a learned man

A LEARNED MAN: a place for any of my own intellectual thoughts; a digital memory bank since my brain fails me so frequently.

8-2-05 (22:43) one of the things i love so much about movies and music is that they're always the same; they don't change, but my perspective does. music and movies are always there for me, the same as they've always been. at the same time, since i change, my view of a particular film or album might change. there's something reassuring, though, about the fact that incunabula, for example, will always be the same. truly loving something, so we've been told, means loving it even if it changes. i think that should be true of loving people. of course there's always that gap between the ideal and reality. i don't know what i'm really getting at here. i love an album like incunabula because it never fails me. at the same time i've said before that i also love it because it feels like a new album each time i listen to it. different, yet familiar. stable, reliable and dependable, but still interesting. i think the same could be said of my friends. they're not flighty or capricious, at the same time they're not dull or simple. the last time i watched die hard was shortly after melanie broke up with me. i've seen the film at least 40 times in my life, but never in the same way that i did that day. the film was the same, but i was different.

here's my review:

Die Hard - i've watched this film over forty times and it's always been one of my favorites of all-time, but watching it this time was a unique experience. i'm in a very different mindset these days so i can't help but interpret everything in a different way. the dynamic between willis and bedelia was more vibrant and resonant than ever before. willis' bathroom soliloquy was more poignant, the laughs were more hearty, and the music was more stirring. in short, this time around may well have been the best viewing ever of this particular film. it's a film that begs to be watched repeatedly and earns it every time. it's a film that defines the very limit of the action/adventure genre, and maybe even cinema altogether. it's pretty difficult for me to overstate the place in my heart that this film holds. everything within the film is so seamless - the music (kamen is amazing, but so are mctiernan's choices - using the "aliens" piece at the very end, the incorporation of xmas music to help the setting, the bach, the beethoven, the run d.m.c.! just brilliant), the images (jan de bont's inspired camera movement and mctiernan's lively and unique (for the time) editing style), the performances (break out role for willis, yes, but also notable performances from bedelia, rickman, veljohnson, gleason and white) all come together in a perfect synthesis. and with al disarrio as the sfx supervisor you know that things on that front are going to be solid as well. there are some scenes where you can tell a process shot was used, but when you're not scrutinizing the film these effects are seamless and that's pretty remarkable considering it's a film from the 80s. i think that if you watch this film without having heard any hype about it (because hype always hinders a film) then you must like it. for me it's a film that i really can watch any time. many of my other top films (paths of glory, the graduate, the killing, koyaanisqatsi, boogie nights, etc.) require a particular mood, but this film doesn't. no matter what mood i'm in i can watch this film, and since i've seen it so many times it's like visiting an old friend. one of the best pieces of art of all-time. A+.

8-2-05 (01:24) i hate talking about this stuff sometimes because i know that it's been addressed before in far more eloquent terms and in much greater depth by much more qualified people, but...

time is more enigmatic than anything i can think of right now. despite the actual physics of it time is linear and steady for all our intents and purposes. sure, it's tied to space and theoretically can be warped in certain circumstances, but in our everyday lives, so far as we know, it remains the same. i don't know if it's always been like this for me, but nowadays i find that time is especially strange. a big part of it is because of how oddly my memory has worked in recent years. i know that it's similar for many people, but i wonder to what degree i experience time and memory differently. things that happened earlier in the day, mere minutes ago, even, sometimes seem extremely distant. the memory of good and bad things stick or fall away with a seemingly equal randomness. sometimes things that i can't fathom being important stick with me in an uncanny way. other times there will be something i don't want to ever forget and it easily dissipates from my memory. the line between reality and dream has been blurred more often in recent years than it has in the past. i'll experience something in a dream and i sometimes have to fight to remember whether it was a real memory or not. that time between reality and dream seems more odd than usual. has it always been like this or is this something new?

i had a dream the other day that i got fired from tower and moved to the bay area to get a job there. why is it that two months with meryl can seem like two years? why is it that one month apart seems like another two years? the past never seems close. even ten minutes ago seems far away. why can i remember so little about being in high school? is it that i just live so strongly in the moment that anything outside of it is distant? why can i remember nick lachey's name, but not sterling hayden's? time seems to move much less methodically than it's supposed to. often it seems to move in spurts. maybe that's what ma joad was talking about in her final speech in the grapes of wrath. why is that the night time brings such a different perspective than the morning? things seem clear at night. they seem to make more sense. the morning almost never feels like that. maybe i'm just night person. or maybe there's something about being awake for a certain period of time that clues you in a little bit. maybe it's the same as being older...you get wiser with the years. maybe you get wiser within the day as well. it seems to hold true with me. of course it could just be a matter of perspective as well. maybe the goal is to have as little shift in attitude from night to morning. i've always taken sleeping for granted, but i do wonder how necessary it is. i remember douglas everet talking about it on radio parallax once. he mentioned that sleep wasn't really necessary for the body in the sense that the body doesn't repair itself while you sleep, yet we all need it. different creatures need more or less of it. why?

speaking of parallax...the other day i was laying on my left side on the carpet looking at a tennis ball on the ground. i put my hand in front of my left eye and saw the tennis ball's position shift. then i moved my hand down and the tennis ball shifted back. i played with this game of perspective and parallax for several minutes. it's such a simple thing, but it provided me with great entertainment. of course i thought about it in somewhat philosophical terms as well. it would make a good pivot scene in a film.

sometimes my memory/sense of time works to my advantage. i can have a bad experience at work or in life and put it behind me fairly quickly. other times it works to my disadvantage. i can't remember details that i'd like to. i can't remember peoples' names. i can't remember why i went online or went into the bedroom. those are everyday annoyances, i know.

i try not to watch much tv and am mostly successful. i watch a lot of movies on tv, but i watch very little television programming. it's depressing, for one, but beyond that i think it lessens my attention span. i need to retrain my brain a bit. watch more three hour films, read more novels (send some over vern), spend more time just reflecting. i should also watch memento again.

