have had to his work. They were strikingly similar to the common (and sane/reasonable) response of an indignant 'wtf' when people are told in an intro buddhist studies class that the self does not exist.
Any one have any ideas of any others?
Lit theory was interesting yesterday. We discussed Lacan's mirror stage article. I don't know what the title of the English translation is, but in French it's "Le stade du miroir comme formateur de la fonction du Je" (roughly: The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function"). Though Lacan touches on other things, the heart of this article is his analysis of subjectivity. In Lacan's view, at some early point along the line, one comes to recognize oneself as a coherent whole through the experience of seing oneself reflected in, for example, a mirror. The problem with what I have just written are the words 'one' and 'oneself'. In the sentence above, 'one' implies a pre-existing subject that can recognize 'oneself' in the mirror, and 'oneself' implies an existing subject. Please do not be confused by these implications. 'One' does not exist as SUBJECT (this is an important word choice) until one has subjectivity, that is, until one has recognized 'onself'. However 'oneself' does not exist. It is a conceptual ideal, a notion that we construct, but not something we can ever obtain. Be careful, words like 'we' in the last sentence suffer similar problems as those already mentioned for 'one'. So what is subjectivity? For Lacan, subjectivity is simply the desire for coherence, which can also be called wholeness.
This all got me to thinking that it would be interesting to look at different theories of non-self. It's something I might one day write a book on, if I ever do such a thing. Thus far in my life, I have become acquainted with the following:
Ferdinand de Saussure: As far as I'm aware the first person (in the west) to propose that meaning is differentially established. There are probably some who proposed this before him, but his concept of the sign really does a nice job of describing a world in which there is no inherent, pre-existing meaning, or if you will, 'thingness', or you might say 'suchness'
Jacques Derrida: I've read some of his writing, including his exlanation of différance. I'm not going to hasard an attempt to say anything about it at this point. I'll just say that I plan to go back and reread some of his writing as, at least some of it is clear and lucid, despite that much of it is, well, difficult.
Jaques Lacan: as described above
Buddhist Philosophy: In particular, notions of shunyata, or emptiness, that might more accurately by tranlated as 'empty of suchness'.
Contempoary theories of Conciousness as an emergent property: I know little about this. Jedd and I went to hear a philosopher speak at UBC who spoke very briefly about his work on conciousness and his views of it as an emergent property. I remember being struck by the similarities to some of buddhist theory/philosophy. Near the end of his presentation, he read some of the negative reactions that other philosophers have had to his work. They were strikingly similar to the common (and sane/reasonable) response of an indignant 'wtf' when people are told in an intro buddhist studies class that the self does not exist.
Any one have any ideas of any others?
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The difficulties of sunshine
Mostly, I'm having a hard time staying focused on my reading. It's a beautiful autumn day here. Looking through the old lead pane windows of the library, I see leaves in every shade from green to red, many of them backlit by the golden afternoon sunshine.
The last week has been good. Busy as usual, but mostly interesting and engaging. I had a great time at the radio show. The music was a bit more ecletic than usual. I don't know than anyone but me appreciated the transition from the depressed soundscape of Radiohead's 'Kid A' to the upbeat good o'l rock and roll of Roy Orbison's 'Candy Man'. I followed that with 'Hey Ya!" and after that my memory is a little blurry.
I discovered a new beer. Some of you may know of the 'Anchor Steam' beer made by the Anchor Brewing company of San Francisco. It manages to be at once complex and refreshing. Last night I decided to give both their 'Liberty Ale' and 'Anchor Porter' a try. The Anchor Porter wasn't bad, not something I'll buy again, but not a bad beer by any means. The Liberty Ale was however very good. It's dry hopped and so has a very nice fresh fruity/floral hop character that I really like. If you Bridgeport's 'Blue Heron', I'm sure you'll like the Liberty Ale, which is, in my opinion, a better beer. Unfortunately, I don't know that the Liberty is available up in Canada. As of a couple years ago, I'd only ever seen their Anchor Steam in Vancouver.
I'm off to read Plutarch. I hope all of you are having a good weekend.
The last week has been good. Busy as usual, but mostly interesting and engaging. I had a great time at the radio show. The music was a bit more ecletic than usual. I don't know than anyone but me appreciated the transition from the depressed soundscape of Radiohead's 'Kid A' to the upbeat good o'l rock and roll of Roy Orbison's 'Candy Man'. I followed that with 'Hey Ya!" and after that my memory is a little blurry.
I discovered a new beer. Some of you may know of the 'Anchor Steam' beer made by the Anchor Brewing company of San Francisco. It manages to be at once complex and refreshing. Last night I decided to give both their 'Liberty Ale' and 'Anchor Porter' a try. The Anchor Porter wasn't bad, not something I'll buy again, but not a bad beer by any means. The Liberty Ale was however very good. It's dry hopped and so has a very nice fresh fruity/floral hop character that I really like. If you Bridgeport's 'Blue Heron', I'm sure you'll like the Liberty Ale, which is, in my opinion, a better beer. Unfortunately, I don't know that the Liberty is available up in Canada. As of a couple years ago, I'd only ever seen their Anchor Steam in Vancouver.
I'm off to read Plutarch. I hope all of you are having a good weekend.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
A quick respite (from my homework)
I'm knee deep in homework, or a least I should be. I've just poured myself some coffee and am about to analyze some stellar spectra data for chem conference tomorrow. My coffee is a bit toasty. I left the french press to sit for a good ten minutes, probably more, while I let myself get sucked away into the pages of the Economist.
It has been a long time since the phrase 'gun-totting xenophobic troglodyte' has been written on this pages. I believe the phrase was originally coined by the author of the late 'Echoland', whose fine analysis and witty insight are sorely missed. The phrase came to mind as I was reading "The world this week", a section, compiled of short news summaries, that appears at the beginning of each week's issue. If anyone has every typified that subsection of Americana we all know and love to hate, it is these men whom I'm sure, you will well agree, are this year's gun-totting xenophobic troglodytes of the year.
From the Economist:
Three Americans, including a special-forces veteran, were jailed by a court in Afghanistan for up to ten years for waging a freelance war on terror, which involved running a private prison, kidnapping and torture. The men were arrested in Kabul after a shootout with police. Eight prisoners were later set free from a private house in the city.
If anyone would like to challenge my nomination, I urge to do so.
It has been a long time since the phrase 'gun-totting xenophobic troglodyte' has been written on this pages. I believe the phrase was originally coined by the author of the late 'Echoland', whose fine analysis and witty insight are sorely missed. The phrase came to mind as I was reading "The world this week", a section, compiled of short news summaries, that appears at the beginning of each week's issue. If anyone has every typified that subsection of Americana we all know and love to hate, it is these men whom I'm sure, you will well agree, are this year's gun-totting xenophobic troglodytes of the year.
From the Economist:
Three Americans, including a special-forces veteran, were jailed by a court in Afghanistan for up to ten years for waging a freelance war on terror, which involved running a private prison, kidnapping and torture. The men were arrested in Kabul after a shootout with police. Eight prisoners were later set free from a private house in the city.
If anyone would like to challenge my nomination, I urge to do so.
Damn Fool
Descartes is a circuitous twerp. That's about all I have to say after my reading of the last few hours (Meditations, II, III, and V). Perhaps I need to go back and reread some sections, but it seems that things (external to my incorporeal mind) exist because I perceive them clearly and distinctly, and that god exists because it is part of his essence to exist. Oh, and I exist because I think. The last assertion is (in a way) consonant with some of my own views, however I don't think that Rene and I share many views on ideas of existence and 'to exist'.
I think this might all be helped a bit by a good night's sleep and a fresh cup of coffee, with morning sunshine illuminating the pages of my book, but I have neither the time nor, at the moment, the will. Perhaps I am the 'damn fool.
I'm looking forward to reading the fourth Meditation.
I think this might all be helped a bit by a good night's sleep and a fresh cup of coffee, with morning sunshine illuminating the pages of my book, but I have neither the time nor, at the moment, the will. Perhaps I am the 'damn fool.
I'm looking forward to reading the fourth Meditation.
Monday, September 20, 2004
So True
Thanks to Jedd for pointing me to pitchforkmedia. I've just spent the last half hour perusing the site during which I had an experience similar to what Jedd described. It is because of that that I entitled this post, "so true".
I was reading the top 100 albums of the 1970's and came across this description of Led Zeppelin IV (placed as #7):
We must be lying to ourselves: There is no way this album should not be #1. If my fellow PFM writers could go to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's memory-erasure clinic and wipe out everything related to this record and band-- the radio overplay, the Spinal Tap jokes, Robert Plant asking, "Does anybody remember laughter?"-- and hear IV again for the first time, it would be at the very top of this list. Because when the riff from "Black Dog" hits you for the first time, you come face to face with God. Nothing is bigger than Led Zeppelin IV. It tears your skin and grinds away your doubt and self-hatred, freeing the rage and lust and anger of cockblocked adolescence. Listening to this album is like fucking the Grand Canyon.
After reading the top 100 list, and feeling myself a bit of a musical philistine, I proceeded to download all the free music. I've not listened to any of it, not yet, but I will. I'm fighting the good fight, trying to branch out and blaze new trails in my musical lanscape. If any of it warrants your attention, I'll let you know.
I was reading the top 100 albums of the 1970's and came across this description of Led Zeppelin IV (placed as #7):
We must be lying to ourselves: There is no way this album should not be #1. If my fellow PFM writers could go to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's memory-erasure clinic and wipe out everything related to this record and band-- the radio overplay, the Spinal Tap jokes, Robert Plant asking, "Does anybody remember laughter?"-- and hear IV again for the first time, it would be at the very top of this list. Because when the riff from "Black Dog" hits you for the first time, you come face to face with God. Nothing is bigger than Led Zeppelin IV. It tears your skin and grinds away your doubt and self-hatred, freeing the rage and lust and anger of cockblocked adolescence. Listening to this album is like fucking the Grand Canyon.
After reading the top 100 list, and feeling myself a bit of a musical philistine, I proceeded to download all the free music. I've not listened to any of it, not yet, but I will. I'm fighting the good fight, trying to branch out and blaze new trails in my musical lanscape. If any of it warrants your attention, I'll let you know.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Poor Man's Corona
1 can of Pabst Blue Ribbon (or other cheap beer, but remember, freedom wears a Blue Ribbon)
1 frosted glass
1 wedge of lime
An alternate name for this drink might be something like "Wise Man's Corona", or perhaps "Corona for the not so foolish". For all of you Canadians back home, Pabst falls somewhere between Canadian and TNT. Cheap beer that tastes vaguely different from water. For an even more refreshing alternative, Pabst Light.
