adventures of ponzo

one man, one vote

2009-04-11T20:19:00.000-06:00

The Christian Right is trying to spin the legalization of gay marriage in Vermont by saying it was done “by one vote!” Oh my God, a single person compelled the people of Vermont to accept gay marriage! Such power should not be vested in the hands of a single human being!

Of course, the Christian Right’s spin is not quite accurate. That “one vote” was actually part of a veto override, which required a two-thirds majority of legislators to pass. So it was more like 123 votes to 54. Of course, that doesn’t work up the loons who frequent One News Now and Wingnutdaily well enough, and the Christian Right wouldn’t know how to react if they couldn’t lie about it.

What the Christian Right doesn’t mention, though, is that the state legislature originally passed this legislation by an overwhelming majority. It was the Republican governor of Vermont, Jim Douglas, who attempted to strike it down with a veto. Gosh, that’s almost like a single vote. A single person, overwhelming the will of the majority! Such power should not be vested in the hands of a single human being!

Well, not unless he’s on our side, anyway.

let's try this thing again

2009-02-23T18:51:00.002-07:00

If you've been following the soap opera of my blogging life, then you know that the past six months or so have been a rollercoaster ride. I've tried starting over again in new homes, but I just can't get into them. I have felt lost.

The great thing about aop was that it never had any purpose or direction. When I did try to impose such on it, it started to go awry, but always seemed to right itself eventually. I could write about anything, from the most profound problems of the contemporary world, to the relative minutiae of life. My attempts to "move on" after I declared the death of aop failed, because each of those attempts implied a purpose that constrained me. Those attempts felt impersonal.

I am going to try writing here again. Now, this blog does need some work; the template is screwed up, for instance. You may notice two comment links below every post; that needs to go, but I haven't figured out what is causing it. I don't know what else is lurking in the code, so I'll probably have to reset the whole thing and start over. Meh - a little work for maybe a lot of gain.

strategy

2008-10-06T21:25:00.001-06:00

Let’s talk some more about things I don’t like about Return of the Jedi.

In the mid-nineties, Sci-Fi Universe magazine published an article entitled “50 Reasons Why Return of the Jedi Sucks”. The article was blasphemy to Star Wars fans, but it was also right. One after another, the author identified every reason why ROTJ had failed to excite my imagination the same way that A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back had done.

But it was also incomplete. Last time I merely added to something the original author had brought up in his discussion of the Ewoks; that would be the merchandising-first attitude toward the script. Here is something that the author missed.

The second half of ROTJ is devoted to an assault on the second Death Star. The main characters divide into two groups: Lando pilots the Millennium Falcon during the space battle, while the other characters conduct a ground assault on Death Star 2’s shield generator.

Right there is the problem.

Following his stint as a carbonite slab, Han Solo is inexplicably promoted to General. There is no way that the Rebel Alliance would allow him to lead a ground assault; he would be placed in a strategic role running the battle. Chewbacca would be able to fill that role more than adequately except for his inability to speak human language; however, I would not question his presence in a support role. Luke accompanies the ground force because he wants to ensure a meeting with Darth Vader that will lead to a confrontation with the Emperor, so his presence is understandable on a personal level if not a strategic one. C-3PO is useless as a member of an assault force; sure, he inexplicably translates the Ewok language, but that could have been avoided by leaving out the damn Ewoks in the first place! As for R2-D2, well, they are in a forest, and this is before George Lucas decided that R2 could fly; the astromech droid would be able to roll about five feet before he got permanently stuck on a tree root.

Finally, there is Leia, one of the primary architects of the Rebellion. There is absolutely no way in hell that the Rebels would allow her anywhere near the battle! Her loss would deal a critical blow to the Rebellion, if only by its effect on morale. Leia’s talents would be better utilized in a strategic sense anyway, as when she helped coordinate the Battle of Yavin at the end of ANH.

In A New Hope, the characters’ coming together was either purely coincidental, or the machinations of the Force. The same would be true for TESB, though now the characters’ feelings of mutual loyalty would ensure they would come to each others’ aid. Keeping them together in ROTJ is simply lazy scriptwriting. The characters could have been assigned their logical military roles, and then they could have abandoned those roles to assist each other in dramatic and immeasurably more satisfying form. Imagine Han abandoning the post he has been begrudgingly assigned to in order to rescue Chewbacca, or Leia refusing to play nice and joining the battle on her own. C-3PO and R2-D2 could have wound up on Endor by mistake, which would have offered plenty of comic relief from the cowardly protocol droid.