5-23-05 (19:41) melanie seems like such a different person now. i know that if i hung out with her she'd more or less be the melanie i know, but it seems that there's so much more going on with her that i don't know about. stuff that she may have kept under wraps when she was with me, or stuff that the breakup let out. after the breakup we were actually very close to each other and it was sort of similar to how things were when we were first getting together. everything was intense and it made me feel like the relationship we had was real and it sort of validated the last four years...not that it needed to be validated, but it was reassuring to know that even when things were over we still cared about each other.

now, though, it seems like that's gone. we've been so out of touch with each other and it seems, from my perspective anyway, that she's transformed so much that we've grown apart very quickly. it's amazing what people are capable of and how quickly we can adapt. it sort of makes you question the nature and resilience of all relationships. the whole thing is rather discouraging. feeling like you're replaceable is one of the worst feelings a person can have. the truth is that i am replaceable in most ways. you can never replace memories, but a person can always find someone else to have fun with.

i wonder why i care how i will be remembered. ultimately it doesn't really matter, but i still care about it as if my universal image is being distorted or something retarded like that.

phil used to be my best friend in the world and i thought that we'd never lose touch. somehow, though, we grew apart and became different people and stopped talking with each other. i knew the guy like 10 years and then we just couldn't relate anymore. i've always felt shitty about it, as if i did something wrong. i know that to a certain extent i did, but that the larger problem is that we just grew in different directions. when i was first with melanie i was sure that we'd be together forever. i wouldn't really admit it aloud, but i wanted to be with her forever and actually felt like it could happen. but within five years we've gotten to the point where i'm starting to wonder if i'll know her in a year. you start to wonder if it's a personal failure or if that's just the way life is or what.

it's such a sad thing that people move and lose touch with friends. the non-family person i've kept in touch with for the longest is probably james chai, who i've known since 10th grade or so. but even with him i haven't really kept in touch on a really regular basis. i'm pretty sure that if i lived still in la that i'd hang with him, but because of geography, we almost never see each other. the same is true for jon, johnny and vern who i've known for about 8 years now. i consider them all friends, but i've spent more time with meryl in the last month than those guys in the last year. i guess if i had my priorities straight i'd move to berkeley and live with johnny and i'd be able to visit jon and vern more regularly. but inertia, liking davis more than the berkeley, and the security of knowing i have a livable salary keeps me here. of course i also regret not being able to be around my mom, dad, sister and grandparents. i don't really like la, but if i lived there it would be nice to drop in every other week or so to watch a film with my grandpa. i don't know where in my life personal relationships became so important, but they're definitely more important than they used to be. maybe because i realize that they're the only thing in life that matters and which i have an active role in creating. it's fun to be able to deconstruct and reduce, but it's more fulfilling to create.

perhaps i'm too good at finding contentness in life; and too willing to be fine with that.

3-18-05 (22:04) erin, from work, and i got into a debate today about athletes. he thinks that mark mcgwire did steroids when he was a baseball player and i contended that taking canseco's word for anything is a foolish idea. the debate devolved into an argument about athletes being "assholes." it's amazing that otherwise intelligent people are sometimes so bigoted against athletes. erin pretty much contended that all athletes are assholes and that most pro athletes use steroids. he said "all the athletes i've known were assholes." melanie once told me that she felt, more or less, the same way about volleyball players. i just don't understand what being an asshole has to do with the desire to combine strategy and physical exertion.

it also bothers me when people simplify games that they don't understand. when i was young i referred to rap as singing nursery rhymes while spitting in your hand (beat boxing). then i grew up. but apparently not everyone is quite as mature as some still refer to basketball as "a bunch of guys in their underwear throwing a ball around." life as an ignorant bigot must be easy.

6-27-04 (20:34) heard a story on the radio about a study that found that 43% of the people polled felt they had "common sense." there were a bunch of other figures separated by geography, gender, etc. the study found that when given a test, only 7% of the people actually had common sense. there are so many things wrong with this i don't know where to start. first, if it's common sense and it's not common (only 7% of people have it) then it's a paradox. secondly, it's common sense that common sense is relative. for example, somebody from the hood knows it's common sense to bring some heat when going out to acquire drugs from a new source. for some rich guy it's common sense to have a tax-sheltered offshore account in case he divorces his wife... how does one measure "common sense"? i think what they really mean by it is logic, which of course could be deconstructed as well, but i'd have to use logic and that would, again, be a paradox. how can you defeat the validity of logic by using logic? the ability of logic to defeat itself would be testament to its power which would then revalidate itself. at least that's my thinking.

i like the word "pedantic." it's the only word i can think of off the top of my head that makes a person it just by using it. that is, in using the word you become it. i suppose that's a matter of opinion because some might consider the word common place...at any rate, it's a good word.

why do we continue to redesign our currency as often as we do? they say it's because counterfeiting is easier now because of readily available technology like scanners and high quality printers. but if i was a counterfeiter i wouldn't try to counterfeit new currency, i'd just counterfeit the old stuff. everyone honors the old currency and there's enough of it out there that it doesn't raise any eyebrows. if someone tried to pass me a bill from 1910 then i'd be suspicious, but people don't generally think anything when they see a bill that's 20 years old, and those are relatively easy to counterfeit. i suppose it's a long-term strategy, but if that's the case then trying to stay ahead of the curve is impossible. people who want to counterfeit bills will figure out ways within a year and you can't pull old bills off the market anywhere near that quickly. it just seems like they're doing it to say they're doing something. though admittedly it's an uphill battle so i'm not knocking the treasury for the actions they've taken, it's just that there seems to be a notion that new bills equals better protection from counterfeits and that's not the case at all.