1 frosted glass
1 wedge of lime
An alternate name for this drink might be something like "Wise Man's Corona", or perhaps "Corona for the not so foolish". For all of you Canadians back home, Pabst falls somewhere between Canadian and TNT. Cheap beer that tastes vaguely different from water. For an even more refreshing alternative, Pabst Light.
Julia's Kitchen Wisdom
Though there is a small cookbook by this name, this post has nothing to do with that book. It's a good book, I've owned it for a few years now, and it is one of the few cookbooks that I actually use, but the inspiration for the post came about as I was perusing the pages of "Julia and Jacques: Cooking at Home", with the eventual goal of looking up a recipe for roast chicken. It seems almost a contradiction in terms to talk of a "recipe for roast chicken" as almost all that is important about roasting a chicken cannot really be encapsulated in a recipe. The basics, some butter and maybe some olive oil, a lot of garlic and a goodly amount of salt and pepper, seem to go without saying. Would anyone really think of roasting a chicken without bgsp (butter, garlic, salt, pepper)? Many other additions are possible (lemons, sage, other herbs, onions, stuffing,...), but the only other thing that really matters, and it certainly matters the most, is how the chicken is cooked. Brown crispy skin and tender juicy meat seem like such simple things. But any who have tasted a perfectly roasted chicken and tried to replicate it themselves, know how elusive that simple delight can be. Which brings me back to the idea of recipe. The two things which matter most (earlier, I neglected the second), proper cooking, and the selection of a good quality chicken, cannot really be conveyed in a recipe. But, it's a good place to start. If all this has got you wondering, I'll outline the basics
1. Find a good butcher. Buy a fresh chicken, we'll say a three and a half pound bird.
2. Preheat oven to 425, rinse and dry the chicken.
3. Massage the chicken with butter.
As the late Mrs. Child said:
Not everything that I do with my roast chicken is necesssarily scientific. Many aspects of my method are based on my feeling and experience. For instance, I always give my bird a generous butter massage before I put it in the oven. Why? Because I think the chicken likes it—and, more important, I like to give it.
4. Salt, pepper, garlic, and whatever else your heart desires.
5. Cook the chicken.
This is where things get complicated. Should the chicken be trussed or not? To use a v-shaped rack or not (or, Julia vs Jacque, he prefers to roast the chicken on its side on the pan). So select a method, follow it a few times, and then experiment with your own variations. For example, after 15 min, Julia reduces the heat to 350, whereas Jaques reduces it to 400 after 25 mins.
6. Testing for doneness: The chicken is done when the juices run clear, no matter where you poke (breasts and under the thigh). If you're very skilled, you might just prod the thighs and drumsticks with your finger, they should be tender. I once ate turkey that was cooked to perfection using the simple finger prodding method to check for doneness.
7. Let the chicken rest for 15 mins before carving.
8. Don't forget to have a glass or two of wine while your cooking. It keeps things jovial and Julia would be happy (because you're enjoying the wonderful process of culinary creation, not because you're a lush).
I don't yet have my 'own' roast chicken method, but I'm working on it. Until then, I don't think that I'll feel complete as a cook.
I'll let y'all know how tonight's went. Kitty is preparing her own version of Mrs. Child's method.
1. Find a good butcher. Buy a fresh chicken, we'll say a three and a half pound bird.
2. Preheat oven to 425, rinse and dry the chicken.
3. Massage the chicken with butter.
As the late Mrs. Child said:
Not everything that I do with my roast chicken is necesssarily scientific. Many aspects of my method are based on my feeling and experience. For instance, I always give my bird a generous butter massage before I put it in the oven. Why? Because I think the chicken likes it—and, more important, I like to give it.
4. Salt, pepper, garlic, and whatever else your heart desires.
5. Cook the chicken.
This is where things get complicated. Should the chicken be trussed or not? To use a v-shaped rack or not (or, Julia vs Jacque, he prefers to roast the chicken on its side on the pan). So select a method, follow it a few times, and then experiment with your own variations. For example, after 15 min, Julia reduces the heat to 350, whereas Jaques reduces it to 400 after 25 mins.
6. Testing for doneness: The chicken is done when the juices run clear, no matter where you poke (breasts and under the thigh). If you're very skilled, you might just prod the thighs and drumsticks with your finger, they should be tender. I once ate turkey that was cooked to perfection using the simple finger prodding method to check for doneness.
7. Let the chicken rest for 15 mins before carving.
8. Don't forget to have a glass or two of wine while your cooking. It keeps things jovial and Julia would be happy (because you're enjoying the wonderful process of culinary creation, not because you're a lush).
I don't yet have my 'own' roast chicken method, but I'm working on it. Until then, I don't think that I'll feel complete as a cook.
I'll let y'all know how tonight's went. Kitty is preparing her own version of Mrs. Child's method.
"I think if Chopin had played guitar, he would have sounded like Lenny Breau" - Chet Atkins
I was first introduced to Lenny by a guitar playing old friend of mine. He came over to my house in sort of a state. We'd planned to head for lunch, but at that point, nothing was possible. My friend was adamant that we absolutely had to sit down and listen to Cabin Fever, an album Lenny recorded while living alone in the woods of Canada. I quickly understood why. Lenny is one of those rare guitarists who combine glorious technical virtuosity with beautiful musicality.
I was first introduced to Lenny by a guitar playing old friend of mine. He came over to my house in sort of a state. We'd planned to head for lunch, but at that point, nothing was possible. My friend was adamant that we absolutely had to sit down and listen to Cabin Fever, an album Lenny recorded while living alone in the woods of Canada. I quickly understood why. Lenny is one of those rare guitarists who combine glorious technical virtuosity with beautiful musicality.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Home at last
It has been a while. I've been back from the wilds of Colorado and buddhist boot camp for a little over two weeks now. Up until this afternoon, I'd entirely forgotten that this thing existed. I've forgotten what it was that jogged my memory, but there was more than a moment of hesitation as I pondered whether or not to reignite this curious passtime. Had I choosen not to, my studies would certainly have benefitted, however I enjoy this shared forum for banter, inane and profound, much too much to let it go at this point.
The nine weeks I spent at Shambhala Mountain Center were wonderful. It was hard at times. I missed Kitty a lot, and the schedule was much like being in school --but we didn't get any weekends. I met an ecletic group of interesting and intelligent people, and left with a handful of new friends. I don't think I'm going to try and give a blow by blow of the entire two months, but I'll start with a brief and general introduction.
The first month I spent in a program called "Sutrayana Seminary". During Sutrayana, students study the teachings of buddhism as conveyed by the hinayana and mahayana. These are the most widely accepted of the buddha's teachings and are common to most sects of buddhism (one couldn't call oneself 'buddhist' without a foundation in the hinayana). This was followed by a month of studying the Vajrayana, a path towards attaining enlightenment in this lifetime (or, quite simply, much more quickly) that one undertakes after preliminary (and foundational) preparation in the hinayana and mahayana. In a very loose sense, the three vehicles (towards attaining enlightenment (yana can be translated as 'vehicle')) can be summed up in these three phrases by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche:
Do no harm [hinayana]
Benefit others [mahayana]
Enjoy life [vajrayana]
And there you have it, the entire teachings of buddhism in seven words. It's really rather simple, and yet these simple phrases, when properly understood and wholeheartedly applied, can have very profound and far reaching ramifications. You might then wonder, why all this intensive study and elaborate ceremony? The most straigforward answer is that it is necessary because we just don't get it. Over and over, again and again, we make the mistake of believing in the solidity of both ourselves and the phenomenal world exterior to us (this seperation is itself rather questionable). This is not to espouse some sort of nihilistic nothingness. The phenomenal world is still very real and everpresent. You've probably heard of 'the middle way' before. The middle way is a mahayana idea that lies at the heart of a proper understanding of emptiness or shunyata. My favourite translation of shunyata (usually translated as 'emptiness') is 'empty of suchness'. It's the idea of suchness that is key for me. What buddhism is essentially saying, is that most of our relations with the phenomenal world are enclosed in concepts that we construct and believe to be real, self-existing, and independant, when in fact they are simply the result of many different factors coming together at once. This is also true of our idea of self, it too is a mental construct.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had last night with a friend of mine. We were talking about causation and he mentioned that David Hume said that causation was nothing more than conjunction. I'm not sure that I've fully thought this through, but I believe that that is fairly close to the buddhist understanding of interdependance in which nothing can be pointed to as a first cause.
I haven't explained this terribly well. I will write more later. I hope no one feels that I have ranted excessively or any such thing. I will try and write more again soon.
Love Evan
The nine weeks I spent at Shambhala Mountain Center were wonderful. It was hard at times. I missed Kitty a lot, and the schedule was much like being in school --but we didn't get any weekends. I met an ecletic group of interesting and intelligent people, and left with a handful of new friends. I don't think I'm going to try and give a blow by blow of the entire two months, but I'll start with a brief and general introduction.
The first month I spent in a program called "Sutrayana Seminary". During Sutrayana, students study the teachings of buddhism as conveyed by the hinayana and mahayana. These are the most widely accepted of the buddha's teachings and are common to most sects of buddhism (one couldn't call oneself 'buddhist' without a foundation in the hinayana). This was followed by a month of studying the Vajrayana, a path towards attaining enlightenment in this lifetime (or, quite simply, much more quickly) that one undertakes after preliminary (and foundational) preparation in the hinayana and mahayana. In a very loose sense, the three vehicles (towards attaining enlightenment (yana can be translated as 'vehicle')) can be summed up in these three phrases by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche:
Do no harm [hinayana]
Benefit others [mahayana]
Enjoy life [vajrayana]
And there you have it, the entire teachings of buddhism in seven words. It's really rather simple, and yet these simple phrases, when properly understood and wholeheartedly applied, can have very profound and far reaching ramifications. You might then wonder, why all this intensive study and elaborate ceremony? The most straigforward answer is that it is necessary because we just don't get it. Over and over, again and again, we make the mistake of believing in the solidity of both ourselves and the phenomenal world exterior to us (this seperation is itself rather questionable). This is not to espouse some sort of nihilistic nothingness. The phenomenal world is still very real and everpresent. You've probably heard of 'the middle way' before. The middle way is a mahayana idea that lies at the heart of a proper understanding of emptiness or shunyata. My favourite translation of shunyata (usually translated as 'emptiness') is 'empty of suchness'. It's the idea of suchness that is key for me. What buddhism is essentially saying, is that most of our relations with the phenomenal world are enclosed in concepts that we construct and believe to be real, self-existing, and independant, when in fact they are simply the result of many different factors coming together at once. This is also true of our idea of self, it too is a mental construct.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had last night with a friend of mine. We were talking about causation and he mentioned that David Hume said that causation was nothing more than conjunction. I'm not sure that I've fully thought this through, but I believe that that is fairly close to the buddhist understanding of interdependance in which nothing can be pointed to as a first cause.
