this one's for real...

On Tiger

2009-12-02T17:13:00.005Z

I'm rather heartbroken at Tiger's admission. I almost feel like a six-year-old whose hero was just exposed as a fake and a fraud.

Tiger Woods has always been an idol of mine, an athlete whom I considered the most dominant and focused in the world. I always admired him for avoiding the media. He's been one of the most famous people in the world for the last fifteen years, and yet we scarcely hear a thing about him. Here's a guy, I always thought, who was above glamour and fame, who only wanted to play the game he loved at the highest level imaginable. Tiger Woods, so I told myself, was a different breed of celebrity, a paragon that other celebrities might look to.

From a subjective point of view, everything has changed. And while I understand (and indeed echo and agree with) the arguments being marshalled forth in his defence -- namely: he didn't do anything wrong legally; he deserves to keep his endorsements; the decision made by his extra-marital lover to release his voicemail to the public is a reprehensible and despicable invasion of his right to privacy; having sex is not a crime, etc. -- all things considered:

The days of me cheering for Tiger are over.

And the main reason is this: Tiger has shown his true colors. He doesn't want privacy because he's attained a higher level of enlightenment. He simply wants it so he can go around fucking waitresses in Vegas. Tiger is just like everybody else. And that breaks my heart. All of his traits that I used to explain away by referring to his impeccable character, suddenly can be explained away by the fact that he's an egotistical, rich, spoiled, self-serving athlete.

You're dead to me, Tiger. I hope you never win again.

book review

2009-04-15T04:27:00.003Z

The Heart of Man, Its Genius for Good and Evil by Erich Fromm

My review rating: 1 of 5 stars

A maddening book. Fromm came so close, early in his career, to a theoretical breakthrough. This book, published in 1964, represents a serious regression in his thought. Rather than treat the psychology of ethics in scientific terms, he attempts to translate mental health into an existential idiom. In the process, he forfeits any hope he had at achieving an objective framework from which to judge human action.

Rather than situate mental health within biology, Fromm relies heavily upon traditional notions of good and evil, and dark and light. He rejects the most radical aspects of Freud's thought, finding him guilty of a "mechanistic materialism." In his effort to translate Freud "into a new frame of reference," Fromm talks of "necrophilia," "narcissism" and "incestuous fixation," while robbing each them of their libidinal foundations. Suddenly, all these categories become obstacles to some some vague notion of spiritual independence, or "biophilia." Without Freud's psychosexual/evolutionary foundations, Fromm's whole project becomes meaningless proselytizing: we must make the positive choice; we must not resign ourselves to nuclear war; we still have the power to change the course of the future; we can still make the world a better place if we just hop on the noble path; etc., -- all stuff that's been said before.

View all my reviews.

Paradigm Shift

2009-04-12T23:44:00.002Z

It occurred to me that I might try expanding the range of topics about which I write. I enjoy posting book reviews, but, believe it or not, Freudian metapsychology just isn't a subject that attracts a lot of readers!

I'll continue to post book reviews, but I'll also occasionally offer some immodest & obscene opinions about the American sports landscape. The great thing about sports is that it brings people together over long distances, especially in such a large geographical country like America. Actually, it's not just an American thing -- it connects people all over the world. The only time my girlfriend's father (a Canadian ex-pat who lives in Thailand) and I feel the need to contact each other is when something of interest happens in the NFL. (You know, a free agent signing, an arrest, orgies caught on tape). It also keeps me in touch with my family back home in Buffalo. Sports are inherently associative, and that's reason enough for me to follow them closely -- despite the fact that most of the fanaticism devoted by the masses to sports would be better spent trying to stop genocide in Western Sudan, or putting an end to sweat shops in third world countries...

So, I'll do my best to silence the Marxist voice in the back of my head which denounces sports as a corporate evil, and instead embrace my irrational passion. Plus I'll take pride in the fact that this might be the only blog in the world devoted primarily to the Buffalo Bills & Sabres, as well as to the history of psychoanalysis!

Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse

2009-04-10T22:23:00.001Z

Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud by Herbert Marcuse

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
This is an astonishing treatment of Freud's metapsychology. Marcuse is a remarkable dialectician. He weaves a complex fabric of dialectics, collapsing in the process seemingly un-reconcilable antagonisms. Most importantly, Marcuse attempts to reconcile the antagonism between work & Eros. Ananke , for Freud, necessitated repression & instinctual frustration. With the rise of material abundance, however, repression has reached a surplus level -- unnecessary for the survival of the species. Repression now encourages the continuing domination of a certain class. Marcuse speaks of a time "Beyond the Reality Principle" in which the entire personality of the individual becomes eroticized -- which means a movement away from the genital supremacy ("genitofugal") that has accompanied the capitalistic performance principle. Such a world has heretofore been dismissed as Utopia and phantasy -- inpracticable ideas with relevance only for artists. But Utopian longings are practicable beyond the aesthetic dimension.

Marcuse finds evidence within Freud's own theoretical framework to suggest that work is not necessarily opposed to Sex & Eros. He indicts the "cultural school" & the "Neo-Freudian revisonists" (most especially Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Harry Stack Sullivan) for abandoning Freud's most important findings, namely, his phylogeny, his ontogeny, the idea of a Death Instinct, and the Oedipus complex. By ignoring his metapsychology, the revisionists lose a critical thrust, and become necessarily apologetic for the status quo. Pleasure from work, according to Marcuse, must come libido -- otherwise the pleasure simply serves the purpose of glorifying dehumanization as pleasure. Truly, there is an anti-humanistic force behind the philosophy of productiveness. Logos is, from the very beginning, a program of domination, domination in the deepest ontological sense. Idealistic ethics have no place within a society wherein alienation has reached totalitarian levels. There must be a fundamental change within the cultural and instinctual structure.

View all my reviews.

Crime and Punishment

2009-03-30T23:20:00.001Z

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
Where does one begin...?

I've been trying to think of something meaningful to say. One thing is for certain, as Jonathan has pointed out: Dostoevsky doesn't like it when people think too much. But beyond this, what conclusions can be drawn? Any conclusions one might draw also have an antithetical negation. Is it possible that Roskolnikov is a philanthropic misanthrope? Although reducing human relations to a cold calculus, does legal positivism safeguard us from an otherwise terrifying & arbitrary sociology? Is religion necessary even if it's not true, in the ultimate sense?

The psychological depth of the characters, particularly the main character, is breathtaking, chilling, and disturbing. Dostoevsky's ending, is, well, surprising. The moral of the story, it appears, is that intellection can only take us so far: we cannot dispense with affection, and that we are never beyond hope, even the most wretched among us. How lovely -- Dostoevsky's a sentimental fool...

View all my reviews.