6-21-04 (00:25) it seems a contradiction that american society is supposed to be so much about the individual and doing things for yourself, yet businesses, which are thought to be great american institutions (by republicans at least), emphasize a dedication to the company above all. perhaps i'm misreading things, but it seems that they would have us be great individuals who, at the same time, sacrifice everything for the benefit of the company. it seems like a form of communism, without the "everyone gets an equal slice" part. i'm simplifying things a bit for the sake of brevity. i think that the whole "rugged individualism" thing only goes up to the point where you get a job, after that you should become useful for the company. in theory the company has to spread the wealth based upon merits in order to keep the good employees, or as a further carrot in front of the mule. but, in my experience anyway, most of the people in america work more to not get fired than they do to try to attain a raise or a bonus. also, i think the job market is such that companies don't worry too much about losing the vast majority of their employees. a few reasons for that 1) jobs have shifted more and more toward the service sector and are thus low skill jobs. 2) tasks are more specialized (especially in manufacturing) so replacing a worker is far easier. 3) again, the job market is such that there is always a fresh supply of labor. this last point is what makes unions so weak. the most powerful tool a union has is a strike, but what good is a strike when there are plenty of scabs willing to cross the lines for fewer benefits or lower wages?

bill moyers was on radio parallax the other day. he had a couple good quotes. one was actually him quoting someone else whose answer to the question "what is good news?" was: "good news is what information we need to keep our freedoms." the other quote from moyers himself was "news is what they don't want us to know...everything else is publicity." which makes me think of the documentary "control room." reporters are more likely repeaters than anything else.

6-01-04 (02:29) the majority report was a rerun today, but they i hadn't heard any of it before. in one segment they talked to a representative for diebold and an activist who is trying to get rid of electronic voting machines, or at least make a paper trail mandatory. it was informative. they also talked about the differences between our campaign cycles and those of the british. ours seem to start earlier every cycle...this time major coverage began about a year and a half before the actual election. granted, most of that was for the primary, but since then election coverage has gotten considerable coverage. of course along with that comes campaigning by both sides - for money and for votes. in england candidates can't buy broadcast ads - they can buy ads in newspapers and magazines or on billboards and the like, but they can't buy tv ads like we do here. for at least the last couple months bush has been buying ads in key states that attack kerry. so we're talking an active campaigning of at least six months. in the uk it's apparently more like six weeks. over there they also allot a certain amount of free television time for each party. one problem with our system is that so much money is required to run a campaign in large part because of the broadcast fees. of course now that the flood gates are open it wouldn't really matter if we prohibited broadcasting of political ads because that money would just get spent elsewhere. in the uk they have limits on the amount of money that can be spent on non-federal campaigns so that's one way they deal with the problem. i'm not sure what other limits they have on federal campaigns, but it seems that money is less of a factor in their system.

it seems to me that there are lot of changes that need to happen in our system and you can't just choose one or two reforms. if, for example, we were to prohibit the broadcast of political ads, but not place a cap on the amount of money a campaign could spend then the big money would still be raised and it would still get spent elsewhere. i think a lot of these problems of ours stem from our ideology that people should be able to spend their money in the marketplace as freely as possible. most people seem to think that there isn't much of a problem with this ideology spilling into the political realm.

5-2-04 jon wrote this:

"Many say the United States is not a democracy. Rather, it is a republic, which supposedly is preferable because it does not subject the minority to the whim of the majority. The way I see it, however, a Constitutional republic cannot even protect the majority from the whim of the minority.

Article V of the Constitution provides that the document may be amended with the approval of two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. (Two-thirds of the states may instead call a Constitutional convention, but that seems to me a more arduous task.) Looking at the numbers, one can figure out how many votes would actually have to be cast.

There are 435 people in the House of Representatives. Thus a two-thirds majority would mean 291 votes. There are 100 in the Senate, so a two-thirds majority would mean 67 votes. As you only need three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify, you only need ratification from 38 states. To calculate a maximum number of votes from state legislatures, assume first that each state requires a unanimous vote in their legislature to ratify (which they wouldn't) and that only the largest state legislatures decide to ratify. Based on state legislature sizes in the year 2002, you need 6430 votes. All told, then, the maximum votes you would need to amend the Constitution is 6788. That is less than 3 thousandths of a percent (0.00232%, to be precise) of the total US population (which is slightly more than 293,000,000 people, growing by 1 every 13 seconds).

That's only the maximum figure. It would be even less, for example, if only the states with the smallest legislatures ratified, and if each state legislature required only a three-fourths majority to ratify. In that case, you would need 3943 votes.

Of course, the obvious counter-argument here is that these legislatures are beholden to their constituents. Firstly, that is only true as long as they value their jobs over whatever particular Constitutional amendment is on the table. Though these politicians are hired to represent the electorate, I think we all know how easily they forget those selfsame voters. More importantly, even if you cut out the middleman and required direct ratification by the citizens of each state, an amendment could pass with the approval of less than one-third of the population of the United States. For example, if the 38 least populous states (total population: 113,446,982) called a Constitutional convention and then ratified their amendment by requiring approval from four-fifths of their respective citizens, only 90,757,586 people would have to approve. That's less than 31% of the US population.