I haven't explained this terribly well. I will write more later. I hope no one feels that I have ranted excessively or any such thing. I will try and write more again soon.
Love Evan
Sunday, May 09, 2004
Power of Purpose
I've got some purpose for all of you. How would you like to get paid $28 a word to write a modest 3500 word essay. Go check out Power of Purpose. You'll find details about an essay competition with a 100,000 grand prize. This isn't in your inbox, it's not a joke. Go win some mad cash, find your true purpose.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Update
The links have been update. In addition to the Alfred Hitchcok links, I've added a link to Textism and Philsophy. Both are blogs of sorts. I haven't really explored the latter, but it seems interesting. I came across the former last night while not doing my paper that was due today. The reason I've posted a link to it is because it has a very nice overview of the 20 excellent type faces/fonts.
Life is good. School is nearing its end for the year. Two more weeks, then exams and then I'm done.
Dyl is heading to Oman, and then perhaps to Madagascar.
Hope all of you are doing well.
Life is good. School is nearing its end for the year. Two more weeks, then exams and then I'm done.
Dyl is heading to Oman, and then perhaps to Madagascar.
Hope all of you are doing well.
Friday, April 09, 2004
A Contrast
I had a most wonderful film class this afternoon. We began with a very animated discussion of an article by Arlette Farge about the relationshp between History, film, the subject, and history. From there we moved onto a general discussion of the New Wave. We'd all read an article by Antoine deBaeque that situates the New Wave in a very specific historical context, 1957-1962. As part of this dicussion we watched a few excerpts from some classic new wave films. Most notably, we watched a wonderful scene from Godard's "Band of Outsiders". The scene begins with the three main characteris seated at a table in a brasserie. They are having a conversation that is at once mundane and profoundly philosopical. At some point, the conversation moves into a discussion of silence and then, whoopp!, all of the sudden the sound dissapears, and we the viewers enjoy a 'minute' (actually around 40 seconds I think) of silence. Dialogue, and sound, then return with an invitation by one of the three to dance. A very cheerful, upbeat, dance routine then begins. At some point however, all the onscreen sound stops, and we hear Godard's (off-screen) voice narrating what's going on between the characters. It then returns to dancing, then to Godard, then dancing, till the scene ends. I couldn't stop tapping my fingers and humming for quite a while after we'd stopped watching. The song the dance to is great (I'll have to look it up). The reason this post is titled contrast is because after this jovial movie watching experience, we quickly finished the discussion and the prof screened Alain Renais' "Nuit et Brouillard" (Night and Fog) for us. I don't want to hasard a description of this film. It is a very well done documentary of the Holocaust. Very painful. Very sad.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Maynard Loves his Wine
It's not often that I find my different interests crossing paths in this way. A recent article on the Winespectator website details Tool singer, Maynard James Keenan's passion for wine. I can't say that the article is particularly interesting (though you should check it out for the picture of Maynard), either from a musical perspective, or a wine perspective. It's one of those human interest stories that doesn't really say much of anything, at least in and of itself. There is perhaps something interesting in watching the counter-cultural become not quite so counter. But I don't think it's really that big a surprise. We all remember Zack and his Ford explorer don't we. Well, Maynard is the proud owner of near complete verticals of Grange, and in his own words, "A page and half of Sassicaia [very good, very well known, Italian Cab Sauv with a little Cab Franc] on one wine list is enough to make my heart stop." Now I quite agree with his sentiment, and I would be most delighted to have verticals of Grange in my cellar. But it just goes to show you how rare trully revolutionary discourse really is. I guess I should add that I don't think Tool has ever really sold themself on more than their particular aesthetic (unlike RATM). So I don't begrudge Maynard his wine. It's just funny to see how he and Tool get presented to the public and, in turn, how the public chooses to receive them.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Friday Night
It's Friday night down here in the United States of the Americas. What the hell is that? Isn't Canada a part of the Americas? How 'bout all those South American countries? God damn american hegemony!
I'm too tipsy to be talking about politics. Spearhead is currently playing. I'm in the middle of a radio show. I'd like to say the crowd is bumpin' in front of me, but alas, that is not the case. It has been, but not tonight. There seems to be something going on in the SU that is more enticing than my music. What has this world come to. We're now moving to the "Seed 2.0"; just a little soundtrack update.
This week has been good. Uneventful, but interesting. My lit theory class has moved on to Marxism. Thus far, we've been looking more at it as cultural theory/critical theory, though I guess the two are in many ways inseperable from lit theory. Marxism seems to make the point, or at least maintain the hope, that there could be something better. Modern day capitalism on the other hand, views us humans as inherently self-interested; sadly, it seems to have proven a more accurate description of reality, but perhaps that is just because it has dominated the discussion. Aha, the Marxist conceit. Ahhhh! somehow my not so sober mind made it back to politics, and I haven't even been very eloquent.
I'm drinking bourbon. That's about the extent of my life at this present moment. Ohh, I'm also listening to MC Solaire.
But I think this is enough for now. I hope all of you are having as much fun as I am.
I'm too tipsy to be talking about politics. Spearhead is currently playing. I'm in the middle of a radio show. I'd like to say the crowd is bumpin' in front of me, but alas, that is not the case. It has been, but not tonight. There seems to be something going on in the SU that is more enticing than my music. What has this world come to. We're now moving to the "Seed 2.0"; just a little soundtrack update.
This week has been good. Uneventful, but interesting. My lit theory class has moved on to Marxism. Thus far, we've been looking more at it as cultural theory/critical theory, though I guess the two are in many ways inseperable from lit theory. Marxism seems to make the point, or at least maintain the hope, that there could be something better. Modern day capitalism on the other hand, views us humans as inherently self-interested; sadly, it seems to have proven a more accurate description of reality, but perhaps that is just because it has dominated the discussion. Aha, the Marxist conceit. Ahhhh! somehow my not so sober mind made it back to politics, and I haven't even been very eloquent.
I'm drinking bourbon. That's about the extent of my life at this present moment. Ohh, I'm also listening to MC Solaire.
But I think this is enough for now. I hope all of you are having as much fun as I am.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Robert Bresson
I recently watched Bresson's "A Man Escaped from Death or The Wind Will Blow Where it Wants". It's a wonderful movie, one of the most memorable I have ever seen. The film very nicely straddles the fence between an existentialist view of reality oriented towards individual action, and a christian view where Providence has great import. If time allows over the weekend, I may say something about it in a little more depth. For now, I must be off. I have to come to some sort of understanding of Deleuze's "Image-mouvement" for my presentation tomorrow.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Amnesty International Toes the Wrong Line
In a recent report entitled "It's in our Hands: Stop Violence Against Women", Amnesty International has come out in favour of voluntary censorship. As an article from the Globe and Mail online says:
Amnesty says it is not officially condemning Kill Bill, a film about an ex-assassin betrayed by her boss who swears revenge on her former master, or calling for censorship of Hollywood films.
Instead, the human-rights group, which also lobbies for freedom of expression, is calling on filmmakers, entertainers and the media to be more responsible in their depiction of women.
"People should think when they compose music or lyrics how their attitudes towards women may contribute to violence against women," said Gita Sahgal, who is with Amnesty's international secretariat. "We are not calling for a ban on films, or for more controls. The film industry contributes to a tolerance of violence towards women. We urge those in popular culture to think about ways they might be stereotyping women."
My problem is this:
I don't believe we need anyone handing Lieberman, Gore, and their future ilk (Liberal and Conservative alike) anymore fodder for pushing through censorship legislation (or anthing similar in Canada). In supporting the view that popular culture determines peoples' belief structure (I'm just making up terms here) and, hence (to some extent), their consequent action, Amnesty has given that movement (pro-censorship) greater credence and a larger voice. The problem is that politicians tend not towards voluntary arrangements, but to legislation and its consequent laws. As conceivable as it is that Amnesty and other censorship minded politicians may be right about the deleterious effect of pop culture on morality, the risk of government censhorship is a far greater evil than the possible consequences of any cultural artifact (books, movie, music, etc.). Though Amnesty states that they "are not calling" for censorship, their position on the underlying issue cannot but advance the cause of the would be censors.
An afterthought:
Having stated the case as I believe it needs to be, I am willing to admit that I was perhaps too polemical in arguing the above. Though I did admit that it is conceivable that art has a direct influence on morality, I didn't give any reasons as to why. This is in part because I haven't the faintest idea myself, at least not in any coherent articulable manner. But I will at least add here that some notable philosophers believe art to have a rather powerful ability in the domain of moral education/analysis. Both Martha Nussbaum and the late Iris Murdoch have written about the literary text as a focus for ethical issues. The former has asserted, controversially, that novels can themselves be works of moral philosophy.
If a text can elucidate morality, can it not then also obfuscate it, perhaps hampering it and bringing about a regression in moral aptitude? Could this not also be true of other mediums of communication (other arts). It seems rather odd to speak of moral aptitude. Being that I am not ethicist, I may have framed the question wrong, though in Mrs. Murdoch's view it would be my ignorance of metaphysics that has left me unable to formulate the proper question. If the question interests you, here are a couple of journals worth looking at (I haven't read them, but they were cited more than occasionally in my cursory research):
"Symposium on Morality and Literature" in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (January, 1988)
"Literature and/as Moral Philosophy" in New Literary History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983)
Amnesty says it is not officially condemning Kill Bill, a film about an ex-assassin betrayed by her boss who swears revenge on her former master, or calling for censorship of Hollywood films.
Instead, the human-rights group, which also lobbies for freedom of expression, is calling on filmmakers, entertainers and the media to be more responsible in their depiction of women.
