:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Friday, August 29, 2003 ::

Wow - two days of posting in one month - you know I spoil you. A couple of different pieces to cap off the summer - nothing fancy. I wanted to post my blackout adventure as it was quite exceptional but one thing I didn't want this blog to be was a diary of any kind, and since I didn't really have a point to make about the whole ordeal I thought I would just leave it for another time.

For now, some additions to my reading room including couple of science gems (The Genome Changes Everything with Matt Ridley and A United Biology with E.O. Wilson) and a few writings each from blog celebs Steven Den Beste and Bill Whittle.

update - there's something up with the science essays (half of them are missing). i'm blaming blogger until i find out otherwise.

I've also updated the opinion section on the left. Nice to see Peter back with a new site so soon. With a focus on indie and college pop, he's the first of a wave of music writers added to my linkroll (and for a good jazz blog, check out Jazz News from Marshall Bowden - I've included the parent site, Jazzitude, in my music links). Other interesting people I found include cognitive scientist David Chalmers, physicists John Cramer and Alan Sokal (the same dude who penned the brilliant postmodern hoax Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity), and about a dozen other writers, lawyers, profs, and pundits. Always room for more.

The magazines, news outlets, research, and reference links have also been updated with a few additions each.

Some interesting visitors in the last month according to my site meter stats. Judging by the spike in my visits lately, it would appear CNN beauty Rym Brahimi has something of a cult following. Her name in conjunction with search words like 'photos,' 'cute,' and 'nude' no doubt brought some unique visitors - welcome! I was also found through an MSN search for 'world's longest cock.' Hey, how did you know? Actually, they found me courtesy of the Mark Steyn quip at the bottom of this page in which he was referring to the U.S. (you betcha). And for the person who somehow found me looking for 'jean chretien pics'? Not here my friend.

:: Scot 12:20 PM [+] :: ::
...

The Claw-handed Whirlyball Girl

One interesting topic I've read much about in the last couple of years is a trend that has seen the polarization of people that either admire or respect power (as I tend to do) with those who hate or fear it (you all know by now who I'm talking about). Professional sports dynasties, war generals, great thinkers, world empires - political and economic, spacecraft, skyscrapers - the most interesting people, places, and things has always been the powerful.

This is not to say I don't appreciate a good underdog. The tiny avenger of justice, the lunchpailers, the injury-prone n'er do wells - underdogs carry unique charms. I don't root for the underdog out of loyalty to the weak but rather out of admiration for the right character mixed with other strengths like resourcefulness, ambition, and desire. A favorite of mine has always been the underdog who refuses assistance. To some people, against the odds means exactly that.

Not long ago I saw a great example of this from a young girl playing Whirlyball - a unique game where players are required to hold a plastic scoop with one hand while maneuvering a bumper car with the other. The game is played by kids and adults, but this day a group of 9-13 year olds were on the court. This girl, 10 maybe 11, had a claw for a hand - a disfigured thumb and index finger that functions more like a pincer. This was ineffective for both properly using her scoop as well as driving her car, so like one-armed pitcher Jim Abbott, she adapted by quickly switching her good hand to manipulate her car or scoop while her pincer held the other steady.

During her first game, both teams fell into the habit of gently handing her the ball. Being given the ball from her own side was teamwork, the other charity. About halfway through the game she scolded an unfortunate boy, as well as a couple of others, for treating her less than what she was - the opposition. "Play the game properly" she would yell. Even her own team began handing her the ball only when it made strategic sense.

Most striking about all of this was that the girl wasn't very good. Already small to begin with, her first game gave her no time to acquaint herself with her necessary adaptation. She wasn't the worst on her team, but she was a detriment. The times when she was handed the ball made little discernable difference to the play. She never did score any points, nor did she seriously interfere with the other team scoring theirs. Nonetheless, she did improve after a few games enough to make a few assists in addition to using her car to (somewhat) defend against opposing rushes. Still making her share of mistakes, she had at least progressed from 'detriment' to 'neutral impact,' but through efforts all her own. Another few games and she would have been scoring.

It's a nice distraction from the societal clouds of victimhood and oppression that perceives all those without power somehow 'owed' something. It's inspiring to see the disadvantaged refuse assistance and twice as satisfying for those who succeed at something despite the odds. That girl, as well as her parents, deserves praise.

:: Scot 11:59 AM [+] :: ::
...