This minority, be they 4000 or 90 million strong, could change the Constitution almost completely. (I say "almost" because Article V theoretically prohibits the deprivation to any state of equal suffrage in the Senate.) They could rescind the entire Bill of Rights, eliminate the executive branch, incorporate the PATRIOT Act, forbid the study of law, you name it. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that "[the] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." When so small a minority can so easily compromise or even eliminate these principles, it seems to me that these rights are anything but secure."

4-9-04 (12:58) condoleezza rice's testimony was pretty much what we expected. she backed bush and blamed the intelligence. on the one hand the administration clearly had information that should have been acted upon, on the other hand that kind of intelligence is always vague and in a pre-9/11 era it's hard to justify shutting things down for unclear threats. in other words, i don't think much will come from the 9/11 commission...there will be a lot of finger pointing, but i don't think it will hurt bush very much. besides, there have been a lot of changes since 9/11 and the commission will likely site that as a positive for the bush administration. of course a lot of the changes have eroded our civil rights, but on the surface it looks like bush has done a lot of good things to prevent terror attacks in the future. my sense is that this will more or less blow over by the time the elections come because nothing big was revealed. i actually think that the stuff that happened immediately after 9/11 is more intriguing and damning than the stuff that happened before. things like the fact that the bin laden family was given a free pass to fly immediately following the attacks, or that within days the administration was thinking about using this as an excuse to finish business in iraq, or that bush used the attacks to author the patriot act and shove in all sorts of insidious legislation and "relief" for corporations...

4-1-04 (02:44) i don't know what the laws are regarding indian reservations. obviously there is some ruling that allows them to have casinos in states that normally don't allow such gaming. to me, this is just the tip of the iceberg...unless there is some built-in restrictions on the sovereignty of the reservations. depending on the limits, we may one day see reservations that act as pockets of third world nation-like cheap labor. if minimum wage doesn't apply then you could feasibly see wages that would compete with mexico and other nations, but wouldn't require factories moving as far. other possibilities would include lower health/envrionmental standards for factories, prostitution, etc. i assume there are some regulations on what sorts of things the reservations can do...maybe they are bound to federal regulations, but not state ones, or something like that. i wonder if they have the power to tax people/businesses on their territory. i'd like to know more about how the whole thing is structured; politically and economically.

3-6-4 (04:04) a couple things...watched a bit of the mclaughlin group tonight and they talked about nader a bit since mclaughlin had an interview with nader recently. they mentioned a couple things about nader's decision to run. 1) it helps keep kerry sharp. as i mentioned before - this whole 'anyone but bush' mentality from the leftists is lazy, scary and doesn't help motivate voters. 2) it keeps things interesting. nader will help mobilize the left by keeping kerry on his toes and keeping the debate lively and full. 3) nader has said he will focus primarily on the shortcomings of bush. 4) kerry is, by most standards, a liberal and needs to choose a moderate running mate to bring the ticket to the center. nader provides a visible true leftist stance to the national debate. in other words, if you think kery is liberal, check this guy out. the same way that i once thought i could say "well at least bush isn't as crazy as pat buchanan or pat robertson." hmmm. 5) in many ways nader will just be filling the shoes of guys who have bowed out like kucinich or dean. dean mobilized the left way more than kerry or edwards did. and kucinich also brings a certain fire and vision to the race that kerry doesn't have...though, to his credit, he has adopted a bit of this technique in recent weeks. nader will serve the same function, but outside of the party. 6) as i've said before, i think that turnout will be a huge factor in this race. if the left is motivated then we can defeat bush because there are quite simply more of us. but if there is no mobilization of the poor, disenfranchised and disillusioned of the nation then i think bush will win again. i think nader can help in this cause. 7) let us not forget about the congressional races that will be decided on the same day as the president. in those races turnout, mobilization and informing the polity are especially important. again, i think that nader can help in this cause because of his fresh voice.

on a more personal note - if anyone is afraid that my one vote for nader will make california go to bush instead of kerry (yeah right) then let this calm you: from now on if ralph nader or a green party candidate is not on the ballot i just won't vote. that way you can rest-assured that my vote isn't being stolen by nader. if he, or someone like him, is not on the ballot i just won't bother voting. that's one thing i never understood about the whole "nader gave florida to bush" argument. why get mad at the few thousand people who voted for nader when there were millions of people who didn't vote at all? why not get mad at them?

3-3-4 (02:08) i'm really pissed off about the election results. props 57 and 58 passed which means we're going to go into greater debt. people don't understand something. they either don't understand how debt works or what the difference is between the deficit and the debt. deficit is yearly, debt is the sum of deficits and surpluses from the past. the bond will give us money now, but give us more of a deficit in the future, thereby increasing our debt. unless the governor has some brilliant way to spend this money that will increase our tax base or generate other revenue streams then the bonds will only help us in the short term and hurt us a great deal in the long term. it was infinitely stupid to vote for 58. if i were arnold i'd let the voters know that because they voted for morons (governors AND congressmen) in the past they're going to pay for it. i'd go after the energy giants that bilked the state out of billions, i'd reinstitute the car tax, though i'd probably cut it a bit, i'd raise property taxes for the ultra-rich and tie this tax in with income taxes so that retired people and farmers who happen to have highly valued homes wouldn't lose their property, i'd raise income taxes for the top one percent of income earners, i'd have my people start looking into prisoners who have been in prison for a long time for petty crimes or people who are over a certain age (let's say 60) and who have been in prison for more than (let's say) five years in an effort to reduce our outlay for the enormously bloated prison system, and i'd institute a temporary half cent tax on high sugar content items like candy and soda. i've heard that a half cent tax on each can of soda alone, would bring in a couple billion dollars a year. all of the above would bring us out of the deficit we currently face without putting us further into debt or eliminating any critical programs. the rich would grumble and i wouldn't get reelected, but it would be the right thing to do. it combines the cutting of a bloated and unethical prison system, slight temporary taxes on sweets, and more equitable long-term taxing of the super-rich.