Freud: Biologist of the Mind by Frank J. Sulloway

2009-03-23T21:50:00.004Z

Freud, Biologist of the Mind : Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend by Frank J. Sulloway

My review
rating: 4 of 5 stars
An ambitious, and almost absurdly long, scientific/intellectual biography of Freud. Sulloway focuses on Freud and the question of science, which is to say, he focuses on the scientific influences in Freud's thought, as well as the scientific status of psychoanalysis. The material is complex, exhausting, and nearly interminable, but the argument is simple: there is an essential continuity in Freud's program from beginning to end. As a committed psychobiologist of the mind, Freud understood the proximate (that is, the physiological & the psychological) as well as the ultimate, (that is, the evolutionary biological) ingredients that made up the riddles of human nature. Freud's system was influenced by the nineteenth century idea that inborn predispositions that serve as the basis for ontogenetic development mirror the phlogenetic development of the human species. (i.e., "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." -- it's worth looking up.) Sulloway rejects the notion that the death instinct represents an essential break in Freudian scientific logic, which depends upon, from beginning to end, physiological reductionism, Darwinian evolutionary biology, and the mathematics of a genetic sexual biology. Pretty groovy, eh? Freud, and his followers, hid the biological underpinnings of psychoanalysis for political reasons, in order to gain acceptance from the scientific community, and to achieve existence as an independent scientific discipline.

It's a remarkable achievement, although rather dry. At times it reads like the longest historiographical essay ever known to woman, but it's really invaluable, at least for my purposes. I'd love to hear from anyone else in the entire world who has read this book! Anyone? Anyone?

View all my reviews.

The Legacy of Erich Fromm

2009-01-26T00:28:00.002Z

The Legacy of Erich Fromm by Daniel Burston

My review
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Burston gives us a much needed intellectual biography of Erich Fromm. He divides the book thematically, sketching out Fromm's: Freudo-Marxist- anthropological-matriarchal synthesis; his contributions to the clinical setting; his contributions to sociological empiricism, including his studies of authoritarian personalities both with reference to the psychology of Nazism and in terms of the characterlogical marketing (i.e., hoarding, i.e., automaton conformist) orientation of post-War America; his humanism and existentialism; his notion of the pathology of normalcy; his scholarly contributions to the historiography of psychoanalysis and Freud; the reception and appraisals he received from his colleagues; and, finally, Burston poses some unanswered questions about the rather vituperative Fromm/Marcuse debate, which centred on a disagreement on the validity of Freud's death instinct.

Burston is certainly a competent Frommian scholar. While clearly an admirer of Fromm, not once does Burston approach hagiography. Burston is quite critical of many of Fromm's key concepts, including his over-compensation for Freud's biological mechanism, and his monolithic and incomplete understanding of the unconscious and the wherefore of human repression. His command of Fromm's rather large body of work is impressive. The book is a little light on context, but context can be found elsewhere. (Jay, Jacoby, Funk.) Burston's writing, is, well, hopelessly academic. But that can hardly be avoided, given the difficulty and complexity of the subject matter. Very few intellectual traditions are irrelevant to Fromm's story: not only Freud and Marx and the Frankfurt School, but Kant and the German enlightenment, mysticism, the Talmudic tradition, Plato, anthropology, Weber and sociology, all figure prominently in Fromm's work.

Finally, what are Burston's conclusions regarding Fromm's legacy? The fact that he strove to be accessible, coupled with his popular success and his willingness to commit to a positive human anthropology somewhat doomed Fromm's reputation among his Frankfurt School colleagues. Of that there is little doubt. Additionally, his emphasis on qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, research simply does not align with the current paradigms in the social sciences. Notwithstanding, Fromm's work offers valuable (and, I would hasten to add, powerful and profound) insight into the human condition, not simply on an existentialist/humanist plane. The Authoritarian Personality and Social Character in a Mexican Village: A Sociopsychoanalytic Study are two remarkable studies that are completely ignored. The research and empirical methods in these two works, according to Burston, deserve the attention of the intellectual and scientific communities. Fromm himself deserves more attention, especially in America...

View all my reviews.

book review

2009-01-24T16:42:00.000Z

To Have or to Be? by Erich Fromm

My review
rating: 4 of 5 stars
Truly, this is Fromm at his most idealistic and least academic. Fromm identifies two basic modes of human living, one of "having," the other of "being." He characterizes the having mode as developing along with the notion of private property and capitalism, particularly twentieth century capitalism, which is based on maximal consumption. In the having mode of existence, one's relationship to the world is one of possession, possession not only of property and objects, but also of people and ideas. The philosophical concept of being, on the other hand, rests on the idea of aliveness and authentic relatedness to the world. "Being" is a permanent, timeless, unchangeable substance -- the opposite of becoming. It is a life process, which includes constant activity -- not just outward busyness, but genuine creative engagement with the world. "Being" is responding to the world in productive ways, in the work place, in social settings, and during one's leisure time. Most of all, individuals dominated by notions of being are able to truly experience the essence of reality, for they are not motivated by impulses to dominate and control, but simply to be.

The point of the book is to warn us that economic and ecological disaster is imminent unless a drastic change occurs in the human heart -- unless the predominate mode of having gives way to a mode of being. Our liberation from the having mode is possible only through the full realization of industrial and political participatory democracy. To those who contend that possession, hoarding, and antagonism are inherent in the human condition, Fromm contends that a social structure determines the behavioural traits that become rooted patterns. Since both the having and the being modes are latent in human nature, effecting the appropriate change in social structure can simultaneously change the psychical motivations that undergird character structure

He also offers a blueprint of what some of these changes might look like: "A system of effective dissemination of effective information." "All brainwashing methods in industrial and political advertising must be prohibited." "Active participation in political life requires maximum decentralization throughout industry and politics." "Active and responsible participation . . . requires that humanistic management replace bureaucratic management." And: "Scientific research must be separated from application in industry and defense."

Much of this seems utopian on the surface, but it's hard to disagree with any of Fromm's points or conclusions. Sadly, few rallied around this book in 1976, and we seem edging even closer to the economic and ecological catastrophe that was prophesied by scientists and intellectuals so many years ago. Our true enemies today, as in 1976, are the continued meteoric rise in population rates, the rule by technocracy, manic consumerism, a megamachine that includes reigning industrial and military complexes, massive corporate bureaucracies that are no less alienating to the worker than assembly line production, utterly deficient school systems, including university, and of course automaton conformity...