A Homo Summer

The past few months has been busy for the gay community. With Canada's same-sex marriage recognition, the Supreme Court ruling on sodomy, and the queer Episcopalian priest, there's been a lot of gay in the air. Even Wal-Mart jumped into the fray with their non-discriminatory policy toward the hiring of homosexuals.

For a straight guy, I've known more than my share of queers. I've met many through work (especially social services), school, and music (though mostly bisexuals). I've had a few gay male friends and many gay and bi female friends. For years I counseled dozens of teenagers and young adults that were gay, bi, or trans. On two different occasions, I lived in downtown Toronto's all too hip gay district. I drank in their bars, shopped in their stores, and dated their girl friends. All in all not an entirely comprehensive sample, but certainly a good one.

Similar to the discussions I have with other 'minority' friends, whether black, Jewish, or women, I often ask about their group's particular extremisms in relation to their own views. There is a bias here since I don't usually befriend the generally angry or deluded so the feedback I do get tends to be less radical. Still, it is pleasing to hear the denunciation of crackpot philosophies and behaviors from mainstream gays as it reinforces my generally liberal views when it comes to certain causes of theirs. Unfortunately for the gay community, the minority often speaks louder than the majority.

Gay activism, more so than other lobby groups, is subject to an extremism that often subverts its own mission. Though good ol' fashioned prejudice accounts for much of the difficulty homosexuals have faced when vying for equal rights (like marriage or spousal benefits), their cause has also been hindered by the extreme philosophies and actions of queer culture that clash with the general mores of society. In order to realize further advances into mainstream society, the gay community will need to quell various problems:


crassness

The gay movement is poorly served by the parade of near nude satyrists on display during Pride celebrations (or Saturday nights in the Village). The news photos I saw of happy couples, just married and now legally bonded, contrasted sharply with the ugly exhibitionism of the gay party-set. Add to this the reputation for frequent outdoor activity (you have your own bathhouses!) and you start making homosexuality look vulgar. Lesbians fare no better. Their 'erotica' looks as much like porn as it does art, especially when plastered about their workspaces. Overt public horniness is rude.


androgynizing the sexes

This concept, found in both queer and feminist literature, is little more than a backdoor attempt at social engineering. Ideas like those that suggest females and males should produce equal results in everything, or that environment and not genetics plays a greater role in determining gender difference, are not supported by historical, cross-cultural, or scientific proof, but rather driven by a political need to eliminate the genders. Androgynizing the sexes as a way of undermining society's male female yin yang will not expedite your cause.


aligning with other radicals

When the Blacks and the Jews teamed up in the 60's to unite for civil rights, they both faced similar battles (which is actually the core battle of the gay movement - equality in particular institutions and 'acceptance' by society at large). When the gay movement allies itself with feminists and anti-globos, it reduces its cause to just another part of the leftist miasma, and a further reason the right and gays don't get along.


manipulating words and altering language

Homophobia makes about as much etymological sense as the term 'racism.' Those who are bigoted or prejudiced toward homosexuals are not afraid of them, or becoming one of them, any more than the ethnically bigoted are anthropologists who study the genetic differences between races. This redefinition of words and ideas not only leads to confusion in general thought and conversation, it also makes otherwise marginally interesting fields of academic study political minefields. Several words (gay, queer, queen, fairy, butch, femme) now seem to have double meanings that can trigger the overly sensitive.

In the same vein, homosexuals that refer to themselves as 'fags' and 'dykes' are no more dignified than the blacks who call themselves 'niggers.' It's not 'taking the word back' - it's pitiful self-victimization.


insisting children need to be queer educated

Families with two moms or two dads account for less than one percent of all families. Unless a kid is getting picked on at school, there is no reason to introduce the homo rainbow into the classroom. Homosexual families are simply not that important.


I don't criticize the majority of churches for balking with the gay thing. A group collective by definition implies group first, individual second. I've never understood how changing the rules of a club to suit a small minority doesn't qualify as selfish. For a group, especially one where membership is voluntary, to change its view or stance on a topic a gradual, democratic sway needs to occur. If that change doesn't occur than too bad - you can either acquiesce to what the group has accepted or you can start your own group.