2-25-04 (02:33) regarding nader's bid for the presidency...i still think that the two party system in america is a sham. i think the argument that nader stole the presidency from gore is ridiculous. i think that alternative parties need to be encouraged in this country, even in the face of four more years of bush - and i hate bush as much as just about anyone else. i think it's sad that our political climate is such that even left wingers feel the need to bash nader for his decision to keep fighting the good fight. it shows you how truly scared the nation is. once again the powers that be have framed the issue in such a way that Right is on the defensive. that is, only in a truly fucked up world would the debate be structured in such a way as to put naderites on the defensive about his decision to vote. only in this political climate does the decision of one consumer activist to run for public office become something to rally against. am i the only one who sees how twisted that is? they're winning because they're framing the way we talk about fundamental issues such as this, and that's the most scary thing that i can think of.

regarding gay "marriage"... i don't care what they call it, i think that people should be allowed to bond with each other and have equal rights under the law. is it a state issue? a federal issue? i don't know. so far it seems to have been a state issue since i guess the states issue marriage licenses, but if it becomes a civil rights issue then that would make it federal, right? on the other hand there is precedent for the limitation of such things. we don't generally think that brothers and sisters should be allowed to get married and no one seems to be all that upset about it. to some people the thought of gay marriage is the same as the marriage of two siblings (or marriage between multiple partners) - it's unnatural and morally reprehensible. this is also seen in the anti-sodomy laws that some states have. they feel it's simply an extension of the states' right to limit other deviant sexual acts such as incest, polygamy and bestiality. my point to all this is this - there does seem to be adequate legal precedent for the government to limit certain marriages and sexual acts. this is, unfortunately, especially true in particular states where there is an actual mandate to limit said activities/bonds. that's a common theme of mine - the tyranny of democracy - most people think i'm insane when i use that term, but i think there's an element of truth to it (though i do recognize its necessity). but back to the subject at hand... president bush's plan to amend the constitution to limit the meaning of marriage seems pretty absurd. just mulling over the amendments in my head i can't remember any amendments (other than prohibition, which was later repealed) that limit the freedom of people. most of them are about granting suffrage to blacks, women, people 18 and older or giving the people the rights against government tyranny - like all that boring stuff in the bill of rights about freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury, etc.. bush is fucking evil. at any rate, since there is precedent to limit marriage in certain instances, i think it'll probably stay a state issue and will come to votes on a state by state basis. i don't think that bush's planned amendment will pass by the needed margin. and having it work on a state by state basis is about as much as one can realistically expect, in which case the only limitation will be when couples move or something like that because in those situations the other states won't be forced to recognize their marriage. but as soon as california allows gay marriage i guarantee you there's going to be some crackpot brother/sister couple that demand their constitutional right to get married.

also, what benefits do people get from marriage? tax breaks, they can't be forced to testify against each other, and a slew of benefits that come when they have kids - like the right to custody of the child if the other parent dies... things like that. what, historically, is the reasoning behind granting benefits to any two people who want to marry? in its origin i suppose it was religious and a matter of wanting to help those people who are advancing the race. if procreation was the major reasoning behind giving certain benefits to married people then i propose not an expanding of marriage, but a contraction of it...actually an elimination of it. if its major purpose is to provide benefits to those who procreate then i think we should get rid of it altogether. we have too many people as it is. in conjunction with this we'd have to change a few other laws...for example any rules that say only blood relatives and spouses can do certain things should be changed, adoption/parenting rights laws would have to be changed, stuff like that. i guess the question becomes this: why should any people entering into a bond be allowed certain special rights? and then, what should the limits be? what number/sex/species of animal should be allowed to enter into this bond? once you start deconstructing it, the whole thing seems utterly absurd. to draw the line where we have, for as long as we have, is completely arbitrary.

my problem is i don't believe in God or Truth.

i wish "who wants to marry a millionaire" was still on fox. maybe next season.

i'd like to view the movie "idiots" again in the context of pushing boundaries. from what i remember the movie was only so-so in its execution, but left itself open to some interesting readings. perhaps it would have been better if they pretended to be a group of monkeys instead of mentally retarded people. then it would have been pushing the boundaries of human/animal much in the same way that drag queens push the boundaries of male/female. i'd like to see more people acting like monkeys for this purpose. i think it's a very valid point that needs to be made - we are, after all, 98.5% identical to chimps. just as there are many people who don't fit into "female" or "male" categories, i've met an equal number of people who don't quite fit into the "human" or "chimpanzee" categories. to categorize things in such rigid ways, i think, is a bit fascist and dogmatic. unfortunately, almost by definition, these people are largely unaware of, and unable to defend, their place in society. because they lack the intellectual capacity for this sort of thought they cannot organize in a meaningful way (as gay, bi, and transgender people have). as a result they have yet to establish any sort of social or political groups capable of reforming the public's view, or treatment of, their kind. i may have just found my calling.