View all my reviews.

book review

2009-01-10T05:23:00.008Z

Secrets of the Soul: A Social and Cultural History of Psychoanalysis by Eli Zaretsky

My review

rating: 1 of 5 stars
This is one of the worst books I've ever read. Zaretsky is an abject failure as a writer and scholar. Because of its hopelessly unfocused nature, the book borders on incoherent. Neither the individual chapters, nor the individual sections into which he divides the book, have clear points of focus. Zaretsky himself is an obscurantist, demanding of the reader constant backtracking. Close and careful reading do little to ameliorate the fact that Zaretsky’s very subject is obfuscated by the lack of clarity in his writing and by his failure to apprehend or properly synthesize the admittedly difficult psychoanalytic theory he treats. I suspect that even the most initiated in the field will experience tremendous difficulty navigating this turgid terrain.

I think what Zaretsky's trying to do is show the relationship between psychoanalysis and cultural changes in the West after 1880. Psychoanalysis began to emerge as a force after the second Industrial Revolution. The Revolution had a great impact on the structure of the family, which ceased functioning as a unit of economic production. This changed the very essence of individuality, or what Zaretsky calls "personal autonomy." Enlightenment thinkers understood the individual subject as a "locus of reason" capable of discerning universal truth. Kant's dictum "dare to know" exhorted the individual to think for himself: "Thus, from the Kantian point of view, one's race, gender, and social situations, to say nothing of the particularities of one's personal life, were irrelevant." (163) In the nineteenth century autonomy and individuality came to "be understood as a new, inward relation to one-self." (164) Mass consumerism and advertising encouraged personal choice. The rise of psychoanalysis coincided with the development of a new corporate socioeconomic structure. The discovery of the unconscious affected this corporate machine. It also influenced new mediums of art and film such as surrealism, which explored the psychedelic origins of sex and dreams, and challenged the legitimacy of an oppressive social fabric.

These seem like interesting points of departure, but Zaretsky only devotes a few pages to the effects of psychoanalysis on culture. Instead, he attempts to connect psychoanalysis to the rise of "Fordism." Unfortunately, nothing he says makes sense. Take the following passage as an example:

"The ambivalence of flappers and homosexuals reflected the fundamental antinomies of the Fordist epoch. Psychoanalysis was bisexual in a way that homosexuality was not: it stood for identifications and object relations with both sexes. Yet psychoanalysis as a profession was not itself fully "bixsexual"; although far more progressive than most other professions, it was male-dominated and did not accept homosexuals. As a result, women and homosexuals would remain conflicted about this new myth of the noble savage." (154)

One can only shake his head.

In his introduction, Zaretsky claims that psychoanalysis helped give rise to a new range of personal experience and gave expression to the possibilities of individuality. The rise of the corporation and of mass consumerism had a paradoxical effect on these new possibilities, creating a dialectic of absorption and marginality. This seems like a wonderful topic, too, but each chapter takes us further away from these interesting beginnings.

He claims further that Freudian thought challenged the patriarchal order and the notion of the inferiority of women, a most dubious claim to say the least. Psychoanalysis also fuelled the rise of the counter-culture movement in the 60s, a movement which rejected conformity, and emphasised the value of particular experience. While that may have been the upshot of Freudian thought, it certainly was not the purpose Freud himself had in mind for psychoanalysis. Zaretsky ignores the fact that Freud celebrated Victorian culture, including the subordinate status of women.

There's a reason this book is out of print only three years after its publication -- a book published by Knopf, no less! A more civil reviewer might claim Zaretsky got bogged down by a difficult body of psychoanalytic theory, and lost sight of his original aim. But I feel like being more scathing after investing a great deal of intellectual energy into a book from which I received almost nothing in return.

View all my reviews.

book review

2008-11-12T16:12:00.004Z

Smashed: Story of a Drunken Girlhood by Koren Zailckas

My review

rating: 2 of 5 stars
Koren Zailckas escapes reality through alcohol. It doesn't work. Alcohol only brings her closer to reality and induces depression, aggression, sexual longing, artistic angst, etc. It really isn't a story of awakening following a series of crashes and burns. The author eventually realizes she abuses alcohol because she feels tremendously uncomfortable in social situations without it. Since life at Syracuse University is very hollow and superficial, alcohol functions as her nucleus for social cohesion. Without it, she retreats into her solitary self. She becomes emotionally dependent upon alcohol as a social tool. All she has in common with her friends is alcohol abuse. She blacks out on an almost weekly basis.

The problem with this memoir (as is true of most memoirs) is its dubious nature. I doubt that this girl could abuse alcohol in the ways that she claims. Many of her stories seem exaggerated. Take, for example, one of her several blackout-ambiguous sexual encounters. On one occasion, Zailckas claims that she becomes so intoxicated that she can't even stand or speak properly. In fact, she can't move her muscles to resist. When a boy at a party starts coming on to her, she can't force him away on the dance floor. She can't prevent him from his taking her up the stairs to his room (notwithstanding the fact that she is surrounded by friends and acquaintances downstairs.) She can't prevent her dress from slipping off; she can't, (because the alcohol has induced some semi-hypnotic coma, apparently) prevent him from fucking her. Yet, as soon as the sex is over, Zailckas asserts that she makes her way downstairs and drives herself home. So on one hand, she's too drunk to even speak. On the other, she's well enough to drive herself home? Something doesn't add up with this anecdote. In fact, many of her tales invite scepticism.

In any event, the memoir, as a whole, feels like stylistic emulation of Sex and the City 's Carrie Bradshaw. Zailckas is more concerned with turning a witty phrase than she is with getting to the root of her problem, which is a problem she shares with so many others. She understands that our culture is hollow; she also understands that she needs a more productive outlet. But she understands little else. Our culture revolves around partying, alcohol, and superficial socializing -- around "having fun." Most fall victim to the mind-numbing commercial distractions that beset us. Most become passive and uncritical. Zailckas is lucky she had the critical ability to resist a robotic fate. The problem is she thinks herself special in this respect. She's not. Her problem is every spoiled bobo's problem.

View all my reviews.

Nicolas Cage Sucks

2008-08-07T21:54:00.004Z

After seeing previews for the upcoming film Bangkok Dangerous, I've decided to blacklist all past, present, and future Nicolas Cage films. It dawned on me that he's actually acted the same generic role at least 14 times -- not a single one of which has risen above mediocrity.

Cage's big-league success is really quite mysterious, considering he hasn't a trace of talent and he's one of the ugliest mother fuckers I've ever seen. I can barely stand to watch him in the previews. Sometimes I even forget he's a human, and think Hollywood taught a greasy wet muskrat to talk.

But, I don't suppose my little rant will prevent Disney from making a National Treasure 3, with Cage finding a frozen vial of Thomas Jefferson's sperm in a basement catacomb of Monticello...

book review

2008-04-08T05:04:00.003Z

I wrote a book review for another website, but I'd thought I'd pass it along here. The book is called Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis by D.T. Suzuki and Erich Fromm.