"People should think when they compose music or lyrics how their attitudes towards women may contribute to violence against women," said Gita Sahgal, who is with Amnesty's international secretariat. "We are not calling for a ban on films, or for more controls. The film industry contributes to a tolerance of violence towards women. We urge those in popular culture to think about ways they might be stereotyping women."
My problem is this:
I don't believe we need anyone handing Lieberman, Gore, and their future ilk (Liberal and Conservative alike) anymore fodder for pushing through censorship legislation (or anthing similar in Canada). In supporting the view that popular culture determines peoples' belief structure (I'm just making up terms here) and, hence (to some extent), their consequent action, Amnesty has given that movement (pro-censorship) greater credence and a larger voice. The problem is that politicians tend not towards voluntary arrangements, but to legislation and its consequent laws. As conceivable as it is that Amnesty and other censorship minded politicians may be right about the deleterious effect of pop culture on morality, the risk of government censhorship is a far greater evil than the possible consequences of any cultural artifact (books, movie, music, etc.). Though Amnesty states that they "are not calling" for censorship, their position on the underlying issue cannot but advance the cause of the would be censors.
An afterthought:
Having stated the case as I believe it needs to be, I am willing to admit that I was perhaps too polemical in arguing the above. Though I did admit that it is conceivable that art has a direct influence on morality, I didn't give any reasons as to why. This is in part because I haven't the faintest idea myself, at least not in any coherent articulable manner. But I will at least add here that some notable philosophers believe art to have a rather powerful ability in the domain of moral education/analysis. Both Martha Nussbaum and the late Iris Murdoch have written about the literary text as a focus for ethical issues. The former has asserted, controversially, that novels can themselves be works of moral philosophy.
If a text can elucidate morality, can it not then also obfuscate it, perhaps hampering it and bringing about a regression in moral aptitude? Could this not also be true of other mediums of communication (other arts). It seems rather odd to speak of moral aptitude. Being that I am not ethicist, I may have framed the question wrong, though in Mrs. Murdoch's view it would be my ignorance of metaphysics that has left me unable to formulate the proper question. If the question interests you, here are a couple of journals worth looking at (I haven't read them, but they were cited more than occasionally in my cursory research):
"Symposium on Morality and Literature" in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (January, 1988)
"Literature and/as Moral Philosophy" in New Literary History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983)
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Check it out
CBC Radio 3 site.
Some of you may have noticed that a link was recently added to the CBC radio 3 website. I was introduced to this site by the autralian philosopher when I was last in Vancouver. The reason I'm pointing out the link is that I think it represents an advance in the manner in which information is disseminated on the web. "Advance" is perhaps not the right word. What's immediately striking about the site is it's graphic design and user interface. Most every page is eye catching, and many are elegantly laid out. Probably the coolest element of the interface is the streaming audio. When you first press play, it selects (randomly?) a song, but if you don't like the song, you can skip to the next one. And you can do this again and again and again. If you are particularly impressed by anything you're listening to, you can connect to a web page about the artist that contains a bio and discography (often with more music available for listening). These two taken together, good design and cool implementation of technology, already make for an enjoyable web site. For the most part, the music playing has no relation to the content on the page (some pages will play their own music, but not many), and what I find particularly interesting (and called an 'advance' up above) is the way the content is organized. Roughly speaking, you browse (or surf) through the site as you would a magazine, clicking on a page icon on the upper right hand corner to symbolically turn the page. There is however no table of contents. There's no sitemap page that splits all of the content into broad categories and then further subdivides them to expedite your information gathering. I referred to this as an advance above because I think it is one of the first sites (first site I've seen) to actually make use of the way in which many people surf the web. Perhaps I am part of a small minority, but I often find myself almost randomly going from page to page with no particular goal in mind, simply following my whim. It is not information of any specific category that I am looking for, but simply interesting information. Some might say that it is to its detriment that this site forces you to relinquish the sense of control inherent in following your own whim, but I think it is rather interesting.
Some of you may have noticed that a link was recently added to the CBC radio 3 website. I was introduced to this site by the autralian philosopher when I was last in Vancouver. The reason I'm pointing out the link is that I think it represents an advance in the manner in which information is disseminated on the web. "Advance" is perhaps not the right word. What's immediately striking about the site is it's graphic design and user interface. Most every page is eye catching, and many are elegantly laid out. Probably the coolest element of the interface is the streaming audio. When you first press play, it selects (randomly?) a song, but if you don't like the song, you can skip to the next one. And you can do this again and again and again. If you are particularly impressed by anything you're listening to, you can connect to a web page about the artist that contains a bio and discography (often with more music available for listening). These two taken together, good design and cool implementation of technology, already make for an enjoyable web site. For the most part, the music playing has no relation to the content on the page (some pages will play their own music, but not many), and what I find particularly interesting (and called an 'advance' up above) is the way the content is organized. Roughly speaking, you browse (or surf) through the site as you would a magazine, clicking on a page icon on the upper right hand corner to symbolically turn the page. There is however no table of contents. There's no sitemap page that splits all of the content into broad categories and then further subdivides them to expedite your information gathering. I referred to this as an advance above because I think it is one of the first sites (first site I've seen) to actually make use of the way in which many people surf the web. Perhaps I am part of a small minority, but I often find myself almost randomly going from page to page with no particular goal in mind, simply following my whim. It is not information of any specific category that I am looking for, but simply interesting information. Some might say that it is to its detriment that this site forces you to relinquish the sense of control inherent in following your own whim, but I think it is rather interesting.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
"Constitutional Amendments are Gay" II
A witty, well-penned slogan that was recently posted on Echoland. The argument that follows it is however not as strong as the slogan is hilarious. The problem is that courts in the US do not decide the definition of marriage on judgements (or scientific fact) of behaviour v. biology. The much more likely criteria are freedom of expression, privacy concerning personal family relationships and, in the case of polygamy, freedom of religion. I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. However it is foolhardy to argue that there is no link between the issue of gay marriage and polygamist marriage. Richard Goldstein writes an interesting article on the issue for the Village Voice.
Hopefully Bush will smarten up and forget the whole Constitutional amendment idea. Beyond those of us who find it a vile and discriminatory proposition, there are many people in his own camp who either think the constitution to be inviolable, or who, considering the more pressing issues facing the nation, believe the whole thing to be a waste of time. What we can hope for is the continued fight for same-sex marriage rights at the state level. Nothing good can come from this going to the Supreme Court, not yet. Either we lose, or we win and a much too large proportion of the nation becomes alienated from the highest court in the land and armed insurrection breaks out. Though I do jest, I think there is a genuine concern regarding a likely increase in hate crimes. Perhaps we think it's worth the risk to have a speedy pro gay marriage resolution, perhaps not. Luckily the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears.
Hopefully Bush will smarten up and forget the whole Constitutional amendment idea. Beyond those of us who find it a vile and discriminatory proposition, there are many people in his own camp who either think the constitution to be inviolable, or who, considering the more pressing issues facing the nation, believe the whole thing to be a waste of time. What we can hope for is the continued fight for same-sex marriage rights at the state level. Nothing good can come from this going to the Supreme Court, not yet. Either we lose, or we win and a much too large proportion of the nation becomes alienated from the highest court in the land and armed insurrection breaks out. Though I do jest, I think there is a genuine concern regarding a likely increase in hate crimes. Perhaps we think it's worth the risk to have a speedy pro gay marriage resolution, perhaps not. Luckily the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The Absurdity in Copyright Laws
Let me preface this post with the statement that I am not a raving anti-establishment anarchist. On the whole, I think well-defined property rights are necessary for the effective functioning of any free society (one might suggest viable alternatives, but I suspect their effective domain will always be small groups). However sometimes the delineation and definition of property rights goes too far.
Recently, this problem has been most in evidence in the realm of intellectual-property. In 1998, fearing the demise of Mickey "the cash cow" Mouse (and numerous other characters), the Walt Disney Company approached Congress requesting an extension of their copyright. Congress responded with, and Clinton signed, the Copyright Term Extension Act (this was by no means the first time that Congress had extended copyrights at the behest of businesses and their associations). The CTEA extends copyright to life plus seventy for works copyrighted by individuals, and to 95 years for works made by or for corporations. A little more than a year ago (Jan 15 2003) the Supreme court held up the CTEA saying that it neither infringed on free speech, nor had Congress overstepped its bounds in passing it (Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented).
The basic argument for intellectual copyright is that it engenders innovation. The idea is that if people can't make any money off of their creativity, then they won't be creative. Within the domain of science and technology, I think this argument holds great force (though I might suggest some specific changes, see below). It has been shown that even with a strong copyright, companies do not accrue all of the benefits of their technological innovations and scientific discoveries. I don't have the research at hand, but my fuzzy brain says they get something less than half of the total benefit to society (total benefit to society includes the benefit to the company). However, in the realm of the arts, I don't find that the argument has much sway. At a certain level, artists produce art because it is what they like to do. They should certainly be compensated, and should certainly have a limited monopoly over their work for a period of time. However it is not at all clear that one hundred years and up is in any way reasonable.
It's also worth looking at all the great art that, had it been produced under today's copyright laws, would constitute theft:
Shakespeare:
-His "Romeo and Juliet" owes a great deal to a poem by the same name written a mere thirty years earlier (by Arthur Brooke)
-Many of his historical plays would infringe on Holingshead's "Chronicles of England"
Disney:
Cinderella,Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and others were based on works in the Public Domain. And of course, Mickey himself was based on another cartoon character.
Music:
Both Jazz and, especially, Hip Hop developed a great deal through the interpretation and sampling of other peoples' music.
This all brings me to the more current events of DJ Danger Mouse vs. the EMI. Not too long ago, Mr. Danger Mouse released the critically acclaimed "Grey Album". It is, as one might guess, a remix of the Beatle's "White Album" and Jay-Z's "Black Album". I'm not going to summarize the particulars of the case here as this is done more than adequately elsewhere (see links below). I will however say that I think the terms of copyright need to be relaxed on artwork in general. This is a difficult issue. A few years back the Verve Symphony released a song whose entire melody was lifted from a Rolling Stones song. The Stones permitted the use in exchange for all of the royalties from that song. That is a bit excessive, but the Stones melody made what would have otherwise been a hollow and vapid song a success. And therein lies the crux of the issue. I don't think future artists should be able to repackage existing genius and turn a profit; I am however all for the reinterpretation and transformative use of existing material. How do we differentiate the two? I am inclined to think that this ideal is not really possible. We must, to some extent, choose one side or the other. The question is which side, and to what degree. As I've said, I think copyright law is currently too restrictive. To pick a number out of the sky, I'd say that the copyright on a work of art should be no more than fifty years from the date of creation (I'd concede an extension on this in the case of outright and entire duplication). After fifty years, a work should be mostly, if not entirely, in the public domain. Additionally, I'd like to see an expansion of the fair use guidelines so a to allow works such as the "Grey Album" (some have claimed that fair use already allows such works, but I'm not convinced these claims will stand up in court) to circulate unimpeded by spurious claims of ownership.