1-30-04 (00:52) some background for the following excerpt from michael moore's website....recently moore decided to officially back clark for president. in a speech in NH, moore said he looked forward to clark debating bush, describing it as "the general versus the deserter." he said this many times before (including in santa cruz and davis), but for some reason the media (peter jennings in particular) picked up on it this time. here's an excerpt from an interview jennings had with clark:

Jennings: Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him . . .

Clark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material . . .

Jennings: Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

Clark: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

and michael moore's response...

"Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Today, MoveOn.org has put together its response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf."

fyi: in 1992 clinton got third in the IA caucus and second in the NH primary (just like dean) and still ended up winning the election (obviously). i hope this serves as a bit of a reality check since it seems that people are counting dean out already. you need 2160 delegates to win the primaries so far kerry has 13 and dean has 9. so chill out. on the other hand, you might point out (rightly) that clinton was more moderate than dean is and thus was able to do better in the south and midwest, whereas dean is more liberal than kerry and really should be winning the relatively more liberal states.

there's a right wing think tank (called project for the new american century) that drafted a report called "rebuilding america's defenses" which called for the invasions of afghanistan and iraq as a way of securing future oil reserves. this report was issued sometime late in the clinton administration. it goes on to say that because the american government lacks the will to invade two countries and topple their government, we need a galvanizing incident on the order of pearl harbor. within 24 hours of that event (9/11) cheney and wolfowitz were calling for an invasion of iraq. i've heard other accounts that say a war in iraq was in the planning stages prior to 9/11. related information. primary source. i originally got word of this from john buchanan who is running for president on the republican ticket.

1-29-04 (02:37) "The State Treasurer has estimated that Governor Schwarzenegger’s bond will burden every California family with a $3000 tax burden over a 30-year period, compared to a cost of about $1100 for the five-year revenue bond approved earlier this year.

The governor would set a dangerous precedent by funding the ongoing cost of California government with general obligation bonds. California has traditionally used general obligation bonds to pay for long-term capitol improvements such as construction of schools, roads and bridges, but not for day-to-day costs of providing services.

The Consumer Federation of California recommends that the legislature adopt better alternatives for funding the 2003-2004 shortfall. California could increase its revenue by as much as three billion dollars a year by closing corporate tax loopholes that provide no benefit to the California people. We could raise as much as two to three billion a year with a temporary income tax surcharge on the very highest income earners (a surcharge of 0.7% on individuals earning over $137,500 a year and families earning over $275,000, and a surcharge of 1.7% on individuals earning over $275,000 and families earning over $550,000 a year).

Increasing marginal tax brackets on the top two percent of income earners is a matter of fairness. While real income stagnated during the 1990s for most Californians, those at the top benefited disproportionately. From 1993 to 2000 inflation adjusted earning for the middle quintile of Californians (those in the 40th to 60th percent of earners) rose by only 8.5%, while those in the top five percent increased their incomes by 113% and the top one percent boosted their earnings by 181%. Clearly these top earners have more than an ample ability to make a modest contribution to preserve our education, health and public safety services.

dean got rid of his campaign manager. i don't see that as that much of a problem. i think that the last guy did a great job of getting dean into the race and this next guy (who i think ran the gore campaign) will hopefully help him win the campaign. there are different strategies for each stage of a campaign so, to me, it makes perfect sense to change at this stage.

like i said, i'm not all that interested in who wins the primary...unless it's kucinich or someone really progressive like that. my major concern, like many people, is what happens in november against bush. possibly even more important than who wins the primary and their merits relative to bush, is the turnout levels that we can get in the primaries. i think that if there is a healthy increase in voter turnout, especially in swing states, the democrats have a good chance of unseating bush. if the increase is minimal or stagnant relative to 2000s primaries then we're in big trouble. if i were in charge of the democratic party i'd push voter turnout programs more than anything else...more than anti-bush campaigning or pro-kerry or whatever. i don't have any data on this, but if i'm really organized and i remember then maybe in november i will revisit the question.

1-22-04 (22:31) to tell you the truth i don't know much about any of the candidates right now. i've listened to a couple debates and i listen to npr on a regular basis, but i don't think that i know enough to know who to vote for. but the bigger truth is that i'm not voting for any of them. i'm still registered green party so i can't vote for them in the primaries. and so far dean is the only one with a shot who has piqued my interest at all because of the fire he has. i think that's a turnoff for most voters though. the important thing about dean, even if he doesn't get the nomination (and i think he will), is that he showed the other front runners what the people wanted. his angry schtick and internet grassroots campaigning raised a few eyebrows and it seems that nowadays kerry is talking more like dean. the big difference being that kerry was the frontrunner in the early stages and he has more experience, especially having served in vietnam. i think edwards is the clear vice president choice for whoever does get the nomination since clark and the others don't seem willing to be vice presidents and also because edwards helps with the southern vote. i haven't really studied the new electoral college breakdown, but i know that while CA gained a vote (55) NY and PA lost a couple and florida and texas gained a couple. so it'll be all the more necessary to gain votes outside of the NE and west.

01-06-04 (02:32) i don't know how true this is, but i'll throw it out there anyway...i think that in the last 20 years it's become more and more difficult to track how much is being spent to get a particular candidate elected. sure there are pretty good figures on how much the candidate spends for his/her campaign, but the wildcard is the special interests. it seems that more and more often there are individuals and groups who are paying for anti-bush or anti-democrat ads. it goes way beyond just giving money to candidates or their party. recently there was an ad that attacked howard dean and, according to npr, we won't know who funded the ad until after the primaries in new hampshire are over because the law says the information isn't available for a certain time period, or doesn't have to be disclosed until a certain time - i forget the specifics. regardless, it is one more example of ads that are being funded by someone or some group (in this case we don't know who) that further a political goal. i've only noticed this kind of thing more recently. maybe it existed before. maybe it was as bad before. maybe it's a recent phenomenon that has come about because of campaign finance reforms (mccain-feingold perhaps?), i honestly don't know. info is appreciated.