It's hard to sum this one up. It's my first foray into Zen, and I'm very glad of it. The book consists of a collection of lectures given by Drs D.T. Suzuki, who introduced Zen Buddhism to the West with a series of books in the 1950s, and Erich Fromm, one of the most important social psychologists of the twentieth century. Suzuki outlines the basic precepts of Zen thought -- though even the term "thought" becomes problematic in this sense. The Zen man/woman is not concerned with thought, but with being and living and experiencing -- as opposed to awareness, intellect, and cerebration. Fromm is interested in relating Zen principles to the practise of psychoanalysis. Zen Buddhism is all about cultivating "the art of living." Psychoanalysis ought to be about that, too, according to Fromm. Psychoanalysis ought to concern itself not with curing symptoms, but with encouraging and defining the totality of the human experience. Most symptoms associated with mental illness are not the root of one's problem, but simply manifestations of deeper emotional maladjustment. This maladjustment might be defined as the complete alienation of one from his or her true Self, alienation of one's Self from others, and one's Self from Nature. The goal of psychology ought to be humanistic, as opposed to the mainstream orthodox aim to arrive at the therapeutic "adjustment" of the patient. The standards of a given society may or may not be healthy, in terms of human values. Buddhism is concerned with Enlightenment, and psychology with de-repression, both of which really aim at the same thing -- the overcoming of greed in all forms, whether it is greed for possession, for fame, or for affection; a "cure" in this sense implies overcoming narcissistic self-glorification and the illusion of omnipotence. It implies, furthermore, the overcoming of the desire to submit to an authority who solves one's own problem of existence. The person who wants to use Enlightenment, or "de-repression" to simply cure a "sickness" will never achieve either. Psychology thus needs to liberate itself from any contemporary social pathologies by adopting a technique and philosophy of ethics conducive to a truly healthy way of life.

Very highly recommended to anyone interested in cultivating the "art of living." While this particular book might be a bit hard to get a hold of, Suzuki is widely available, as is Fromm. I'd be happy to recommend titles to anyone interested...

Bills/Pats preview

2007-11-16T18:56:00.000Z

I hope that the local restaurants have loaded up on chicken wings and roast beef, because John Madden is returning to Buffalo. It's apparently taken more than a decade for the area to recover from Madden's last gorge fest -- network football execs haven't assigned him a Buffalo broadcast since 1996. It's really nice to finally see the Bills getting a little love, even if the main reason for the prime time switch has little to do with them, and much more to do with the fact that the Patriots are 9-0 and look like a bunch of Greek gods on Sunday afternoons. It looks as though Bellicheat has sworn a vendetta against the rest of the league, murdering opponents and disfiguring their bodies by running up the score. But for the first time all year, the Pats looked beatable in their last contest against Indy, and that was with an Indy team riddled with injuries. So who knows what might happen Sunday. All I know is I haven't been this excited about a football game in a long time. The atmosphere at the last night-game against Dallas seemed electric. Hopefully it'll be even more electric this time around, because without an awesome crowd, the Bills have virtually no chance of beating Brady & co.

I really wish I could be at the Ralph for this one. I know that if I were in attendance, I would leave hoarse. Fortunately there will be thousands of crazy drunken Buffalo Soldiers, willing their team to victory . . .

2007-09-29T14:18:00.000Z

there is no expected pace for inner learning. what we need to learn comes when we need it, no matter how old or young, no matter how many times we have to start over, no matter how many times we have to learn the same lesson. we fall down as many times as we need to, to learn how to fall and get up. we fall in love as many times as we need to, to learn how to hold and be held. we misunderstand the many voices of truth as many times as we need to, to truly hear the choir of diversity that surrounds us. we suffer our pain as often as is necessary for us to learn how to break and how to heal. no one really likes this, of course, but we deal with our dislike in the same way, again and again, until we learn what we need to know about the humility of acceptance.

18th century invective

2007-09-19T02:39:00.000Z

This is a passage from Cato's Letters, written in 1721 by an English Whig journalist named Thomas Gordon. Gordon is condemning the modern day equivalent of stock-brokers, who misled the public into a detrimental speculating frenzy that resulted in an econmic crisis called the South Sea Bubble:

For as to that class of ravens, whose wealth has cost the nation its all, as they are manifest enemies to God and man, no man can call them his neighbours: They are rogues of prey, they are stock-jobbers, they are a conspiracy of stock-jobbers! A name which carries along with it such a detestable and deadly image, that it exceeds all human invention to aggravate it; nor can nature, with all her variety and stores, furnish out any thing to illustrate its deformities; nay, it gains visible advantage by the worst comparisons that you can make: Your terror lessens, when you liken them to crocodiles and cannibals, who feed, for hunger, on human bodies.

These monsters, therefore, stand single in the creation: They are stock-jobbers; they have served a whole people as Satan served Job; and so far the Devil is injured, by any analogy that you can make between him and them.

Well; but monsters as they are, what would you do with them? The answer is short at hand, hang them; for, whatever they deserve, I would have no new tortures invented, nor any new death devised. In this, I think, I shew moderation; let them only be hanged, but hanged speedily. As to their wealth, as it is the manifest plunder of the people, let it be restored to the people, and let the publick be their heirs; the only method by which the publick is ever like to get millions by them, or indeed anything.

What wonderful invective -- such eloquent hatred!

Meter-Maids Gone Wild

2007-09-17T16:15:00.000Z

I experienced a great shock while attempting to park at Thornden Park last Wednesday afternoon: all the parked cars were being assaulted by a newly organized army of meter-maids! I could hardly believe my eyes. There were probably five or six of maids, riding around in golf carts, ticketing every vehicle in sight. I was incredulous. “Perhaps I’m dreaming,” I thought to myself. But I was quickly relieved of that notion. No sooner did I parallel park my car in one of the few available spots, when a meter-maid tapped on my passenger window, sternly informing me of my transgression, and warning me if I did not move my car immediately, that I too would be a casualty of this new crusade.

“What are you talking about?” I pleaded, “I’ve parked here for over a year and have never been ticketed!”

“It’s always been the rule, but we’re just now starting to enforce it,” responded the maid zealously, looking proud and majestic in his blue uniform.

I just simply shook my head and drove away. What a liar! This had not “always been the rule,” as the meter-maid pretended. The facts are quite the opposite. Parking has always been permitted on at least one side of Thornden Park’s one-way street. Looking around, I noticed that indeed a new, inconspicuous “no parking” sign had been erected immediately following the rose garden. But what is more, a second, older sign exists almost exactly opposite the newly erected “no parking” sign, which stipulates that there is “no overnight parking” permitted within the Park. One can only infer that a sign which prohibits no overnight parking also suggests a time during the day when parking is permitted. This amounts to clear evidence of dissembling.

