Say it ain't so...

The New York Times reports that Barack Obama is defending his choice of Rick Warren as a keynote speaker at his inauguration : "But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to 'come together,' even when there's disagreement on social issues. 'That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about,' he said."

Should Obama also invite David Duke to speak so that he can "come together" with white supremacists? Or should have L. B. Johnson felt the need to have noted segregationists speak at an inauguration (hypothetically speaking)?

I find this exceptionally disappointing. I understand the need to bring people together, but there must be limits to the bigotry that you include, and including a man who took an active role in stripping the benign rights away from citizens based on a myopic view of morality clearly crosses this line. Yes, I believe Obama should continue to engage Evangelicals in an open and respectful dialog, but I think it is rather obscene to give Warren the cache and acceptance that an inaugural address grants.

Drunk on technology

I keep hearing that the US is falling behind in science and technology. So what? What are the opportunity costs of gains in science? Less literature and music? Less idle time for the young? Less time spent home with family? Less values? Less joy? In the extreme, we will have a generation that can create the wonders of the future, but have no moral bearings as to if and how they should. It seems that often it is not more technology that is needed, but rather less. The problems of systemic obesity in the US will not be cured through the further implementation of food science, but through its significantly reduced application. The world will not be safer if we continue to master the splitting of the atom, but rather will only be secure if we remove the Damoclean nuclear threat by obliterating the technology used to achieve the feat in the first place. The advances in risk management technologies have not insulated our investments from wild swings, but rather have acted antipodal to this desire, creating unprecedented volatility and uncertainty: created systemic risk. Everywhere I look technology seems to be at the root of our problems; the very same technologies developed a generation before with the intent of fixing the problem leftover from the previous technologies, and so on and so forth. We have become drunk on technology and the misbegotten hangover is just starting to commence.

That is so classist (classless)

“You had a library in your house? That’s so bourgeois and snobbish of your family.”

“You honestly think so? You know, if this was a TV room we were talking about no one would bat a lash at its mention.”

“No one here is creating a fuss.”

“No, hear me out. It is completely acceptable to spend thousands of dollars every four or five years to have brand new state of the art televisions and hundreds more on speakers and cables, and DVD players, and God-knows-what-else, et cetera, et cetera. And then add on top of that a thousand dollars a year for the satellite hookup and TIVO subscription, and movies at $20 a pop…and all that extravagance is completely non-elitist, non-snobbish, kosher middle class values but when my family decides to spend an equivalent, or perhaps even lesser sum of money on properly and adequately storing our books all of a sudden it's snobbish. That is downright classist when you say that. Now I’m not accusing you of being malicious, but subconsciously all this disaffected middle class propaganda has definitely infected you, turned you against us.”

“Wait, you think there is some sort of middle-class war on the rich?”

“Not against the rich per se, but against upper-class intellectualism. It’s these same people that turned the words elite and elitism into pejoratives in the first half of this last century. And do you ever watch TV? Remember Frasier? The whole premise was let’s have viewers laugh at these two upstanding brothers because they are well educated and have modicum of refinement. Or on Law & Order, it is always some rich old-moneyed type who is involved in some heinous crime. It is all right there.”

“Wait, I thought your family didn’t have a TV room?”

“No - of course we have a TV room, but that's immaterial here.”

Thoughts on Brooklyn

There is something very organic and comforting about old Brooklyn. I can work north down my avenue and find boutique shops and Zagat rated restaurants, but there is something missing. Everything is too transitory. South, that is the direction I want. People at the diner know each other’s names. “Joey A died yesterday.” “I heard.” “His poor mother.” “She never did nothin’ to no one.” It is almost perverse, I feel, to sit at that counter and absorb their lives. This is their congregation, their lives intersecting; their stories concatenate and entwined, knit in one grand cloth that covers the blocks and guards their souls. Walking home I see the candles lit for Joey A, struggling in the wind, outside his poor mothers stoop. I want to stay here long enough so I too can feel their pain, can say things like “But what can you do?” and have it mean something. I see the condo buildings rising down Forth and hate them now. This is not their neighborhood, they will not cry and bleed here, and they will not sit at that counter and listen.

The guy-girl friendship matrix

And yes, the solution is sub-game perfect.

I was so much older then, I am younger than that now...

I have become convinced that the American soul is incredibly undernourished and see this as one of the most pressing policy concerns of the coming decades, if not the most pressing policy concern. I do not think hundreds of channels of TV or the proliferation of i-pods is going to do it. And no number of youtube videos or blogs can make up the deficit. We need a system over-hall. Jesus, I already sound like an old man. Maybe, but I see no other truth.

Economics and my heart

As always, Bellow puts it best...

Cities that I incorrectly assume are neighborhoods of New York City

-Baku

-Doha

-Lobamba

-Oslo

-Philadelphia

SAT Analogy

Barack Obama in March – “What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was [Hilary Clinton] negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”: Barack Obama in December “[Hilary Clinton] is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital…”

Me in March – “I sure hope this change motif is real.” : ?