12-29-03 (22:57) reading more pleasant stuff about our world...this from "fast food nation"...it talks about the small business administration (sba) and how its supposed to help small businesses with loans and the like. "in 1996, the sba guaranteed almost $1 billion in loans to new franchisees. more of those loans went to the fast food industry than to any other industry. almsost six hundred new fast food restaurants, representing fifty-two differend national chains, were launched in 1996 thanks to government-backed loans." this comes right after talking about how burger king got loans to open 13 new experimental locations in new york. 11 of them failed and the burger king franchisees defaulted on the loans. the taxpayers ended up footing the bill for what was essentially burger king testing out marginal locations. schlosser also points out repeatedly that franchisees (individuals who buy the rights to operate a franchise location) default on their loans or go belly up more frequently than individuals who open their own business. which begs the question...why is the government subsidising franchise locations for burger king and othe franchises when it could direct that money to people who want to open joe's burger stand instead? additionally franchisees "are not covered by the laws that protect independent businessmen. and although they must purchase all their own supplies, they are not covered by consumer protection laws. it is perfectly legal under federal law for a fast food chain to take kickbacks (known as 'rebates') from its suppliers, to open a new restaurant next door to an existing franchisee, and to evict a franchisee without giving cause or paying any compensation." that partially explains why in a lot of places you'll see a mcdonald's a few blocks away from another mcdonald's. the chain doesn't care about the individual franchisees...the more locations it has the better, because more locations means more sales for them and they get a cut of the sales. he reveals all sorts of little tricks that chain restaurants employ. it's pretty sickening.

12-25-03 (23:34) two of the first three chapters in the newest franken book are dedicated to ann coulter. they're titled "ann coulter: nutcase" and "you know who i don't like? ann coulter." in both chapters he shows the hypocrisy of ann coulter's writings...on the one hand she'll say "political 'debate' in this country has become insufferable...instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that resembles professional wrestling." (that's from the first page of her book slander) franken points out that she follows this up with statements like "liberals hate society" or "even islamic terrorists don't hate america like liberals do." she also has a tendency of lying, misrepresenting or just not doing her homework. franken cites several examples..."she was born in 1961. or 1963. dpending on whethe you believe her old connecticut driver's license (1961) or her newer d.c. driver's license (1963). ann claims the d.c. license is correct, which means that when she registered to vote she was sixteen. that, of course, would be voter fraud. either way, she lied on at least on of her driver's licenses, a government i.d., which is a violation of federal law under the patriot act." he'll also point out more important lies...like when she says "that newsweek washington bureau chief evan thomas 'is the son of norman thomas, a four-time socialist candidate for president.' actually, norman thomas was the socialist candidate six times, running first in 1928 with a radical proposal for something called "social security." it's odd that coulter understates the number of times that thomas was the socialist party nominee, because that would make her argument that much stronger. if norman thomas had been evan thomas's father. which he was not." he goes on in detail about other times when coulter has lied or misrepresented things. he has a list of ways in which to lie "how to lie with footnotes #6: just make shit up...from page 134 of slander: 'even during the media's nightly floggin of iran-contra, reagan's approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent.'" here's what the article she quoted in her endnotes actually reported: "in last month's gallup poll, reagan's approval rating fell from 63 percent to 47 percent." in this case she quoted an actual story, but just made up new numbers. what the fuck?

as best as i can figure given the cost of a barrel of oil (about $20, 14 of which is profit) and the likely number of barrels that iraq has (at least 300 billion), iraq has at least a few trillion dollars worth of oil it could use for infrastructure and paying off its debts (currently in the area of 120-150 billion dollars).

12-25-03 (00:20) it's really funny to me how hypocritical some people can be. corporations often tout the advantages of the free market economy, but when bad times come along they beg the government for bailout money. in other words, when things are fine they want the government out of their way, but when 9/11 happens everyone's got their hands out. or how about george bush being all about states' rights in alaska (where they support his attempts to drill and log forests), but all about the federal government superceding the states when the florida state supreme court voted to extend the time allowed to perform recounts. the reason i mention this is because i was reading "fast food nation" last night and it mentions walt disney's "opposition to socialism and to any government meddling with free enterprise (yet) relied on federal funds in the 1940s to keep his business afloat." or how about how bush is supposed to be a republican, but has expanded the government in an almost uncomprehensible way (with the creation of the department of homeland security) and pushing through the "patriot" act. of course he's also cut pension benefits for soldiers and rumsfeld has hinted that in the near future the pentagon is going to close several military bases around the country.

how about rumsfeld talking about the connections between the corporation brown and root (now kellog, brown and root - KBR) and LBJ. brown and root contributed millions of dollars to LBJ's political campaigns and during the vietnam war received government construction contracts. their history dates back further...LBJ also helped them get a large contract for the construction of a dam while he was in congress. rumsfeld spoke out against the vietnam contract "why this huge contract is not being adequately audited is beyond me. the potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial." fyi: according to npr this contract was the first private contract of its kind and size...normally this kind of work was done by government employees. maybe rumsfeld figured out how much money could be made through such an arrangement and changed his mind over time.

