aeroining

The Apocalypse (minus the metaphysics)

2006-06-26T14:12:00.000-04:00

Events:
On July 9th, 2006:

(1) Tim Henman/Andy Murray wins Wimbledon;

(2) England wins the World Cup;

(3) Britain literally explodes.

Can you even imagine the days leading up to that Sunday? It would be crazy. The tension would be building from over 120 years of collective sports futility, agony and tears. America can imagine nothing like this--Americans always win the sporting events about which we care.

(Maybe our population is so huge and unevenly spread out that we hold allegiance more to our sports clusters than our national teams.)

Face the facts: the nation as a whole does not care about the Olympics. People kill each other over soccer matches and for two weeks ever year Tim Henman is the biggest celebrity in England.

This event, were it to occur, would create pandemonium--utter fucking chaos. Cars on fire all over London? How about buildings exploding all over the whole island. Hell--Ireland, Scotland, and Wales might even blow some shit up. What am I saying--England might blow up Ireland, Scotland and Wales! Watch out Jamaica--you're a tropical firecracker waiting to go!

Loose Change

2006-05-10T13:35:00.000-04:00

I am not one prone to conspiracy theories, but this film is 1 hour 26 minutes of evidence and skepticism that is pretty hard to ignore. At the very least, I am very surprised by all the contrary-to-what-was-later-released-by-the-government reports by news people and experts as the events were occurring. The science is also pretty compelling, though I am sure that the physics of a passenger jet plowing into a 110- story tower are all but trivial. Still, if the person in charge of certifying the strength of the steel support structure of the buildings says that there is no way in hell that the steel melted from an explosion of jet fuel, then there is due cause for skepticism about the governmental explanation.

Seriously--if there is anything to this conspiracy theory, then it is, without question, not only the greatest treasonous act in the history of our (if not any) country but also the most complex, multifaceted and world-changing event since the invention and use of the atomic bomb.

Just as we should be skeptical of the governmental explanation, we should also be skeptical of the conspiracy theory itself. Nonetheless, perhaps the only reason for such skepticism is the complexity of the theory and the intimidating number and variety of people and interests involved therein.

To be honest, I do not hold anything past the president, the neocons that surround him and, least of all, the intoxicating and corruptive pull of power and money. The level of subversion assumed in this film, however, is incomparable and no matter how little I think of these men, confirmation of the validity of these accusations would be so shocking to the point that it might destroy America. As such, I am not sure I want them to be true.

I guess I am confused and your comments are certainly welcome.

Long-overdue thoughts

2006-05-08T14:58:00.000-04:00

I understand that it has been far too long since my last post and for that I apologize--to whom I am apologizing, I am not sure, but I do so nonetheless.

I have been incomprehensibly bored at work--also busy. Working, such as it is, consists of flurries of intense activity floating on a sea of boredom. Even Ohio itself is oppressively boring, though this should be news to no one who has been in a relationship with this accursed state.

'Bigot' is the most under-used word in political discourse. For instance: people who are intolerant of gay people and their rights to civil unions are bigots. Adamant pro-lifers (anti-choicers) who picket abortion clinics and slather hatred on the clinicians and patients are bigots. It should always be remembered that religious concerns do not prevent linguistic validity. A bigot is merely someone who is intolerantly devoted to his/her opinions or prejudices. As such, most outspoken Christian evangelists are bigots--if someone tells someone else he is 'going to Hell' based on his beliefs/actions/whatnot, then he is a bigot. Feel free to call these people bigots--it will hurt them and they deserve it. It may make you feel as if you have done a good deed and you probably will have. Good for you--go have a drink.

Stephen Colbert was phenomenal at the WHPC dinner--absolutely spectacular. The next time you are out for a drink with your buddies, make a toast to him--what he did took a lot of balls. He did precisely what no one (on any level) has been willing to do--be disrespectful to authority. In this country, the cultural more of respecting others has transformed our society into one affirms the negligence and abuse of those given authority by not displaying its discontent. Since our elections are barely democratic (whether by the flow of money or ineffective vote counting), we must reinvigorate our democracy by bombarding the ossified republic with feedback. And that is precisely what Colbert did.

This must suffice for now. I will try to post more regularly. Remember to check out the TriMusickFront for news and thoughts about music.

Digital Therapy

2006-03-31T10:03:00.000-05:00

This is one of the more entertaining and thoroughly satisfying webcreations I have seen in a while. It should be called "Beat Around the Bush". This stuff could cure cancer, kids.

TriMusickFront

2006-03-30T16:06:00.000-05:00

My music blog, TriMusickFront, is up. As of this moment, it is post-less and unimpressed as a new born with two feti growing in her womb. But do not fret, we will soon provide you with mouthwatering musical morsels.

Plogging: Politicians blogging

2006-03-29T15:39:00.000-05:00

A question: why shouldn't politicians blog?

This is something I began thinking about today and willing continue thinking about. I am going to work out some thoughts. Comments are welcome and discussion desired.