So what is going on here? I suppose the administrative authority has every right to change its policy on parking at Thornden Park. But they cannot maintain that they are just beginning to enforce a long-standing law. On the contrary, this policy is brand new, dishonest, and even surreptitious. And it doesn’t just affect students who rather not pay the relatively large fee to park in one of the garages. I have noticed many construction and other blue-collar workers who park at Thornden on a daily basis. Where are these workers going to park now? Clearly they can’t leave their jobs every hour to feed the meter -- a practice which is illegal in itself.

And not only is the policy brand new, but it is also highly inconsistent. The community comes to the Park in large numbers for little loop football, for Shakespeare in the park at the amphitheatre, and to swim and play at the playground. I do understand that the Park exists primarily to foster community, and not to provide parking spaces for the University. But that does not dismiss the fact that the new rule is not being consistently enforced in its early stages. Driving through the Park last Saturday afternoon during a little-loop football game, I noticed not a single available spot on either side of the one-way street. But curiously, I noticed not one ticketed vehicle. Since the parking sign is a blanket declaration of no parking --it indicates no time, or day, when one may park there legally -- then why was every car ticketed on Wednesday, and none on Saturday?

The point here is that this new parking policy is an absolute racket. I realize it’s only something as small as parking, but it really is a miscarriage of justice. The parking website for the University’s Parking and Transit Services, parking.syr.edu, has given no information about any sort of policy change. If they want to change existing policy, fine. But there is a longstanding precedent for legal parking at Thornden Park. At the very least, it is incumbent upon the University’s Parking and Transit Services to somehow communicate the shift of its policy to those who park at Thornden -- be it by placing a warning ticket or a flier on windshields, or by posting a conspicuously visible sign. The act of suddenly springing this policy upon parkers cannot be regarded as anything other than shameful extortion -- as an opportunistic chance to steal several thousand dollars from honest parkers. If they want to take away our right as commuters to park for free at any location near the University, they should at least have the decency to communicate it to us in an honest manner.

An overly optimistic 2007 Buffalo Bills preview

2007-09-02T23:10:00.001Z

Well, we're only a few days away from the kickoff of another NFL season, and, more importantly for me, of another season cheering for the Buffalo Bills. So many of my personality traits have changed since I was a kid, but my undying and irrational love for my hometown football team is not one of them. I remember being about eight, cutting out the statistics from the Monday editions of The Buffalo News, and placing them carefully within some designated folder. I don't know what's become of all my record keeping, but I imagine somewhere in my basement a half-dozen folders filled with newspaper clippings are still collecting dust. I didn't have that much else to do growing up, so an obsession with our football team at least kept me occupied and out of trouble. And of course, my formative years were the Bills' superbowl years; it would have been hard not to catch at least some mild case of football fever. Not to mention that an unprecedented four straight superbowl appearances (and losses!) served to infect me with some kind of psychological sports complex. What a sadistic trick for the Sporting gods to play upon any fan, not to mention a little kid!

But the winningest team of the early 90s quickly shed their winning ways, and all the heroes of my childhood began to retire. We've reached the point now where the Bills haven't made a playoff appearance since 1999! For those of you unwilling to do the simple math, that's a six year drought! Buffalo is quickly becoming a perennial loser. And yet, somehow, that hasn't at all affected my devotion or optimism. Hardly a single August day passed without me checking to see how practice went. I even had a dream about the Bills last night. A dream!!! It makes me wonder if my child-like love for a group of players -- players who I realise have absolutely no idea who I am -- will ever lose its strength. I suspect not. I also find myself day-dreaming about the opening kickoff next Sunday. Maybe Terrence McGee will return the opening kick for a TD! Maybe this opening day will be just like the 2002 season, when we blanked New England -- and that cheating prick Bill Bellicheck -- by a score 35-0! I admit I'm in a bad way, but I can't do anything about it. I suppose the fact that the national media scarcely notices that the Bills actually still play in the NFL fuels my devotion. Their lack of coverage is understandable. Expert-idiots like Joe Theisman and Chris Collingsworth don't have time to analyse Buffalo football when they're faced with the far more important assignments of writing erotic poetry for Tom Brady, and offering woefully amateurish legal opinions on the Michael Vick case. But that's okay. Let them all ignore Buffalo. Every year a surprise team surfaces. And the fan in me can't think of a single reason why the Bills won't become this year's Cinderella story. What's that you say? "The defensive line is undersized and prone to giving up huge running plays on a frightening regular basis; our newly assembled offensive line hasn't shown even the slightest evidence of chemistry this preseason; we're placing way too much responsibility upon the shoulders of our first two draft picks; our oldest starting linebacker is 25; only two defensive starters remain from the 2005 season; J.P. Losman still really hasn't proven himself to be a consummate NFL quarterback." All valid points, my objective pessimist. But you've forgotten the main ingredient to success. Recall the tragic near-death of Tinkerbell in Peter Pan. All the audience had to do was clap its hands to restore the fairy to her glowing vitality. And that's all we, as fans, have to do to ensure our team's success: believe, and loudly clap our hands -- no matter what our objective, detached intellect tries to tell us. After all, isn't that what it truly means to be a fan?

I learned many prayers as a child, with only one leaving a lasting impression. I will close with those sacred words:

Let's go Buffalo!

Shall we poison the man?

2007-07-24T02:46:00.001Z

Shall we poison the man?
He is, after all, fat and annoying.
He's an absolute drain on society.
He's a drain on our nerves.
I'm quite unaware of any affection
he has inspired.
He's a bumbling idiot
the way he tries to cover his gut with loose fitting old man shirts.
He's a bumbling idiot
the way he brings coupons to McDonald's.
He's a bumbling idiot
and so Orwellian about it!
The situation grows more profound with each passing day.
So then: Shall we poison the man?

2007-07-18T17:11:00.001Z

I've seldom come across a more lovely or succinct expression of idealism (despite the awkwardness of its translation and the absence of Eastern "heroes.") It's taken from the former Prime Minister of France, one Leon Blum:

The human race had the wisdom to create science and art; why should it not be capable to create a world of justice, brotherliness and peace? The human race has produced Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, and Hugo, Michelangelo and Beethoven, Pascal and Newton, all these human heroes whose genius is only the contact with the fundamental truths, with the innermost essence of the universe. Why then should the same race not produce those leaders capable of leading it to those forms of communal life which are closest to the lives and the harmony of the universe?

Why not, indeed? A glance at world affairs almost never fails to produce for me a profound sense of despair. To rid myself of the despair, I remind myself that things could be much worse. And rather than focus on how humanity is not fulfilling its potential, one ought to think of how very much worse things could be. And it's quite the truth. Things could be much worse, especially in the richest country in the world. True, there are the impoverished; but their numbers used to be higher; yes, there are the oppressed, but the degree and extent of their oppression is nothing compared to former years and centuries. Is this not progress? Won't these numbers continue to dwindle to the point of neglibility? And is not the rest of the world slowly following our lead?