I do support gay couple spousal benefits and their freedom to marry - in whatever definition the term marriage ends up as after the dust settles. I also under particular circumstances (which I won't bother with here) support their freedom to adopt. I support these for the same reasons I do other political issues - I believe it to be 'fair' and I believe its implementation will do society more good than harm. My general support wanes however when other causes, left unchallenged, are allowed to distort the core of this one. I see the issue of gay marriage and spousal benefits as neither personal nor impactful on society at large and therefore don't weigh in on it much. An overabundance of radicalism and vulgarity could propel me to weigh in even less.

:: Scot 11:55 AM [+] :: ::
...

I didn't have any music or reading room goodies this time around so I thought I'd serve up a few oddities:



* * *


A 1990 Guitar Player interview with Johnny Marr featuring his list of 10 Ways to Avoid Becoming a Guitar Hero

1. Quit a wildly successful band - and turn down offers from other successful bands - for musical reasons.
2. Avoid solos whenever possible.
3. Play few single-note passages.
4. Put songs before showmanship.
5. Don't clutter your records, even if it means laying out.
6. Be subtle in your innovations: Don't pose with a four-necked guitar; instead, concentrate on offbeat harmonic ideas, unusual tunings, weirdo chord voicings, and finely detailed accompaniment.
7. Paint with a feather, not a firehose.
8. Cite unfashionable influences.
9. Violate pop music conventions whenever possible.
10. Denounce guitar heroism loudly and frequently.

Another reason he's one of my guitar gods (whether he likes it or not).



* * *


Remember the first twenty books of the Choose Your Own Adventure Series?

1 - The Cave of Time
2 - Journey Under the Sea
3 - By Balloon to the Sahara
4 - Space and Beyond
5 - The Mystery of Chimney Rock
6 - Your Code Name is Jonah
7 - The Third Planet from Altair
8 - Deadwood City
9 - Who Killed Harlowe Thrombey?
10 - The Lost Jewels of Nabooti
11 - Mystery of the Maya
12 - Inside UFO 54-40
13 - The Abominable Snowman
14 - The Forbidden Castle
15 - House of Danger
16 - Survival at Sea
17 - The Race Forever
18 - Underground Kingdom
19 - Secret Pyramids
20 - Escape



* * *


A tale of two poets. One is by Jim Morrison, the other by Jewel. Can you guess?


Infatuation

Infatuation is a strange thing.
A bony creature thin with feeding on itself.
It is addicted not to its subject, but to its own vain hunger
And needs but a pretty face to fuel its rampant imagination.
It's humid couch and sweaty palms.
It's fleshy carpets ablaze with conquest.
But when conquering is complete,
the blood leaves its limbs and it becomes disenchanted.
Disappointed even to the point of disgust
with its subject, who sits then, like a hollow trunk,
emptied of its precious cargo
and left to fade like defeated naval ships.
A seed relieved of its transparent husk,
to dissolve finally on a rough and impatient tongue.


In this dim cave

In this dim cave
we can go no further
Here money is key
to smooth age. Horses,
givers of guilt. Great
bags of gold.

I want obedience!

We examine this ancient
& insane theatre, obscene
like luxuriant churches
altars.

I confess
to scarves
cool floors
stroked curtain

The actors are twice-blessed
before us. This is
too serious & severe.

Great mystery!
Timeless passion
patterned in stillness.


The first one is Jewel.



* * *


Years ago when I was really into Robertson Davies (whose writings I must revisit), I made the mistake of reading his second trilogy (Deptford) first, his third trilogy (Cornish) second, and his first trilogy (Salterton) last (which I never did finish). On top of that, I also by accident mixed up the order of the books in each trilogy. At the time it wasn't a problem as I had it put together but as I found out through a conversation I had with a friend the other day, the whole damn thing is now a blur. Not only do I forget which characters and sub-plots are from which books, I can't even match up the books with the right trilogy. I'd be remiss if I didn't write it down somewhere to remind me:

Salterton Trilogy

Tempest-Tost
Leaven of Malice
A Mixture of Frailties

Deptford Trilogy

Fifth Business
The Manticore
World of Wonders

Cornish Trilogy

Rebel Angels
What's Bred in the Bone
The Lyre of Orpheus



* * *


One of comedian Stephen Wright's best:

One day I got on the bus, and when I stepped in, I saw the most gorgeous blond Chinese girl.
I sat beside her.

I said, 'Hi', And she said, 'Hi', and then I said, 'Nice day, isn't it?'.

And she said, 'I saw my analyst today and he says I have a problem.'

So I asked, 'What's the problem?' She replied, 'I can't tell you. I don't even know you.'