Links
DJ Danger Mouse
Illegal Art
Grey Tuesday
Eldred V. Ashcroft (the CTEA Supreme Court decision)
This is the see below: A friend of mine recently suggested that the copyright on scientific journal articles be limited to about four months. As it is, access to journals is very expensive, and it is thus very difficult to find all the information one might want in a given subject area. If I may, let me present an idealized vision: a grand database containing all of the research ever published nicely organized and crossreferenced. Alas, journals have become a money tree, and this seems unlikely.
Recently, this problem has been most in evidence in the realm of intellectual-property. In 1998, fearing the demise of Mickey "the cash cow" Mouse (and numerous other characters), the Walt Disney Company approached Congress requesting an extension of their copyright. Congress responded with, and Clinton signed, the Copyright Term Extension Act (this was by no means the first time that Congress had extended copyrights at the behest of businesses and their associations). The CTEA extends copyright to life plus seventy for works copyrighted by individuals, and to 95 years for works made by or for corporations. A little more than a year ago (Jan 15 2003) the Supreme court held up the CTEA saying that it neither infringed on free speech, nor had Congress overstepped its bounds in passing it (Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented).
The basic argument for intellectual copyright is that it engenders innovation. The idea is that if people can't make any money off of their creativity, then they won't be creative. Within the domain of science and technology, I think this argument holds great force (though I might suggest some specific changes, see below). It has been shown that even with a strong copyright, companies do not accrue all of the benefits of their technological innovations and scientific discoveries. I don't have the research at hand, but my fuzzy brain says they get something less than half of the total benefit to society (total benefit to society includes the benefit to the company). However, in the realm of the arts, I don't find that the argument has much sway. At a certain level, artists produce art because it is what they like to do. They should certainly be compensated, and should certainly have a limited monopoly over their work for a period of time. However it is not at all clear that one hundred years and up is in any way reasonable.
It's also worth looking at all the great art that, had it been produced under today's copyright laws, would constitute theft:
Shakespeare:
-His "Romeo and Juliet" owes a great deal to a poem by the same name written a mere thirty years earlier (by Arthur Brooke)
-Many of his historical plays would infringe on Holingshead's "Chronicles of England"
Disney:
Cinderella,Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and others were based on works in the Public Domain. And of course, Mickey himself was based on another cartoon character.
Music:
Both Jazz and, especially, Hip Hop developed a great deal through the interpretation and sampling of other peoples' music.
This all brings me to the more current events of DJ Danger Mouse vs. the EMI. Not too long ago, Mr. Danger Mouse released the critically acclaimed "Grey Album". It is, as one might guess, a remix of the Beatle's "White Album" and Jay-Z's "Black Album". I'm not going to summarize the particulars of the case here as this is done more than adequately elsewhere (see links below). I will however say that I think the terms of copyright need to be relaxed on artwork in general. This is a difficult issue. A few years back the Verve Symphony released a song whose entire melody was lifted from a Rolling Stones song. The Stones permitted the use in exchange for all of the royalties from that song. That is a bit excessive, but the Stones melody made what would have otherwise been a hollow and vapid song a success. And therein lies the crux of the issue. I don't think future artists should be able to repackage existing genius and turn a profit; I am however all for the reinterpretation and transformative use of existing material. How do we differentiate the two? I am inclined to think that this ideal is not really possible. We must, to some extent, choose one side or the other. The question is which side, and to what degree. As I've said, I think copyright law is currently too restrictive. To pick a number out of the sky, I'd say that the copyright on a work of art should be no more than fifty years from the date of creation (I'd concede an extension on this in the case of outright and entire duplication). After fifty years, a work should be mostly, if not entirely, in the public domain. Additionally, I'd like to see an expansion of the fair use guidelines so a to allow works such as the "Grey Album" (some have claimed that fair use already allows such works, but I'm not convinced these claims will stand up in court) to circulate unimpeded by spurious claims of ownership.
Links
DJ Danger Mouse
Illegal Art
Grey Tuesday
Eldred V. Ashcroft (the CTEA Supreme Court decision)
This is the see below: A friend of mine recently suggested that the copyright on scientific journal articles be limited to about four months. As it is, access to journals is very expensive, and it is thus very difficult to find all the information one might want in a given subject area. If I may, let me present an idealized vision: a grand database containing all of the research ever published nicely organized and crossreferenced. Alas, journals have become a money tree, and this seems unlikely.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Portland Attains status of "World Class City"
Yes, yes, Portland has finally arrived. Little more than a month ago Portlandites were finally introduced to the joys of Bubble tea. Oh bubble tea, how I have missed thee. The local joint around here also serves some very tasty tea time snacks and brews up a very decent espresso (made from Illy, so I guess it should be).
Monday, February 16, 2004
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Grammy Hysteria
Or not. I look to the Grammys for entertainment and some vindication. It's sort of hypocritical that I at once feel happy when an artist I like wins, but then also enjoy making derisory comments about the commerciality (apologies) of the Grammys and the boneheaded selections that sometimes get made. The latter tend to serve me as fodder for rants about our "mass culture" and all of the schlock that it produces.
A case in point. This years nominees for best rock album really illustrate rocks decline (and hip hop's rise). That's not to say that good rock and roll isn't being made (somewhere), but it's not what most people are listening to (sorry). I must admit to not knowing anything about the actual music on the albums for which these artists were nominated, but I hold not even the faintest hope. Audioslave, Evanescence, Foo Fighters, Matchbox Twenty, and Nickelback. Now a year ago, being that they hail from my home town, Nickelback might nave gotten my vote (If only I had one), but of late they have been an embarassment. That leaves the Foo simply because Dave Grohl is their front man.
On to more interesting categories.
Record of the Year: Outkast(Hey Ya!). Critically acclaimed and loved by all there shouldn't been any contest (though I haven't hear Coldplay's effort)
Album of the Year: Outkast. Wahooo! (this is the excitement that I mentioned earlier).
Best New Artist: I've never heard of any of the nominees in this category except for 50, so why not. And really, seeing as the Grammys always seem to be at least partly a sales competition, this one seem a no brainer.
Pop Vocal Album: Timbernut. (George will roll over a few more times)
Rap Album: I heard Missy's album (Under Construction) once while waiting in the waiting room of a clinic. I was very impressed. Part of me wants this to go to her, Outkast doesn't really need a third, but they're not undeserving. A worthy match up.
Country Album: I've included this category so I can profess my great admiration for Lyle Lovett. I don't know any of the other albums in this category (though I do know the artists) and in my world this wouldn't be a competition.
Best Alternative Music Album: Radiohead (Hail to the Thief). I don't believe I've even heard this album in its entirety, however the other entries in this category will (in my world) burn in the firesome grip of Radiohead's glory.
Best Female Rap Solo Perfomance: Missy for "Work It". As much as I hate this song, Missy easily outshines the other artists in this category (most of whom I haven't heard).
A case in point. This years nominees for best rock album really illustrate rocks decline (and hip hop's rise). That's not to say that good rock and roll isn't being made (somewhere), but it's not what most people are listening to (sorry). I must admit to not knowing anything about the actual music on the albums for which these artists were nominated, but I hold not even the faintest hope. Audioslave, Evanescence, Foo Fighters, Matchbox Twenty, and Nickelback. Now a year ago, being that they hail from my home town, Nickelback might nave gotten my vote (If only I had one), but of late they have been an embarassment. That leaves the Foo simply because Dave Grohl is their front man.
On to more interesting categories.
Record of the Year: Outkast(Hey Ya!). Critically acclaimed and loved by all there shouldn't been any contest (though I haven't hear Coldplay's effort)
Album of the Year: Outkast. Wahooo! (this is the excitement that I mentioned earlier).
Best New Artist: I've never heard of any of the nominees in this category except for 50, so why not. And really, seeing as the Grammys always seem to be at least partly a sales competition, this one seem a no brainer.
Pop Vocal Album: Timbernut. (George will roll over a few more times)
Rap Album: I heard Missy's album (Under Construction) once while waiting in the waiting room of a clinic. I was very impressed. Part of me wants this to go to her, Outkast doesn't really need a third, but they're not undeserving. A worthy match up.
Country Album: I've included this category so I can profess my great admiration for Lyle Lovett. I don't know any of the other albums in this category (though I do know the artists) and in my world this wouldn't be a competition.
Best Alternative Music Album: Radiohead (Hail to the Thief). I don't believe I've even heard this album in its entirety, however the other entries in this category will (in my world) burn in the firesome grip of Radiohead's glory.
Best Female Rap Solo Perfomance: Missy for "Work It". As much as I hate this song, Missy easily outshines the other artists in this category (most of whom I haven't heard).
Friday, February 06, 2004
It's late here and I am not going "somewhere I have never travelled" but am, as usual, pulling out hairs hopping that brilliant ideas may pop out of the empty pores left behind. Somewhat akin to the way in which the tensions established in a (good) poem resolve into a positive unity through the interplay of the poem's parts, or the view that consciousness is an emergent property, I hope that from the ashes of my midnight fire will rise an eloquent and thought provoking analysis of E.E. Cummings "somewhere i have never travelled, gladly beyond" as seen through the lens of Cleanth Brooks' views on the nature of poetry.
Adieu
Adieu
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Ouch
It hurts to walk right now. That is why I am sittting down. But soon I will have to get I up, perhaps to get my textbook so that I may begin some work, and I will be reminded of how painful lifting weights can be. Today is day one of Evan tries to not be in such horrible shape. I plan to lift weights three times a week and not use so much bacon fat. If after a month or so, I've managed to keep with it, I may add some sort of aerobic exercise two or three times a week. I don't really expect that all of you find this especially riveting; my telling you has as much to do with establishing a sort of verbal contract as it with forming a part of the banalities of my life which I relate to you in this blog.