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. But these are questions that need to be asked. Are we individually -- any by extension collectively -- fulfilling our potential? And just what is our potential anyway? How can we define it? Must we always settle for imperfection? Probably. But how far away from perfection are we? I doubt we're close enough to even entertain the faintest notions of "settling."

I've done a lot of reading in the last year or so. There's no doubt that I know more than I ever have before. Yet the funny thing is that, the more discoveries I make, the more aware of the undiscovered I become. I have never been more uncertain about so many things -- politics, the meaning of life, human potential, and similar existential questions. Yet I'm absolutely positive that this uncertainty and confusion is a good thing. I used to be so confident about things like political ideology, social morality, and religious views. I never used to ask the fundamental questions I'm now constantly asking and re-asking. Through the course of this endless questioning it's occurred to me that nothing could have been more harmful to my individual development than my former creative and intellectual inactivity. I firmly believe that the point at which one stops asking questions is the point at which one loses any ability to grow or learn. When one believes he or she has arrived at the Truth, or figured out the meaning of existence, one loses the capacity for critical thought; he becomes intellectually paralysed and all meaningful growth stops. I think that's why religion has become so repugnant to me in the last few years. So many religious devotees stop thinking. They accept a pre-fabricated creed -- an instruction booklet that not only prescribes behavior -- which most wilfully ignore -- but insidiously invites and even encourages the abandonment of reason. Rather than individually discover the purpose of life, religious devotees are blindly spoon-fed a collective ideology. But as has been long ago pointed out, faith and reason are incompatible. And it might very well follow by extension that faith and meaningful individual growth are incompatible. I'm aware that I'm far from the first person to articulate this position, but it's probably the only thing in the world I've come to consider axiomatic: the absolute necessity for self-realization and productive individuality. It appears the only way to achieve these is through relentless questioning -- not for mastery and domination, but for individual fulfillment.

Memory Almost Full

2007-06-12T20:09:00.000Z

Since I own 23 of his solo albums, I suppose a review is in order for Paul McCartney's latest effort, Memory Almost Full. This release of this album coincides with his making the majority of his solo catalogue available on itunes for the first time (which itunes claims is his entire solo catalogue, but there are a few omissions), and nearly coincides with his 65th birthday (June 18th). Like his last two studio albums, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard ('05) and Driving Rain ('01), this album runs the gamut -- from near brilliance to absolute boredom. If he had compiled the best 4 or 5 songs from each of these albums, he would have had a smash. But as it is, it's hit and miss. There are some songs that are undeniably profound. At this stage in his life, Paul is at his best when pursuing the abstract and unconventional. Like a true artist, he's a great lyrical painter. Songs like Eleanor Rigby and Penny Lane are so vividly illustrated that when you listen to them your mind can't help visualise the scene he's evoking: "Father McKenize, wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave" can't help put implant a pretty profound picture in your mind. And Paul is still able to do that at times. The best number from Memory is "Mr Bellamy," which is a rather abstract portrait of a quirky man who seems to be on the ledge of a building refusing to come down. In the middle of the song it changes perspectives from Bellamy to a rescue squad of some sort: "steady lads, easy does it, don't frighten him." The music in the song is equally quirky, but also quite profound. It's a mix of playful and serious, with a full orchestra and slightly deranged sounding piano. There are very few musicians able to create songs like this. It's really quite brilliant. And about half of the album is indeed quite poetic.

The other half, however, is just plain lame. The opening track, "Dance Tonight," is the single he's using to promote the album. As another reviewer pointed out, this song "is so simplistic it could make you shudder." This is true musically and lyrically: "Everybody's gonna dance tonight/ everybody's gonna feel alright/ everybody's gonna dance around tonight./ Everybody gonna stamp their feet/ everybody gonna feel the beat..." I mean, he could have written this for Sesame Street. But the funny thing is, the song is catchy. McCartney is unparalleled in pop history for his ability to write a catchy hook. But catchy though they be, his hooks simply aren't cool anymore. It's not 1965, and he can't really get away with this kind of thing without sounding lame. As George Harrison said in the opening track to his absolutely brilliant posthumous album Brainwashed: "It's all a game, sometimes you're cool, sometimes you're lame." And Paul is at his coolest when he's not playing the game. At this point in his life, his best stuff is artistic, abstract, and reflective. But, he's been writing pop songs for too long, and I suppose it's a habit he either can't or doesn't want to break. I think I have a pretty good idea of his character, and, in a way, writing a pop hit must still seem like a challenge for Paul. He wants his albums to succeed financially (hence his new relationship with starbucks and itunes), and that means attempting to sprinkle catchy pop tunes into his albums. I guess one can't blame him for still wanting to play the game. He's always been driven to be the very best, a trait that hasn't faded with his --dare I say it?-- old age.

All in all, with very few exceptions (and anyone who has heard Press to Play or Tug of War knows what I'm talking about) one has to take Paul McCartney seriously. He's still a heavyweight. Not every picture a great artist paints is a masterpiece, but nearly every picture he paints is worth looking at. And this album is worth a look or two. So if you're in Starbucks, you mightn't regret picking it up. Who knows how many albums he has left in him. Rock on Paulie...

can't help but laugh

2007-06-12T16:32:00.001Z

I know it's mean, but this is pretty funny.

But it's not like cocaine is a performance enchancing drug. If anything, it probably drastically impairs your ability to perform. A two year suspension seems rather harsh, doesn't it? Honestly, hasn't he been through enough, being a paraplegic and all? Slap his wrist (because the wrist is one of the few places he will feel a slap) and send him back out on the track...

Getting older

2007-06-08T22:59:00.000Z

I was reading an article today about the Pittsburgh Penguins agreeing with its county board to a new 325 million dollar arena. No big deal. The end of the article said that the Penguins hope to begin playing there for the 2009-2010 season. "Oh," I thought, "that's a while away -- two full seasons." And then I began thinking about the dates, 2009 & 2010. They both seem so futuristic, almost like an abstract concept. Even 2007 seems kind of weird when you sit back and think about it. I suppose there's really nothing odd at all about time marching forward like it always has. But the reality is that I'm getting older; my generation is getting older. It's approaching the point where we're all going to have normal jobs and marriages and families in not too long. And that's really weird. It's also weird watching sports nowadays, and seeing 19 and 20 year olds playing professionally. They are like four years younger than I am! Kids like me who grew up avid sports fans idolized a few players on their favorite team. But they always seemed larger than life, not only athletically but chronologically. In a few more years, I'm going to be older than the majority of professional athletes! I suppose that's a hard concept for a kid to swallow. You kind of always hold out a secret hope, that, just maybe, something miraculous will happen that thrusts you onto the playing field and into a superstar.