I said, 'Well, sometimes it's good to tell your problems to a perfect stranger on a bus.'

So she said, 'Well, my analyst said I'm a nymphomaniac and I only like Jewish cowboys... By the way, my name is Denise.'

I said, 'Hello, Denise. My name is Bucky Goldstein.'.

:: Scot 7:34 PM [+] :: ::
...

Post Iraq

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I wasn't sure what kind of behavior we would see from the anti-war left during the occupation. They could either lick their (mainly self imposed) wounds and get ready for the next cause (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria?) or they could stagnate and dwell on past arguments. Interestingly, they have opted for the latter. With a renewed furor again directed at the usual suspects - Bush, America, the Anglos - more important issues seem to have been pushed aside for illogical murk.

Several causes, with little new about them, have again been at the forefront of leftist complaint. 'Bush lied about the weapons,' 'Quagmire,' and 'What about the war on terrorism?'. Though separate issues, there is a unique tie that binds those who aver the above statements and that is a misunderstanding of the context. Iraq wasn't a war, it was a battle - the first battle on Middle East soil that will transform the region the same way Europe was in the mid (West) and later (East) parts of the last century. Contentions like '16 words!,' 'No cell phone access in Baghdad,' and 'Where's Osama?' look humorously small in this light.

From the time it was agreed that weapons inspectors would be used to look for the weapons they were impeded from finding before, the entire WMD debate has been a mess - a half year long mess that gave Saddam more than enough time to export and/or hide the same production facilities and stockpiles everyone agreed was there. To wonder where these weapons are because they might be used on you or other civilians is reasonable. I too would like to know where they are and hope no resource is spared finding them. To care about the missing weapons because you challenge the legality or legitimacy of the war, than your arguments will always be trapped within a false context. Preventing Iraq from producing and supplying jihadis with WMD was only one of the goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that goal has been achieved.

Similar to the WMD controversy, the notion that Iraq has turned into a quagmire has been another media driven panic erroneous on more than one level. As tempting as it is to compare wars that you don't like with Vietnam, that battle was a fight to prolong a stalemate - this one is to democratize a country. Two different military campaigns, two different objectives, two different occupations. A quick scan of the last six months also puts this 'quagmire' in perspective. During the invasion of Iraq, allied forces were losing 3-4 soldiers a day. After the cessation of major hostilities, the number dropped to about one per day. Lately, that number has dropped again to a few per week. Utilities have been almost fully restored, the people are fed, and the interim governments and homegrown military are on the way. Six months after invading and occupying one of the world's worst nations, there is scant evidence of a quagmire.

Cries of quagmire interestingly contradicts another favorite protestation of the yelping left - Iraq has distracted the U.S. from the war on terrorism. Advocating that Iraq has no formal connections with Al Queda and is therefore an aside to the war on terrorism is a fantastic claim. Iraq used to flaunt its support of terrorism and gave respite to a variety of terrorists, Al Queda included. Though other countries have greater legions of jihadis on the ready (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan), Iraq's own, living under a government that had made it more than clear its intentions of warring with America, made this an immediate concern. As hard as it might be to believe, Saddam and Islamic terrorists were on the same side. Bush's bravado laden 'Bring em on' was not only a message for the leftover Baathists of Iraq, it was also an invitation to the various terror groups, leaving their roosts in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, to engage the U.S. on Iraqi turf. The Yanks came to fight, and better the war happen there than here.

Focusing on specific issues of the Iraqi conflict with the intention of challenging intelligence capabilities is warranted, and necessary. Intelligence is and never will be perfect but now is certainly an opportune moment for it to improve. Also of great interest is the citizenry of Iraq. They were let down by the U.S. once before and now deserve as quick and painless a transition to their new government as possible. Questioning American intentions toward 'allied' Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as a way of enriching foreign policy debate is also welcome. Even supporters of U.S. foreign policy have difficulty with the cozy relationships it has with certain countries. It's also important that with two overwhelming military victories, the current administration doesn't get complacent and lazy.

As the allied war efforts continue apace, it is critical that future debate is as factual and sound as possible. Rehashing old arguments with the same ad hominems, straw men, and absurd equivocations in a desperate attempt to undermine the accomplishments of the good guys is not just faulty reasoning, its moral foolishness. Whether it's 'hating Bush,' or painting Arabs as the ultimate victim, leftist argument has remarkable similarities with the other side.

:: Scot 6:41 PM [+] :: ::
...