Classes are going well. I'm becoming aquainted with a new (to me) professor who thus far I quite like. He is at once interesting, eloquent, funny, and serious (in a good way). This, together with a decent mix of people, has made for very engaging classes to date. Here's a few quotables from the Prof himself (said during class):
"One should always be careful of people who appeal to the public; almost always what they're appealing to is the meaning(s) held by their particular coterie."
"Essentially what they're teaching you is kind of a series of Masonic handshakes in the guise of them being true" (in reference to a particular movement in Lit theory)
"The more people who are allowed in the club, the more democratic the club is, but one shouldn't necessarily mistake that for truth." (in refrence to the academic establishment)
I'm off to do some work.
Classes are going well. I'm becoming aquainted with a new (to me) professor who thus far I quite like. He is at once interesting, eloquent, funny, and serious (in a good way). This, together with a decent mix of people, has made for very engaging classes to date. Here's a few quotables from the Prof himself (said during class):
"One should always be careful of people who appeal to the public; almost always what they're appealing to is the meaning(s) held by their particular coterie."
"Essentially what they're teaching you is kind of a series of Masonic handshakes in the guise of them being true" (in reference to a particular movement in Lit theory)
"The more people who are allowed in the club, the more democratic the club is, but one shouldn't necessarily mistake that for truth." (in refrence to the academic establishment)
I'm off to do some work.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
I didn't burn down the house
Monday night, Dale, Johanna, and myself shared a very nice belated Christmas dinner. We had rack of lamb (cooked to perfection by my father, this is not an overstatement) and some assorted vegetables (including mashed potatoes, hmmmmm -especially tasty when mixed with the port wine sauce my dad concocted for the lamb). For desert, we had something called an Asian banana split. Johanna had discovered the recipe somewhere (I don't know where), and earlier that day had procured the necessary ingredients and done the prep (toasting the sliced almonds, caramelizing the bananas). Difficulty was, the final stage of the recipe involved flambéing the bananas with a goodly amount of rum. Johanna felt a bit apprehensive about this. Enter me - heat up bananas, toss in rum, tilt pan to light, watch the flames grow to about three feet, and yahooo, nothing else caught on fire.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
A few more things from Alexis:
"The President is chosen for four years, and he may be re-elected, so that the chances of a future administration may inspire him with hopeful undertakings for the public good and give him the means of carrying them into execution."
Californians might have done well to heed this advice instead of voting to limit state legislators to one four year term.
"The influence which the President exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect; but the choice of the President though of small importance to each individual citizen, concerns the citizens collectively; and however trifling an interest may be, it assumes a great degree of importance as soon as it becomes general. In comparison with the kings of Europe, the President possesses but few means of creating partisans; but the places that are at his disposal are sufficiently numerous to interest, directly or indirectly, several thousand electors in his success. Moreover, political parties in the United States are led to rally round an individual in order to acquire a more tangible shape in the eyes of the crowd, and the name of the candidate for the Presidency is put forward as the symbol and personification of their theories. For these reasons parties are strongly interested in winning the election, not so much with a view to the triumph of their principles under the auspices of the President elect as to show by his election that the supporters of those principles now form the majority. For a long while before the appointed time has come, the election becomes the important and, so to speak, the all-engrossing topic of discussion. Factional ardor is redoubled, and all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in a happy and peaceful land are agitated and brought to light. The President, moreover, is absorbed by the cares of self-defense. He no longer governs for the interest of the state, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement, the election is the daily theme of the press, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present. It is true that as soon as the choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled, calm returns, and the river, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level; but who can refrain from astonishment that such a storm should have arisen?"
Not only does Mr Tocqueville express his thoughts with a well cadenced eloquence, but his remarks are also rather timeless.
"The greatest merit of the American legislators is that they clearly discerned this truth and had the courage to act up to it. They conceived that a certain authority above the body of the people was necessary, which should enjoy a degree of independence in its sphere without being entirely beyond the popular control; an authority which would be forced to comply with the permanent determinations of the majority, but which would be able to resist its caprices and refuse its most dangerous demands. To this end they centered the whole executive power of the nation in a single arm; they granted extensive prerogatives to the President and armed him with the veto to resist the encroachments of the legislature.
But by introducing the principle of re-election they partly destroyed their work; they conferred on the President a great power, but made him little inclined to use it. If ineligible a second time, the President would not be independent of the people, for his responsibility would not cease; but the favor of the people would not be so necessary to him as to induce him to submit in every respect to its desires. If re-eligible (and this is especially true at the present day, when political morality is relaxed and when great men are rare), the President of the United States becomes an easy tool in the hands of the majority. He adopts its likings and its animosities, he anticipates its wishes, he forestalls its complaints, he yields to its idlest cravings, and instead of guiding it, as the legislature intended that he should do, he merely follows its bidding. Thus, in order not to deprive the state of the talents of an individual, those talents have been rendered almost useless, and to retain an expedient for extraordinary perils, the country has been exposed to continual dangers."
"In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all countries in which the people are supreme. This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, who, either by inclination or by interest, sincerely wish the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties, who attempt to gain their cooperation and support."
"In the United States democracy perpetually brings new men to the conduct of public affairs, and the administration consequently seldom preserves consistency or order in its measures. But the general principles of the government are more stable and the chief opinions which regulate society are more durable there than in many other countries. When once the Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill founded, nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds. The same tenacity of opinion has been observed in England, where for the last century greater freedom of thought and more invincible prejudices have existed than in any other country of Europe. I attribute this to a cause that may at first sight appear to have an opposite tendency: namely, to the liberty of the press. The nations among whom this liberty exists cling to their opinions as much from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just and because they chose them of their own free will; and they adhere to them, not only because they are true, but because they are their own. Several other reasons conduce to the same end.
It was remarked by a man of genius that "ignorance lies at the two ends of knowledge." Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that strong convictions are found only at the two ends, and that doubt lies in the middle. The human intellect, in truth, may be considered in three distinct states, which frequently succeed one another.
A man believes firmly because he adopts a proposition without inquiry. He doubts as soon as objections present themselves. But he frequently succeeds in satisfying these doubts, and then he begins again to believe. This time he has not a dim and casual glimpse of the truth, but sees it clearly before him and advances by the light it gives.
When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in the first of these three states, it does not immediately disturb their habit of believing implicitly without investigation, but it changes every day the objects of their unreflecting convictions. The human mind continues to discern but one point at a time upon the whole intellectual horizon, and that point is constantly changing. This is the period of sudden revolutions. Woe to the generations which first abruptly adopt the freedom of the press.
The circle of novel ideas, however, is soon traveled over. Experience comes to undeceive men and plunges them into doubt and general mistrust. We may rest assured that the majority or mankind will always remain in one of these two states, will either believe they know not wherefore, or will not know what to believe. Few are those who can ever attain to that other state of rational and independent conviction which true knowledge can produce out of the midst of doubt.
It has been remarked that in times of great religious fervor men sometimes change their religious opinions; whereas in times of general skepticism everyone clings to his old persuasion. The same thing takes place in politics under the liberty of the press. In countries where all the theories of social science have been contested in their turn, men who have adopted one of them stick to it, not so much because they are sure of its truth as because they are not sure that there is any better to be had. In the present age men are not very ready to die for their opinions, but they are rarely inclined to change them; there are few martyrs as well as few apostates.
Another still more valid reason may be adduced: when no opinions are looked upon as certain, men cling to the mere instincts and material interests of their position, which are naturally more tangible, definite, and permanent than any opinions in the world."
"The majority lives in the perpetual utterance of self-applause, and there are certain truths which the Americans can learn only from strangers or from experience."
"I attribute the small number of distinguished men in political life to the ever increasing despotism of the majority in the United States."
A footnote describing two instances of the despotism of the majority:
"A striking instance of the excesses that may be occasioned
by the despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore during the
War of 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore.
A newspaper that had taken the other side excited, by its
opposition, the indignation of the inhabitants. The mob
assembled, broke the printing-presses, and attacked the house of
the editors. The militia was called out, but did not obey the
call; and the only means of saving the wretches who were
threatened by the frenzy of the mob was to throw them into prison
as common malefactors. But even this precaution was ineffectual,
the mob collected again during the night; the magistrates again
made a vain attempt to call out the militia; the prison was
forced, one of the newspaper editors was killed upon the spot,
and the others were left for dead. The guilty parties, when they
were brought to trial, were acquitted by the jury.
I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania: "Be so good
as to explain to me how it happens that in a state founded by
Quakers, and celebrated for its toleration, free blacks are not
allowed to exercise civil rights. They pay taxes; is it not fair
that they should vote?"
"You insult us," replied my informant, "if you imagine that
our legislators could have committed so gross an act of injustice
and intolerance."
"Then the blacks possess the right of voting in this
country?"
"Without doubt."
"How comes it, then, that at the polling-booth this morning
I did not perceive a single Negro?"
"That is not the fault of the law. The Negroes have an
undisputed right of voting, but they voluntarily abstain from
making their appearance."
"A very pretty piece of modesty on their part!" rejoined I.
"Why, the truth is that they are not disinclined to vote,
but they are afraid of being maltreated; in this country the law
is sometimes unable to maintain its authority without the support
of the majority. But in this case the majority entertains very
strong prejudices against the blacks, and the magistrates are
unable to protect them in the exercise of their legal rights."
"Then the majority claims the right not only of making the
laws, but of breaking the laws it has made?"
Not only are the Anglo-Americans united by these common opinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a feeling of pride. For the last fifty years no pains have been spared to convince the inhabitants of the United States that they are the only religious, enlightened, and free people. They perceive that, for the present, their own democratic institutions prosper, while those of other countries fail; hence they conceive a high opinion of their superiority and are not very remote from believing themselves to be a distinct species of mankind."
Perhaps the strength of this observation has withered a bit with time, but not by a great deal.
That's all from volume I. I realize this is rather lengthy. I hope I have not tired my remaining readers to too great an extent.
"The President is chosen for four years, and he may be re-elected, so that the chances of a future administration may inspire him with hopeful undertakings for the public good and give him the means of carrying them into execution."
Californians might have done well to heed this advice instead of voting to limit state legislators to one four year term.