I guess the main point is that those days of day dreaming are quickly coming to an end. When I look at pictures from when I was 18, my first reaction is always: "wow, I look so young!" And I don't feel any older. I mean, I feel like I've grown into a much more mature and independent person -- of that there's no doubt. But, I don't feel older. I don't even know what it means to feel older, so maybe I do and I don't even know it? It's only when I look at a calendar or an old picture that it strikes me that I'm significantly older than I once was.

But whatever the case, it's a very strange development. I still feel like a kid, and feel nothing like an adult. Maybe it's Peter Pan syndrome. I suppose I don't have any problem growing older, as long as I don't start acting differently. The worst thing ever would be conforming to some monotonous suburban lifestyle. Everything in the world still seems exciting and new: people, places, books, art, lakes, new shoes, playing frisbee. I still get wicked excited about all these things. And I guess that's a really awesome thing: I still have as much, if not more, energy as I ever have, it's just directed differently. I really hope it never goes away...

Some gems from CNN's republican debate Tuesday evening

2007-06-06T00:42:00.001Z

I have too much time on my hands, I guess. But I've spent a few hours going slowly through some republican responses from Tuesday night. The transcriptions are my own, so if there are any errors (there aren't) then I'm responsible. But I got an A for an oral history class in which I transcribed a 42 minute interview, so I guess I'm somewhat qualified! It was hard to only pick a few:

"Governor Huckabee, do you believe it's time to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the United States military?" -- Wolf Blitzer

"Wolf, I think it's already covered by the uniform code of military conduct. But I'd like to ask you: you said a moment ago that you're gonna all give us a chance to deal with the issue of immigration." -- Mike Huckabee

"We're gonna come back to that." -- Blitzer

"I hope you will." -- Huckabee

We're gonna come back to that." -- Blitzer

"You hold us to that so I'm gonna hold you to this.[sic]" -- Huckabee

"We will, we're gonna come back to that." -- Blitzer

"I hope you give us that opportunity." -- Huckabee

"We will, we're gonna come back to that. Right now we're talking about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. You're opposed to that." -- Blitzer

"I just said... it's already covered in the uniform code of military conduct."

"You wouldn't change existing policy?"

"I? -- What?"

"You wouldn't change existing policy?"

"I don't think that I would. I think that it's already covered in the existing policy that we do have in fact."

A truly remarkable exchange...

Blitzer posed the question to the candidates of how or in what capacity they would use George W. Bush during their presidency. Here's Sam Brownback's response:

"I think he would probably take a position like his dad did ... His father's been excellent in the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka ... [he's] been a wonderful ambassador in those situations. And frankly, I think that's the right role for an ex-president. And I really think in many respects President Clinton has not assumed the right role of an ex-president. He's injected himself a lot more on policy issues that haven't been appropriate. And he really should defer more to the person that's in the job. [sic] There's only one person that's president at a time and that's the way it should be." -- Sam Brownback

Thanks, Sammy, because I really was confused on this issue. I thought that the United States had multiple presidents serving at any given time. I thought all along that Clinton was still in office. He just moved out of the Oval Office of the West Wing and into the Triangle Office of the East Wing. But now you're telling me there's only ONE president at a time. Oh damn, I need go and check my facts. And does Brownback actually believe that former presidents are supposed remove themselves from political discourse? If so he sure would've hated that bull moose TR. But he's right, Bill Clinton should just go to Disney World and stand in the Hall of Presidents like a robot. He shouldn't have opinions anymore. He should bow his head in deference to our current philosopher-king, George W. Bush. Because we all know that clause at the end of the first amendment that stipulates that ex-presidents don't enjoy free speech. Simply stunning. (Also, wasn't Clinton involved in those Sri Lanka/Katrina fundraisers? Remember those commercials with both him and Bush?)

The audience also got a chance to pose some questions to the candidates. One woman (an attorney) asked:

"Can a conservative platform also serve a conservationist agenda?"

Now, I don't have time to transcribe everything, but Jim Gilmore responded to this question by basically saying that conservation was dependent upon the resolution of the immigration crisis. A curious perspective...

Here's Tom Tancredo verbatim:

"Yeah I think so -- it's absolutely imperative. And you've got a conservative model to pick from. You know, Teddy Roosevelt after all put the stamp on that -- that whole issue of conserving the environment, creating the national park system. There's nothing anti-conservative about doing anything like that. And you know what else you can do to foster that?! You do it through conservative principles. You make it profitable, for people to do exactly that. To put, to make conservation an issue that [stutter, semi-inaudible, perhaps hits?] people in the pocketbook. Or they can profit by getting involved in conservation. That's one way where the free market really works perfectly. We've seen it happen all over the world. We can see -- and we WILL put conservation practices to work in the United States; we've got a lock on that."

It's really laughable. As if the environment is only worth saving if it makes capitalists money. It has no intrinsic value of its own. But he's absolutely right: the free market and the environment have always been economic bedfellows. Econ 101: destroying environment = great wealth. They have a lock on that...

A philosophy professor from Saint Anselm college asked this question:

"In your opinion, what is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today? And, if you're elected president, how would you address that issue?" Mr. Brownbank:

"I think it's the life issue clearly. And I'm pro-life and I'm whole life. And one of the things I'm proudest about our party about [sic] is that we've stood for life. We've been a party that's stood for a culture of life. . . . That's why I don't think that we can nominate someone who's not pro-life in this party. Because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving god, from conception to natural death. And that applies not only here and in the womb, but it applies to someone that's in poverty; and it applies to the children in Darfur...." -- Sam Brownback

I'm curious if it applies to the 750,000 Iraqi civilians who have died since the American occupation? Maybe Iraqis don't produce children "of a loving god." And if it does apply to the children in Darfur (and presumably by extension the 2.5 million displaced inhabitants therein) why hasn't the American government offered any assistance? He's pro-life, nay he's much purer than pro-life, he's WHOLE LIFE. How god-damn noble. All the humanitarian effort needs is more of Brownback's conservative principles. And all these liberals who want to bring American soldiers home, they're all anti-life, nay, they're the antithesis of life.

An audience member asked Mit Romney a rather garbled question about why he supports making English the official language while simultaneously airing Spanish commercials and hosting a Spanish speaking version of his website:

"Let me make it real clear: I'm not anti-immigrant. I love immigrants. I love legal immigrants coming in our country. I'm happy to communicate to them and I hope they vote for me. And I'm happy to have people all over the country and I'm gonna reach out to them in any language I can to have them vote for me ... "

at least he's honest...

Now here's Tancredo on the same topic:

"No, I would not advertise in Spanish. Believe me when I tell you this [no thank you, Tommy] English, the preservation of the English language is important for a lot of reasons, not the least of which because it is what holds us together. It is the glue that keeps the country together -- any country. Bi-lingual countries don't work! And we should not encourage it ... English is the language of this country, and, you know what, we should not be ashamed of that. It's a good thing. And it holds us together no matter where we come from. Regardless of our backgrounds, of our histories, it doesn't matter. We need that thing to hold us together."