As far as I am concerned, this should be an issue of legality. That is, is an elected official prohibited from discussing governmental matters such as policies and public parliamentary proceedings? I know that there are confidentiality and secrecy concerns involved in committees and such--in these things my interests do not lie. I am more interested in what a politician thinks about a particular bill in front of his/her legislature. The idea here is for state and US representatives to keep their own personal blogs, to speak about policies/bills they support and why (or why not), to speak about legislation they have introduced, and, importantly, for constituents to be able to openly critique or show support for their elected officials.

This format would probably not work for the president, but for all other elected officials (excluding elected judiciary members), I think it could be an important way to put citizens in touch with their representatives and to provide elected officials a place to explain themselves. Additionally, if politician blogs were to become a regular thing, explication could become expected, demanded and even necessary.

What is more, by entering the blogosphere, a politician would be subject to the fact-checking and digestion of the rest of the world's bloggers.

Plogs could replace press releases. Plogs could nullify campaign rhetoric and make campaigns focus on issues. What is more, constituents could either know where a politician stands or demand that the politician take a stand (or at least explain why he/she does not feel comfortable doing so).

Our politicians need to be held accountable and our election cycles do not do this. Intelligent Americans need cogent explanations, not bullshit and rhetoric.

[note: Some politicians already do post on some blogs, such as here, here, here and here. But I am thinking www.murthablog.com or www.mccainpost.com.]

An environmental concern

2006-03-24T11:02:00.000-05:00

Every time I read something about the environment and its future (read: our future), I am always struck by a cavalier attitude toward our dependence upon this planet. Moving beyond questioning the legitimacy of concerns about the seriousness of global warming, deterioration of the ozone layer, deforestation, the toxicity and rising levels of the oceans, biodiversity and what-not, there should be no question of the current singularity of planetary options.

Simply put, scientists have yet to discover another planet that is capable of sustaining a robust ecology or, at the very least, an ecology similar to earth's. What is more, the sectors of space currently being searched for such planets are so far removed from the realm of possible-to-reach-in-a-lifetime, that it makes any discussion of the future 'inhabitability' of earth equivalent to a discussion of the future of the human species.

My point is not that humans are incapable of relocating to another planet or to artificial space structures, but that such prospects, at this time and in the foreseeably extended future, are not options. We are far too dependent on the earth's ecosystem to successfully tear ourselves from it, let alone to tear it apart.

Mlog

2006-03-22T15:40:00.000-05:00

I will be starting a music blog with a college buddy of mine sometime in the near future. He is the manager of an indie radio station and I have eccentric tastes, so its topics should be, appropriately, both interesting and diverse. I shall post a link as soon as one exists.

Although I have no posted here on music yet, I will not hold it out of the question. I simply did not want this blog to devolve into a music blog and, in any event, I think I would enjoy a forum in which I could focus my musical interests.

As for this blog, it shall not be forgotten. My life has been rather monotonous, lately, and, though I have spent most of my days reading this that and the other, I have spent little time creating. The incessant nature of the business world necessitates the consistent presence and activity of its constituents and, as such, business days can be exhausting and pattern forming, resulting in little day-to-day variation. This is to say, the business job-life is nonseasonal. One lives project-to-project.

May academia suit me better. To there I build and, in preparation, I shall make a concerted effort to be more creative, active and rutless.

A political moment

2006-03-14T11:10:00.000-05:00

As uncreative as a two party political landscape can be, a one party landscape is decidedly more stagnated, regardless of the party. Robust evolution, political or otherwise, requires diverse, conflicting influences and rigorous interactivity--unchecked, like-minded, reactive policy-making will lead only to a break down of some sort. Ironically, this breakdown appears to have happened not in the political landscape as a whole but in the empowered conglomerate that shapes it.

The Republican Party came to this power not because their strength is itself overwhelming, but because their strength easily overwhelmed the Democrats'. The Democrats have consistently refrained from exercising any power they possess and have effectively nullified their ability to significantly affect this country's policy. The President's approval ratings are at an all-time low and yet Democratic critiques of Republican policy have done nothing to significantly affect that policy. Uproar over domestic wire-tapping and the ports deal came only on the back of Republican critique not Democratic furor. I do not believe that this is solely indicative of Republican power but more of Democratic weakness.

The Democrats' power has atrophied to the point that flexing their political muscles to any effect involves their poking Republicans into critiquing themselves and fixing their own problems. Democratic policy-shaping activities have devolved to reactive politicking, a mere arm-flailing that, at best, creates a breeze upon which Republicans ride to meager self-checks.

Political storms are not started by butterflies.

Agassi

2006-03-13T09:52:00.000-05:00

Andre Agassi has long been my favorite tennis player, both as a sportsman and a gentleman. By preventing a tennis tragedy, he is now, unequivocally, in a class by himself.