A. Me in December - “Gosh, this change seems very much like something I’ve seen before.”

B. Me in December - “Thank god change is here. All that two-faced politicking was getting old.”

C. Me in December - “I wonder if this means McCain is really qualified for the office?”

D. Me in December - “I need another beer.”

But what units are the budget contraint in?

waiting to be inspired

...There are instances when I finally loose myself, moments where the narration in my head ceases, my ego stripped away, myself left bare and empty, filled anew with the words replanted from the page to my soul, bypassing translation and becoming fact, becoming me, filling my veins and capillaries with something new, something that I can stomach, something yet cancerous. That is why I read, for these infrequent transcendent moments where I find my foot tapping out some chthonic and primal rhythm, my body rocking in step, hovering over the page drinking it straight to my blood. Sadly, I find very little in current prose or poetry that fills this need. Recommendations to the contrary are welcome.

They did say please...

Custudy Hearings 2.0

Statement of Purpose: (DRAFT)

I want to put together something that attempts to capture the zeitgeist of this generation. The technology, the digital voyeurism, the guilt, the nihilism, the private life and the shit that fills it, the rejection of the American dream: we do not want to produce more, to have more, but rather want only to loll around and love and be loved more. We dare to be ironic but are too apathetic to realize that we already are. We are a sham generation. We will be shorter, fatter, dumber, and poorer than those who came before, and will achieve this through increased hours, heightened use of technology, increased efficiency, and all the culminations of modern health and science. We pushed into office a president of change, and seemingly did it with ever giving a thought to what that meant. We no longer have the bible, but believe rather in the infallible invisible hand. The market it supreme. Hail the market. We just need to fix the market. The market did not fail us, we failed the market. This is the now and this where I want to intercede.

The Manchu State

The ichor of callow lords coursing verdant, spilt for us,
Splayed in doffed raiment of flaxen hemp and fustian might,
The vatic pride of prescient wisdom of the pending fall,
It is all too much for me tonight.

The world is too flat and hot and crowded they’ll say,
No reason to sire those who cannot play,
Or lift a spoon without the guilt of this;
Their footprints mashed and without bliss.

We are the new Qing Dynasty, with bounded carbon-feet,
Hobbled still with awkward hope and trenchant grief.

...wait, the wine glasses cost the entire month's rent?

With god on your side

“Religion [to me] meant the church of Rome. Quite conceivably it was an empty ritual but is was seemingly the only assimilative, traditionary bulwark against the decay of morals. Until the great mobs could be educated into a moral sense some one must cry out: ‘Thou shalt not!’” - F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise

Modern man has succeeded in throwing off the chains of Catholicism – the American church has shrunk, its authority waned, and congressional enthusiasm diminished – but in its place did not find higher callings or moral instruction. Instead religion was thrust into the marketplace. Now there are a thousand sects, and no one has a disagreement with their lord God. Where once the church imbued modesty and moderation, the modern church now praises the individual and tells them: ‘I agree, you are right!’ This is the problem. There is no thought, but merely people’s prejudices projected into the God construct. If you’re gay, you can have a God which embraces his queer sons and daughters. If you cannot stand the homosexuals, then there is a God who condemns them to hell. Like your wealth? There is a god for that as well. Want to forget the world and live alone in a cave? God allows that too. There is a God for everybody now who wants one. Christianity may have won out over paganism in the West, but monotheism is now dead. There are now as many gods as there are points of view, with each incarnation of the god of Abraham competing against the other for your soul. America is no longer one nation under God, but rather a nation of people living under their own, unique, all approving self-lords. Have it your way McLords.

I am curious into the entomology of the term ‘church-shopping,’ for I feel that the emergence of this phrase into the lexicon corresponds with some crucial tipping point in which the masses fell away from moral authority and begun to worship themselves; the seemingly logical progression of materialism and liberalism. There is now a private life, but only shit to fill it, but that’s OK, because God is on your side.

Prediction

Election day prediction: the candidate that spent the most money will win (again).

Consider first what you are voting for

Before pulling the lever (or mailing your ballet, or touching the screen, et cetera) first consider what you are voting for. Whoever wins the presidential election this year will have accumulated an unprecedented number of votes; the loser will likely receive the second highest total to date. Nolons volons, a vote this year is also a tacit vote for the political system that this country offers, along with the dialog that the two front running candidates have put forth.