"The influence which the President exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect; but the choice of the President though of small importance to each individual citizen, concerns the citizens collectively; and however trifling an interest may be, it assumes a great degree of importance as soon as it becomes general. In comparison with the kings of Europe, the President possesses but few means of creating partisans; but the places that are at his disposal are sufficiently numerous to interest, directly or indirectly, several thousand electors in his success. Moreover, political parties in the United States are led to rally round an individual in order to acquire a more tangible shape in the eyes of the crowd, and the name of the candidate for the Presidency is put forward as the symbol and personification of their theories. For these reasons parties are strongly interested in winning the election, not so much with a view to the triumph of their principles under the auspices of the President elect as to show by his election that the supporters of those principles now form the majority. For a long while before the appointed time has come, the election becomes the important and, so to speak, the all-engrossing topic of discussion. Factional ardor is redoubled, and all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in a happy and peaceful land are agitated and brought to light. The President, moreover, is absorbed by the cares of self-defense. He no longer governs for the interest of the state, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement, the election is the daily theme of the press, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present. It is true that as soon as the choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled, calm returns, and the river, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level; but who can refrain from astonishment that such a storm should have arisen?"
Not only does Mr Tocqueville express his thoughts with a well cadenced eloquence, but his remarks are also rather timeless.
"The greatest merit of the American legislators is that they clearly discerned this truth and had the courage to act up to it. They conceived that a certain authority above the body of the people was necessary, which should enjoy a degree of independence in its sphere without being entirely beyond the popular control; an authority which would be forced to comply with the permanent determinations of the majority, but which would be able to resist its caprices and refuse its most dangerous demands. To this end they centered the whole executive power of the nation in a single arm; they granted extensive prerogatives to the President and armed him with the veto to resist the encroachments of the legislature.
But by introducing the principle of re-election they partly destroyed their work; they conferred on the President a great power, but made him little inclined to use it. If ineligible a second time, the President would not be independent of the people, for his responsibility would not cease; but the favor of the people would not be so necessary to him as to induce him to submit in every respect to its desires. If re-eligible (and this is especially true at the present day, when political morality is relaxed and when great men are rare), the President of the United States becomes an easy tool in the hands of the majority. He adopts its likings and its animosities, he anticipates its wishes, he forestalls its complaints, he yields to its idlest cravings, and instead of guiding it, as the legislature intended that he should do, he merely follows its bidding. Thus, in order not to deprive the state of the talents of an individual, those talents have been rendered almost useless, and to retain an expedient for extraordinary perils, the country has been exposed to continual dangers."
"In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all countries in which the people are supreme. This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, who, either by inclination or by interest, sincerely wish the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties, who attempt to gain their cooperation and support."
"In the United States democracy perpetually brings new men to the conduct of public affairs, and the administration consequently seldom preserves consistency or order in its measures. But the general principles of the government are more stable and the chief opinions which regulate society are more durable there than in many other countries. When once the Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill founded, nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds. The same tenacity of opinion has been observed in England, where for the last century greater freedom of thought and more invincible prejudices have existed than in any other country of Europe. I attribute this to a cause that may at first sight appear to have an opposite tendency: namely, to the liberty of the press. The nations among whom this liberty exists cling to their opinions as much from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just and because they chose them of their own free will; and they adhere to them, not only because they are true, but because they are their own. Several other reasons conduce to the same end.
It was remarked by a man of genius that "ignorance lies at the two ends of knowledge." Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that strong convictions are found only at the two ends, and that doubt lies in the middle. The human intellect, in truth, may be considered in three distinct states, which frequently succeed one another.
A man believes firmly because he adopts a proposition without inquiry. He doubts as soon as objections present themselves. But he frequently succeeds in satisfying these doubts, and then he begins again to believe. This time he has not a dim and casual glimpse of the truth, but sees it clearly before him and advances by the light it gives.
When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in the first of these three states, it does not immediately disturb their habit of believing implicitly without investigation, but it changes every day the objects of their unreflecting convictions. The human mind continues to discern but one point at a time upon the whole intellectual horizon, and that point is constantly changing. This is the period of sudden revolutions. Woe to the generations which first abruptly adopt the freedom of the press.
The circle of novel ideas, however, is soon traveled over. Experience comes to undeceive men and plunges them into doubt and general mistrust. We may rest assured that the majority or mankind will always remain in one of these two states, will either believe they know not wherefore, or will not know what to believe. Few are those who can ever attain to that other state of rational and independent conviction which true knowledge can produce out of the midst of doubt.
It has been remarked that in times of great religious fervor men sometimes change their religious opinions; whereas in times of general skepticism everyone clings to his old persuasion. The same thing takes place in politics under the liberty of the press. In countries where all the theories of social science have been contested in their turn, men who have adopted one of them stick to it, not so much because they are sure of its truth as because they are not sure that there is any better to be had. In the present age men are not very ready to die for their opinions, but they are rarely inclined to change them; there are few martyrs as well as few apostates.
Another still more valid reason may be adduced: when no opinions are looked upon as certain, men cling to the mere instincts and material interests of their position, which are naturally more tangible, definite, and permanent than any opinions in the world."
"The majority lives in the perpetual utterance of self-applause, and there are certain truths which the Americans can learn only from strangers or from experience."
"I attribute the small number of distinguished men in political life to the ever increasing despotism of the majority in the United States."
A footnote describing two instances of the despotism of the majority:
"A striking instance of the excesses that may be occasioned
by the despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore during the
War of 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore.
A newspaper that had taken the other side excited, by its
opposition, the indignation of the inhabitants. The mob
assembled, broke the printing-presses, and attacked the house of
the editors. The militia was called out, but did not obey the
call; and the only means of saving the wretches who were
threatened by the frenzy of the mob was to throw them into prison
as common malefactors. But even this precaution was ineffectual,
the mob collected again during the night; the magistrates again
made a vain attempt to call out the militia; the prison was
forced, one of the newspaper editors was killed upon the spot,
and the others were left for dead. The guilty parties, when they
were brought to trial, were acquitted by the jury.
I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania: "Be so good
as to explain to me how it happens that in a state founded by
Quakers, and celebrated for its toleration, free blacks are not
allowed to exercise civil rights. They pay taxes; is it not fair
that they should vote?"
"You insult us," replied my informant, "if you imagine that
our legislators could have committed so gross an act of injustice
and intolerance."
"Then the blacks possess the right of voting in this
country?"
"Without doubt."
"How comes it, then, that at the polling-booth this morning
I did not perceive a single Negro?"
"That is not the fault of the law. The Negroes have an
undisputed right of voting, but they voluntarily abstain from
making their appearance."
"A very pretty piece of modesty on their part!" rejoined I.
"Why, the truth is that they are not disinclined to vote,
but they are afraid of being maltreated; in this country the law
is sometimes unable to maintain its authority without the support
of the majority. But in this case the majority entertains very
strong prejudices against the blacks, and the magistrates are
unable to protect them in the exercise of their legal rights."
"Then the majority claims the right not only of making the
laws, but of breaking the laws it has made?"
Not only are the Anglo-Americans united by these common opinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a feeling of pride. For the last fifty years no pains have been spared to convince the inhabitants of the United States that they are the only religious, enlightened, and free people. They perceive that, for the present, their own democratic institutions prosper, while those of other countries fail; hence they conceive a high opinion of their superiority and are not very remote from believing themselves to be a distinct species of mankind."
Perhaps the strength of this observation has withered a bit with time, but not by a great deal.
That's all from volume I. I realize this is rather lengthy. I hope I have not tired my remaining readers to too great an extent.
Many years ago a very eloquent frenchman (as so many are) travelled across the Atlantic and ventured into what was then the pre-pubescent United States of America (I'd say that that fair land, or perhaps I should say my fair land, is now somewhere in puberty). After his voyage he published a two volume book, "Democracy in America". His name was Alexis de Tocqueville. While perusing the cybernéant this evening I came across a few websites devoted to him and thought I'd post a few of his pithy remarks.
"I am far from denying that newspapers in democratic countries lead citizens to do very ill-considered things in common; but without newspapers there would be hardly any common action at all. So they mend many more ills than they cause."
"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."
"In towns it is impossible to prevent men from assembling, getting excited together and forming sudden passionate resolves."
Now if we just substitute "America" for "towns", I think that last sentence eloquently conveys an accurate observation.
"I am far from denying that newspapers in democratic countries lead citizens to do very ill-considered things in common; but without newspapers there would be hardly any common action at all. So they mend many more ills than they cause."
"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."
"In towns it is impossible to prevent men from assembling, getting excited together and forming sudden passionate resolves."
Now if we just substitute "America" for "towns", I think that last sentence eloquently conveys an accurate observation.
I was feeling poor and homely tonight so instead of joining my friends for an evening of revelry, I've been sitting at home doing things I usually do when I'm alone. I started by making myself dinner. The only part of that endeavour that merits mention are the green beans. For the southerners among you this will seem a no-brainer, hardly worthy of any mention at all, but for all my friends from the lands of fruits and nuts and that great white expanse that lies to north, here follows a basic outline of how to make some tasty green beans.
You need:
-green beans (rinsed, de-stemmed, and parboiled -- though don't do this too long as you want them to spend some time cooking in the fat)
-bacon, at least two slices, more if you like it or if you're making lots of beans (canadian bacon will do if necessary, but fatty thick sliced smoked hog ass is preferable)
-onions (I prefer finely sliced, but it don't really matter so long as you cut it up) -shallots are a wonderfully west-coast substitution, but are best described as a moderately acceptable alternative (we don't actually want to taste the green beans here, this isn't really about the vegetables, it's about the pork fat--and the onions cooked in the pork fat)
-garlic (two cloves, and if you're feeling finnicky, take out the bitter green insides)
butter (you can stick with just the rendered bacon fat, but I like to think that somehow the combined flavours of bacon fat and butter create some sort of culinary apogee, smoky, salty, porky goodness, combined with creamy smooth delectability).
The final ingredients might cause some quibbling with anyone who thought my preface to this recipe implied I was cooking traditional southern green beans. As far as I'm aware, a traditional recipe also includes vinegar and sugar (and probably a no to the garlic). I don't much cotton to sugar coating my green beans, and though it does belie my southern cooking pretensions, I prefer dry white wine to vinegar (I also added a halved and sliced roma tomato at the last minute when I prepared my beans this evening).