12-23-03 (01:06) it seems to me that the privatization of war contracts is undesirable. first, let's ask why anyone would say it would be desirable. i think that the only real argument for privatization of things in general is efficiency. the private sector, motivated by profit, does things more efficiently. some might say it's because they don't trust the government to do a good job, but those people don't have a clear concept of history so let's just work off of the efficiency argument. as a quick aside, though, i don't trust the government all that much, but i trust the large corporations (enrons, bechtels, halliburtons) of the world far less. i think that the biggest hole in the argument in regards to war contracts specifically is that they are done on a cost plus profit margin basis. that is, the corporation reports to the government what the cost is and then adds a predetermined percentage of the total as their profit (it's often a variable margin depending on "performance" and the range is usually 2-7percent). quick math quiz - what's seven percent of a dollar? now what's seven percent of a billion dollars? okay, now, does it make more economic sense for the coroporation to do things effieciently or really slowly and jack up the prices of, say, gas along the way? so, as far as i'm concerned, the efficiency argument, in these cases, goes out the window. add to that the fact that privatized companies are likely to be less secure. do remember that the bush administration's reason for denying france, germany and others the chance to bid on contracts in iraq was "security." i'm guessing that the screening process for becoming a federal employee is more strict than that of a major corporation. it's a lame excuse anyway, but if they're going to use it then so will i. the last thing that makes me think these contracts should be federally run is that the current system creates a dangerous conflict of interests. cheney helping out his old buddies is the obvious example. other corporations getting in on it by making contributions to the bush campaign is just a matter of time...it's probably already happened. i'm not saying that running things federally will eliminate all the problems, but it's better than what we got. plus, worse comes to worst, government institutions, i feel, are more accountable than corporations.

it would be interesting to look at the stock prices of halliburton et al a month before november 2000 and then a month after the supreme court stopped the recounts in florida thereby handing the election to bush/cheney.

12-05-03 (01:46) you know what's funny? i mean besides asking a question like "you know what?"...when people give instructions like "go to the nursery and buy me a tree." then you ask them "what size" and they reply "oh, not too big and not too small." the word "too" is subjective, when i ask "what size" i'm asking you to define what is between the two "too"s. but usually when an exchange goes like that the person who is receiving the "not too big and not too small" instructions just goes along with it and says "okay." i don't mention this because anything specific happened, but it's always seemed nonsensical to me. almost like when people say "i could care less" when they really mean "i couldn't care less."

12-04-03 (01:36) there are several simple common sense measures that can be taken to clean politics up. they fly in the face of "freedom" so they probably won't be adopted in the near or distant future, but here are a few ideas: no more "patriot" acts or "clear skies" initiatives. refer to such legislation using numbers. like it or not, people are retarded and if they hear that their senator voted down the patriot act they're not going to be pleased. publicly finance elections. draw district lines using rectangular shapes so as to severely limit gerrymandering (like the stuff that went down in texas earlier this year). it's about getting the politics out of politics.

11-17-03 (00:40) finished reading the new michael moore book ("dude, where's my country") now i'm onto the newest al franken book. they make good companion pieces. to me michael moore has always been more of a populist who is political...never went to college, not particularly brilliant (though he does have plenty of good ideas, is smart, and very funny, etc.). that's long been a major appeal to me. i'm not comparing him to al franken and i'm not saying that he's an average person, but i don't see him as exceptionally intelligent either - he just looks at things in a common sense way. he's not noam chomsky and that's precisely why he is so popular. i think that sometimes the book simplified things (esp. regarding americans being liberal vs. conservative - he looked at principle to define political inclination, rather than looking at policy), but overall was necessary and is certainly going to help swing the country to the left...it points out the links between the bushies and saudi arabia, it shows the patriot act for what it is, etc. definitely a recommended read for those who have a passing interest in current political events. if, however, you're a little more into politics then check out something more along the lines of 'the best democracy money can buy.' it's a more focused effort from greg palast, an (maybe the) investigative journalist, who's been getting lots of press since bush became president.

11-14-03 (01:37) yesterday while at work some little girl asked for the "ymca" song. i showed her the village people section and said she might also be able to find it on a compilation of 70s music. her dad said "just download it honey." i smiled and said "that's illegal." he looked at her and said "it's okay." i wanted to tell them that if enough people did that i'd be out of a job. you see our store has already gone from having at least three people at any given time to having two people most of the night. now part of this is mismanagement on tower's part and some of it is part of a larger down sizing in the music industry. you see when people stop buying cds they're not hurting the executives of bmg, emd, sony, warner or universal - they're actually hurting the people at the very end of the cycle - that's people like me. you can't stick it to the man by downloading music because the heads of these companies are so well insulated that they barely feel the impact - even of a downward trend this size. rich people don't become poor unless they've horribly mis-managed their money, that's just the way it works. rich people spend their entire lives becoming rich and making sure they maintain their riches. sure a few people at the top lost their jobs, but they all have golden parachutes (severance packages) and sizable savings so they really don't need to worry. so download if you want - i actually don't have that big of a problem with it - but down delude yourself into thinking that it's harmless or that you're sticking it to the man, because you're not.

11-13-03 (22:26) the machiavellian style of world politics doesn't work anymore. i think that at one point it worked well enough to be considered (though it may not have been the "best" method it was a viable option). some would have you believe that the world is the same as it was before, but that's not true. the last fifty years have been far different...and the rules of the game have changed quite a bit since biological, nuclear and intelligence warfare. the ability for rogue individuals to have a calculable effect on a given state has increased like no time in the past and as a result it just might make more sense to be loved than respected and feared.