The election of 2008 subjected the voting public to the most protracted campaign in US history. However, for all this length, it will also likely be looked back on as one that was slimmest on content. Two years of campaigning and the candidates could find time for only three lackluster 90 minute debates. Even more insulting, the three “debates” were rehearsed and intellectually offensive. They offered no insight, no dialog, and little truthfulness. Instead, the candidates molested the format into what amounted to taking turns rehashing worn-out snippets of stump speeches and platitudinous half-truths. During these debates neither candidate was willing to address (or, more fearfully, perhaps not able comprehend) one of the key causes of the financial crisis: the overextended budgets of the majority of average American citizens. Nor would either candidate honestly discuss how the $700 billion bailout would alter their platforms. Similar critiques could be offered for every policy areas feigned to be covered during the debates. Issues like net-neutrality, ethanol subsides, gay marriage, et cetera were not fortunate enough to be distilled down to boilerplate clichés and myopic commentary. What a sham. And remember, the format and rules of the debates were determined by the candidates. This burlesque mockery was their machination: the candidates deciding market-tested ad buys were what this country deserved to make its most important decision.

And consider this, with an environmental crisis already in the works, the candidates could find the time to subjugate themselves to a forum on faith, but never once considered a forum on science. The issues of tomorrow will not be informed by a dogmatic book cobbled together two thousand or so years ago, but rather through the persistent pushing of knowledge and continued questioning of the status quo.

At a more holistic level, consider the two party system that the Democrats and Republicans have bolstered and sanctified. This year, not surprisingly, there was no third party representation at the debates. During the Republican primaries Ron Paul was denied debate participation despite running third in Iowa. This lack of outside voice effectively silences all opinions that are not timid or watered down. This does not advance the country, but rather mires the republic with the fetid and rotting ideals that invited the current pressing calamities, be they pecuniary or environmental.

American politics leaves one with the inspired choice between voting for a candidate that treats them like a child, bred from a system that fosters mediocrity, or not voting and handing over the election to the masses, to the vulgus prafanum. Not really much of a choice. And at the end of the day I do not think either party would be upset to learn that they drove the thinking populous away from the voting booths. Perhaps then they could scrap the entire debate artifice and instead have the candidates compete in televised karaoke contest. The rating would surely be higher.

How very sad...

Senator John McCain is a miserable shell of his former self. He did, however, have the upstanding idea of barnstorming the country with his opponent in a series of town hall meetings and debates. Senator Barack Obama’s decision to turn down this offer cannot be reconciled with his inspirational speeches and ideals. The choice was pragmatic and cynical. It shortchanged the American public and further impoverished the national discourse. It was, sadly, purely political. Likewise, Obama’s choice to forego campaign financing, after tacitly committing to it, was cold, calculated politics as well: the advantage gained from more money outweighed the political loss of reneging on his prior commitment and values. Further, his coyness when confronted with the question of which of his programs will be scaled back or eliminated in the face of financial meltdown is either national fiscal suicidal or leap of faith that he can pull the wool over voters eyes until the first Tuesday in November. Neither of these choices sounds like change, and neither can easily be reconciled with the values and ideas that originally led me to support Obama. How very sad.

I'm mad as hell...

On several occasions throughout this political campaign Senator Barack Obama has implicitly referenced and explicitly cited the writings and philosophy of Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, particularly his work Moral Man and Immoral Society. Niebuhr writes in the introduction to his argument that “…the world of history, particularly in man’s collective behavior, will never be conquered by reason, unless reason uses tools, and is itself driven by forces which are not rational.” Is it this maxim, this cynical world view, which guides the seemingly intellectual (and optimistic?) Obama to willfully and repeatedly lie and obfuscate his and Senator John McCain’s positions and record? It is the best way have thus far been able to rationalize his campaign; others digress.

I have found at dinner party that the unanimous rejoinder to any critique of the truth content of Obama’s campaign is to dismiss his less than honest behavior as a necessary evil to compete in American politics. This is then almost always followed with a regressive argument that details how the Republicans lied first and more often. Please, this callow playground mentality fails because it offers no moral backing for the Machiavellian shortchanging of the American public. Is Obama the best of the binary options presented to the American public? Yes. I applaud his general latitudinarian views and see little, if any, redeeming tenants left on the right. (Where are the ideas of Burke, Mills, Strauss, Bloom, Hayek, et al?) And are the McCain campaign’s political machinations more odious? Sure.

None of this, however, means that I have to be content with the candidates and the discourse they have offered. I am mad as hell over the troglodytic, dishonest, and superficial political conversation in America, and I am not going to take it anymore. (I’ll get around to the media when I have the energy)

This is nothing new to American politics. It assuredly is not change either. It is more of the same. So, let us call a spade a spade: Obama is a politician through and through; he lies and obfuscates (did he really believe that McCain wanted to fight the Iraq war for 100 years? No.); he offers platitudes and clichés (…not red states, or blue states…but the United States – this fixes partisan politics how?); he cherry-picks his personal narrative (he speaks at length about his Midwest, Kansas values, yet omits his decades split between Morningside Heights, Cambridge and Hyde Park); et cetera. So let us hold off on sanctifying him until he starts treating us like reasoning adults.