So, the point of that little aside is that you need some acid. Your humble chef recommends dry white wine, dry (white) vermouth, or a touch of bourbon (not much acid there, but when I discovered what a wonderful pair bourbon and bacon are a few years back, it was my culinary revelation of the year. I now combine the two with reckless abandon).
Cooking
-add bacon to large pan (med heat), cook till most of the fat has rendered
-add onion (or shallots), increase heat a bit above medium (as long as nothing is burning, it's not too hot)
-when onions are translucent (or heading to caramelized if you prefer) reduce heat to low and add garlic, if you're not swimming in bacon fat, add some butter at this stage
-cook for a couple minutes at low (if you're using an electric stove, take the pan off the burner for the first minute)
-add some white wine (flame it if you're feeling frisky, if you've never done this before don't try it till I'm there to teach you. Many of my friends can attest to my flambéing brilliance)
-add the green beans, cook till there's no crunch crunch left. This does not mean mushy, there should still be a bite.
-salt and pepper to taste
-if you like it fatty (and you should) a dollop or two of butter for aesthetics and smooth tasty creaminess
As an alternative: Steam or boil green beans. Toss with lemon juice, tamari, and a dash of toasted sesame seed oil (and some chili paste if you're feeling frisky)
The next post will arrive soon.
You need:
-green beans (rinsed, de-stemmed, and parboiled -- though don't do this too long as you want them to spend some time cooking in the fat)
-bacon, at least two slices, more if you like it or if you're making lots of beans (canadian bacon will do if necessary, but fatty thick sliced smoked hog ass is preferable)
-onions (I prefer finely sliced, but it don't really matter so long as you cut it up) -shallots are a wonderfully west-coast substitution, but are best described as a moderately acceptable alternative (we don't actually want to taste the green beans here, this isn't really about the vegetables, it's about the pork fat--and the onions cooked in the pork fat)
-garlic (two cloves, and if you're feeling finnicky, take out the bitter green insides)
butter (you can stick with just the rendered bacon fat, but I like to think that somehow the combined flavours of bacon fat and butter create some sort of culinary apogee, smoky, salty, porky goodness, combined with creamy smooth delectability).
The final ingredients might cause some quibbling with anyone who thought my preface to this recipe implied I was cooking traditional southern green beans. As far as I'm aware, a traditional recipe also includes vinegar and sugar (and probably a no to the garlic). I don't much cotton to sugar coating my green beans, and though it does belie my southern cooking pretensions, I prefer dry white wine to vinegar (I also added a halved and sliced roma tomato at the last minute when I prepared my beans this evening).
So, the point of that little aside is that you need some acid. Your humble chef recommends dry white wine, dry (white) vermouth, or a touch of bourbon (not much acid there, but when I discovered what a wonderful pair bourbon and bacon are a few years back, it was my culinary revelation of the year. I now combine the two with reckless abandon).
Cooking
-add bacon to large pan (med heat), cook till most of the fat has rendered
-add onion (or shallots), increase heat a bit above medium (as long as nothing is burning, it's not too hot)
-when onions are translucent (or heading to caramelized if you prefer) reduce heat to low and add garlic, if you're not swimming in bacon fat, add some butter at this stage
-cook for a couple minutes at low (if you're using an electric stove, take the pan off the burner for the first minute)
-add some white wine (flame it if you're feeling frisky, if you've never done this before don't try it till I'm there to teach you. Many of my friends can attest to my flambéing brilliance)
-add the green beans, cook till there's no crunch crunch left. This does not mean mushy, there should still be a bite.
-salt and pepper to taste
-if you like it fatty (and you should) a dollop or two of butter for aesthetics and smooth tasty creaminess
As an alternative: Steam or boil green beans. Toss with lemon juice, tamari, and a dash of toasted sesame seed oil (and some chili paste if you're feeling frisky)
The next post will arrive soon.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Well, it's sometime in early January and I'm sitting at home, feeling rather sick and wishing I was outside frolicking in the snow with my girlfriend Kitty. Instead, I've been watching horrible TV and slowly sorting through all my music to make mixes for assorted family and friends. My television screen has most recently been graced by Tom Hanks in his unforgettable role as a marooned Fedex executive, Chuck Nolan. I actually have fond memories associated with this movie. Carl and I went to see it on Christmas eve three or four years ago.
In my quest for entertainment I have been sifting through some news sites. We'll save the story that makes me the most irate for last (it happened right here in my hometown).
Apparently we should all be on the lookout for leprosy (source: Globe and Mail). There are currently about five hundred cases in Canada and a couple dozen more pop up annually. There have been outbreaks in Texas and Louisiana. That's why we call it the dirty dirty south.
Mr. Black (Conrad) has finally proved himself the crook (not yet in a court of law) we've always suspected him to be. If you haven't been paying attention, he has been accused of misappropriating company funds.
Now just for a minute, I'm going to step outside of my left-wing reactionary hole and say that one of the negative side effects about the discovery of innumerable instances of egregious acts of white collar crime over the last few years is that it gives reactionary critics and activists credible fodder for their ill-conceived kvetching. I shouldn't limit my kvetching to left-wingers; my real complaint emerges from the adversarial split in so many parts of our society. I think we can blaim the birth of the nation state for the beginnings of this mentality and the mob mentality engedered by professional organized sport for its present day maintenance.
Any one catch the Sugar Bowl yesterday? LSU play a great game against Oklahoma, defeating them 27-14.
Wahoo! My coffee drinking has been vindicated! Apparently (as reported on CTV news this evening), if I drink more than 6 cups per day, I will reduce my risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 50%. Now of course, in my new found joy, I will ignore the negative effects of coffee (kidney stones, heart problems, increased rate of miscarriage) and the easiest way to prevent type 2 diabetes (exercise). Bring on the cappucino.
Snow report: The flakes are bigger. Wahooo!
Getting to the aforementioned source of my rage. About a year ago six VPD officers took 3 men (all with long criminal histories) to Stanley park and kicked the crap out of them. All of the officers plead guilty. Yesterday (Jan 5th) they were sentenced. The harshest (relatively speaking because none of these sentences were harsh) sentence was handed to Constable Gemmell. He received a 60 day conditional sentence which restricts him to his house between the hours of 8pm and 7am and 6 months of probation. Ouuchh, poor Mr. Gemmell has to sleep in his own house.
Constable Gabriel Kojima got a 30 day conditional sentence and six months of probation. He will also be sleeping in his own house at night.
Constables Raymond Gardner and Brandon Steele both received suspended sentences (9 months and 6 months respectively) and 6 months probation.
Constable Christopher Cronmiller received a conditional discharge and six months of probation.
Finally, Constable James Kenney received an absolute discharge. Absolute discharge! Though apparently he never touched any of the men, he did nonetheless standby as fellow police officers dished out some beatings. As an officer of the law he at the very least deserves a criminal record. I should add that Constable Cronmiller also escaped without a record. Despicable.
Speaking after the hearing, the president of the police union said there was no reason the police officers should lose their jobs. It's comments like this that give unions a bad name.
I'd just like to say that all of these officers deserve, at the very least, a criminal record. Any who physically took part in the beatings deserve jail time. Let me briefly say why. Police officers, as officers of the law, are entrusted with a great deal of power. The key word in that sentence is "entrusted". We bestow upon them a great deal of trust. Without this trust, and the proper maintenance of it, they can not serve their function in society.
In my quest for entertainment I have been sifting through some news sites. We'll save the story that makes me the most irate for last (it happened right here in my hometown).
Apparently we should all be on the lookout for leprosy (source: Globe and Mail). There are currently about five hundred cases in Canada and a couple dozen more pop up annually. There have been outbreaks in Texas and Louisiana. That's why we call it the dirty dirty south.
Mr. Black (Conrad) has finally proved himself the crook (not yet in a court of law) we've always suspected him to be. If you haven't been paying attention, he has been accused of misappropriating company funds.
Now just for a minute, I'm going to step outside of my left-wing reactionary hole and say that one of the negative side effects about the discovery of innumerable instances of egregious acts of white collar crime over the last few years is that it gives reactionary critics and activists credible fodder for their ill-conceived kvetching. I shouldn't limit my kvetching to left-wingers; my real complaint emerges from the adversarial split in so many parts of our society. I think we can blaim the birth of the nation state for the beginnings of this mentality and the mob mentality engedered by professional organized sport for its present day maintenance.
Any one catch the Sugar Bowl yesterday? LSU play a great game against Oklahoma, defeating them 27-14.
Wahoo! My coffee drinking has been vindicated! Apparently (as reported on CTV news this evening), if I drink more than 6 cups per day, I will reduce my risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 50%. Now of course, in my new found joy, I will ignore the negative effects of coffee (kidney stones, heart problems, increased rate of miscarriage) and the easiest way to prevent type 2 diabetes (exercise). Bring on the cappucino.
Snow report: The flakes are bigger. Wahooo!
Getting to the aforementioned source of my rage. About a year ago six VPD officers took 3 men (all with long criminal histories) to Stanley park and kicked the crap out of them. All of the officers plead guilty. Yesterday (Jan 5th) they were sentenced. The harshest (relatively speaking because none of these sentences were harsh) sentence was handed to Constable Gemmell. He received a 60 day conditional sentence which restricts him to his house between the hours of 8pm and 7am and 6 months of probation. Ouuchh, poor Mr. Gemmell has to sleep in his own house.
Constable Gabriel Kojima got a 30 day conditional sentence and six months of probation. He will also be sleeping in his own house at night.
Constables Raymond Gardner and Brandon Steele both received suspended sentences (9 months and 6 months respectively) and 6 months probation.
Constable Christopher Cronmiller received a conditional discharge and six months of probation.
Finally, Constable James Kenney received an absolute discharge. Absolute discharge! Though apparently he never touched any of the men, he did nonetheless standby as fellow police officers dished out some beatings. As an officer of the law he at the very least deserves a criminal record. I should add that Constable Cronmiller also escaped without a record. Despicable.
Speaking after the hearing, the president of the police union said there was no reason the police officers should lose their jobs. It's comments like this that give unions a bad name.
I'd just like to say that all of these officers deserve, at the very least, a criminal record. Any who physically took part in the beatings deserve jail time. Let me briefly say why. Police officers, as officers of the law, are entrusted with a great deal of power. The key word in that sentence is "entrusted". We bestow upon them a great deal of trust. Without this trust, and the proper maintenance of it, they can not serve their function in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)