How sophisticated!!! I'll leave the reader the task of tearing this one apart. It's really too easy...*cough, facism, cough*

There is so much more I could have picked out and made fun of, but I've spent too much time on this anyway. I actually hardly pay any attention to politicians nowadays. Most of them are complete morons and very little of what they say is worth hearing. Now, I watched the democratic debates on Sunday evening, so I do have a point of comparison. Evading questions has long been a political tactic, but I'm astonished at how most of these republican candidates simply ignored the questions posed to them and spouted off on an entirely different topic. When Blitzer attempted to re-direct the speaker back to the question, they pretended they didn't hear him. The whole point of a debate of this nature is to see how a candidate responds. It's not an open forum, it's a moderated and purposefully directed political inquiry. By ignoring questions asked by both Blitzer and the public audience, and instead reciting a political creed/platform, the candidate proves he (or she) is not only incapable of participating in a candid discussion about political issues, but also displays a complete defiance of public concerns.

shortcomings of the liberal corporate state

2007-06-01T19:49:00.000Z

Writing in 1970, a Yale Professor summarized the main characteristics of the modern liberal corporate state:

1. Disorder, corruption, hypocrisy, war; 2. Poverty, disordered priorities, and law-making by private power; 3. Uncontrolled technology and the destrution of the environment; 4. Decline of democracy and liberty; powerlessness; 5. The artificality of work and culture; 6. Absence of community; and 7. Loss of self. Needed instead is new way to live where science and technology work for, and not against the interests of man,... [where] work is nonalienating, is the free choice of each person, is integrated into a full and satsisfying life,... [where] a community [exists] in which love, respect, and a mutal search for wisdom replace the competition and separation of the present,... and each individual is liberated and enabled to grow toward the highest possibilities of the human spirit.

Very well, that's all perfectly true. But how to achieve these things he does not say. Nobody seems to have viable solutions these days. Everyone knows what the problems are, but how to remedy them? well, that's where things get awfully trickly. Maybe if we put flowers in the muzzles of our guns, that will make everything seem a bit nicer...

writing

2007-05-30T00:16:00.000Z

For the past little while, I've been writing a story. It's becoming quite long, to the point where it could reasonably be deemed a novel. I've never really written anything before, just hacked about some poetry here and there. I was reading some of my older stuff, and came across this poem, one of the few things that might be any good:

Why is this place so beautiful?
It is old, cold stone.
The wind blows briskly thru its many wall-less walls,
benumbing your fingers, running your nose.
Wherefore is it pretty, gazing around
at yesterday's ancient walls besmirched with now?
Perchance it's the gloom that catches your eye,
colourless memories under grey-sombre sky;
perhaps it's your dreams, whilst they twist and parlay,
which let you forget your onerous day.
One cannot say, just why it is so,
as one shivers above a world down below.

I wrote this while in Ireland. It was a rather melancholy time for me, and I was hanging out at the remains of this old derelict castle on the River Shannon. I took my notebook with me, and the poem was just a conversation I was having with myself. It was four years ago now, but i remember it quite vividly. Halfway around the world, I'm still beset with melancholy, but things are much less beautiful. Anyway, I feel like this poem could have been written by a true poet. In other words, if someone else had written it I would still really like it. I guess that's the standard by which I judge my own work...

400 Simpsons episodes and counting (unfortunately)

2007-05-23T03:51:00.000Z

I was able to catch the Simpsons 400th episode on Sunday; I saw it advertised online so I made a conscious effort to turn on Fox at 8pm. People have been saying for the past few years now that the show has lost its luster, and, well, I couldn't agree more. There were two episodes on Sunday, one was a spoof of one of TV's most successful shows, 24, and the other was a paraody of the whole Don Imus incident. The latter episode I actually found quite funny and witty, with a few brief moments that glowed with the humour of the early seasons. But, I can't help but come away from the whole affair more than a little disappointed. The current episodes are nothing but social commentary, which is a departure from the earlier seasons. A touch of social commentary has always been present in the program , but there were very few plots that were entirely based upon the outside world. The show used to be relatively self-contained -- one of the main reasons for its immense popularity. Look at some of the earlier episodes: when Krusty was framed by side show Bob; when Krusty was reconciled with his Jewish father; when Krusty was cancelled; when Lisa gave Ralph a valentine. The list could go on and on of shows that needed no inspiration from the outside world to carry the plot. Why would the writers need outside material when they had so quickly and succesfully devloped at least two dozen richly multi-dimensional characters? all the material the writers needed was within the town of Springfield (and occasionally Shelbyville or NASA (recall Homer's brief stint as an astronaut!)) But nowadays, the show has rather transformed itself into a hackneyed parody of contemporary political and social events. But that's not what we need; there are other shows that do that, and do it quite brilliantly (Stewart, Colbert, South Park). Most of the characters that throughout the years have really developed (despite never ageing) beyond the one-dimensional -- Apu, Krusty, Lisa, Homer, Bart, Marge, Mr. Burns and Smithers, etc. -- have now become cardboard cutouts, who will do anything to get a laugh -- they don't act within their former behavioral parameters. And it's truly a shame, for one of the most intelligent shows in television history is now a shadow of its former self. Yes, I'll see the movie this summer, but it's time for Matt Groening to think about wrapping the series up (of course, maybe Fox won't let him). But I'd hate to see the show get to the point where it tarnishes its wonderful legacy, a process which, as far as I can tell, is well underway...

season over

2007-05-19T22:32:00.000Z

The Ottawa Senators ended the Buffalo Sabres' season this afternoon with a 3-2 overtime victory at HSBC arena. The best of seven series took only five games, mirroring last year's conference semi-finals when Buffalo eliminated Ottawa in their building after a mere five games. It's a bitter pill to swallow for those in the Buffalo community, as the fans truly embraced and supported their hockey club this season. There is a fair amount of uncertainty going into this off-season, particularly with the co-captains who are both unrestricted free agents. Both will demand hefty contracts next season, but the GM Darcy Reiger should do everything in his power to retain the services of Chris Drury, who has proven throughout his career that he is nothing short of a hockey god. He's one of the few players in the league, or in professional sports for that matter, who really warrants a five or six million dollar contract. For Christ's sake, the guy blocked a shot with his face this afternoon, breaking his jaw in the process. But even that couldn't keep him from returning to the game. He's the type of leader fans and teams will go a lifetime dreaming about having. For those of you unfamilar with Mr. Drury, this article comes really highly recommended: click
Buffalo fans are used to having their hearts broken; when will the curse end? Well, there's always hope for next season... On to football...