Nanobiotechnology

2006-03-09T10:13:00.000-05:00

Dr. Alan Goldstein, of UC Berkeley, posted an interesting article on nanobiotechnology at Salon.com today. Although it is a bit alarmist and enthusiastic, it is worth a read. I do not feel like discussing this article in length, because it makes some solid arguments and the points with which I take issue are of a subtle and nontrivial philosophical nature and, as such, a long analysis would be much more appropriate than a short, unsupported critique. The one thing I will point out is not something for which he is at fault, but something for which the modern philosophical tradition should be faulted--forgetting Nietzsche.

Dr. Goldstein quotes Bertrand Russell on page 3, from Russell's
An Outline of Philosophy, (New York 1960) 31-32:

Every living thing is a sort of imperialist, seeking to transform as much as possible of its environment into itself...

Since I do not currently have a copy of Nietzsche's collected notes, Will to Power, or even his Genealogy of Morals, I cannot produce a quote with this more physical tone. To anyone who has read him, however, Russell's thought should sound familiar, a mere corollary of his doctrine of will to power. Upon request, of course, I would be please to point you in the right direction.

Some blawgs

2006-03-08T14:47:00.000-05:00

For anyone interested in excellent blawgs, I have a few suggestions. For the best solo practice resource blawg (and, perhaps, blawger) on the web, check out Carolyn Elefant's blawg. For an insightful metablawg, none is better than Kevin O'Keefe's. Dennis Kennedy's blawg is great resource for legal technology queries. And, finally, the SCOTUS blawg is a well-run regular fix for the US Supreme Court junkie. There are many others, of course, but these are high quality and, not surprisingly, link to many other folks in the blawgosphere.

A job

2006-03-08T10:33:00.000-05:00

I have finally been hired by the megacompany for which I have been temping over the last few months. Although the work was initially tedious and painful, my last two projects have been interesting, with the most recent one having the potential to both extend far into the future and catalyze a revolution in the industry. I may be an underling, but I am a VP-in-charge-of-development's underling. In this industry, only two companies can single-handedly change the course of the evolutionary landscape. If my hunch is correct--and my megaconglomerate gets on the ball--the next few years could be exciting. What is more, that I might be able to toss out the idea and, perhaps, develop it a bit before the say-soers and which-wayers take over, is prospect enough to keep me interested and busy.

Blawging

2006-03-06T13:31:00.000-05:00

Blawgs are blogs written by legal professionals concerning legal matters. Just as blogging is a simple, efficient and effective way to create and connect content and discussions, blawgs may revolutionize the legal profession by enabling legal scholars to readily publish their opinions on the ever-evolving legalscape, easily read other lawyer's opinions, and, thereby, put the blawgosphere in a dynamically-interactive relationship with the legal world.

While the benefits are obvious for small firms and solo practitioners, blawgs may allow brilliant legal minds from megafirms to emphasize their own expertise and to emerge as strong individual voices in the legalscape.

The group of blawgers that may most powerfully affect the legalscape is academics. Although it is not a rule, many of the most brilliant legal minds in this country reside in either academia or the courts. While it is probably unethical for judges to be blawgers, the academics who both train the future of the legalscape and of whom the population of legal researches consists now do not need to rely on journal and text books to publish their ideas. Similarly, students not on law reviews will have a place to publish their ideas.

Publishing is only half of the power of blogging (let alone blawging)--and probably none of the magic. The real magic resides not in the instantaneous appearance of the words, thoughts and arguments, but in the instantaneous feedback from the blog's community of readers. And this is indeed magical for the legal community--although concrete change must happen in the courts, the evolution of arguments, research and concepts need not. Blawging allows the evolution of legal concepts to occur rapidly and, perhaps, more effectively. Just as an ecological community grows and changes and the business beast tears its way through the economy destroying some and strengthening others, the voices blawgosphere of the blawgosphere will change over time and those trusted and respected will emerge as leaders, while others will disappear from memory. What is more, the blawgosphere and the legalscape will gradually become more interconnected and interaffective and the resulting coevolving pair will become distinguishable only in medium and not in structure, with legal titans being blawgostars and vice versa.

Lawyers have always needed information, about both their cases and the current changes in the legal world--they need to be connected to other lawyers. Blawging is probably not a complete answer to this issue, but it could certainly revolutionize both the problem and the solution and change the legal world forever.

Why blog?

2006-03-03T14:54:00.000-05:00

Blogging, if nothing else, is a quick way to add information to a webpage, personal or otherwise. It is, first and foremost, a form of communication.

So why blog? Is it necessary to say something of some significance? Or can a blog be a place for uninteresting babble?

It certainly can be a lot of things and a laissez faire approach the evolution of the blogosphere is probably best. Assuming that blogging is more than a fad, which it seems it could be, there will be a many good uses--and some poor--that will emerge with staying power.

Perhaps a question more relative to my attempts is this: if enough hot air is concentrated in a small enough space, will something cook?

And so it begins...

2006-03-03T11:35:00.000-05:00

This is my first post.

I have emerged from the innervoid and created a blog. This is merely a beginning and, as with all new things, it will take some time to learn--I hope not too long.

I do not have anything to share at the moment. The creative event speaks for itself