And what of Luke? By this point in the film, it is unclear if Luke still retains his role as a Rebel pilot, or if he has resigned his commission in order to pursue becoming a Jedi Knight. If he is still a pilot, then it would be much more satisfying if he had to defy orders to seek out his father; if not, then he should not have been allowed to take part in the assault, and would have had to find another way into a quarantined zone.

True, everything about ROTJ screams laziness, from basing the story around a second Death Star to placing the action in the fucking woods. The movie is a prime example of wasted cinematic opportunities, and provides our first taste of something that would come across much more obviously in the prequels: George Lucas has no concept of strategy, or even how the military works – a strange deficit given the fact that he based his saga around military actions.

uniforms

2008-10-05T20:46:00.002-06:00

There are a number of things I don’t like about Return of the Jedi. Here is one of them.

In Star Wars – that is, A New Hope – all the Rebel pilots wore the same orange flight suits, no matter whether they flew X-Wings or Y-Wings. The same orange flight suits returned in The Empires Strikes Back, albeit in winterized form. This makes sense for three reasons.

First, orange is the most visible color to the human eye. That’s why workmen wear orange vests, and why traffic cones are orange. Think of your own examples; it’ll be fun. If a pilot were floating in space, or lost in the snowfields of Hoth, orange would be the color of choice for making them stand out.

Second, the Rebels are strapped for cash. Although this is mainly discussed in the Expanded Universe materials, the sense of it comes across in the first two movies. The Rebels simply can’t afford too many different uniforms, and would make as much use as possible out of whatever they could scrounge up.

Third, it’s a uniform. As in, military uniform. They’re all supposed to look the same.

In Return of the Jedi, X-Wing pilots still wear the orange flight suits, but now Y-Wing pilots wear a light blue, A-Wing pilots wear a dark greenish gray, and B-Wing pilots wear a different shade of gray. There are also a few pilots in red flight suits, though I can’t remember what ships they flew (Lando’s co-pilot aboard the Millennium Falcon wears one, for example).

Somehow, the Rebels came into some money, and decided that, instead of spending it on something useful like weapons, fuel, or more starships, they’d coordinate.

What bugs me most about this is that the decision to include different uniforms was based solely on marketing considerations. ANH and TESB made an enormous amount of movie at the box office, but they made even more from the merchandising. Just the toy lines brought in more than the ticket sales. This did not go unnoticed by George Lucas, who apparently wrote ROTJ with merchandising in mind from the start (*cough*Ewoks*cough*).

So if all the Rebel pilots wore one logically orange flight suit, that’s one action figure sale. But if they wear five different flight suits, that five action figure sales. You do the math. Go on; I’ll wait.

The irony is that the merchandising-first mentality that went into putting ROTJ together may have been its undoing. The toy lines for ANH and TESB went through multiple release phases – I know; I bought them all – whereas the one for ROTJ barely lasted one. I don’t think I even bought all the action figures for that movie, and I was an action figure junkie.

So why did Lucas get it right the first two times, and get it so wrong the third. It is almost like there were two Lucases. The first one had an eye for background detail, understanding that it was the little things that made the movie come alive; he was then replaced by an evil clone, who directed the final film in the trilogy (and later made the prequels, which were all about evil clones – coincidence?).

A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back had a vitality that ensured they would live in the mind even after the credits rolled. Return of the Jedi died on the screen. Too many uniforms weren’t the cause, but they were one of the symptoms.

TAGS: Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, Geek stuff

pfft

2008-10-01T21:55:00.002-06:00

I remember what it was like to have a brand new blog and wonder if I would ever get any readers. More established atheist bloggers helped me get going, and I've always valued the opportunity to help others when I can. When I find a new blog that offers something different and that I think is worth a look, I like to mention it here.

Vjack at Atheist Revolution wrote the above lines in this post, where he publicizes a blog called Theist’s Anonymous. At the time he wrote the post, Theist’s Anonymous was home to a grand total of five posts; as of this date, it has six. To be honest, none of them are particularly special, leaving me to wonder what it was about Theist’s Anonymous that attracted vjack’s attention.

Regardless, what vjack wrote above is patently untrue. The part about his helping others, that is. His self-congratulatory tone is unwarranted. This is a shame, because Atheist Revolution is one of the most popular atheist blogs. It is the second result from a Google search for “atheist blog”. Yet Atheist Revolution, like all the other most popular atheist blogs, remains insular, linking over and over again to the same blogs while ignoring the others.

Vjack actually has the audacity to bemoan the lack of atheist activism when he is part of the problem. Given his prominence, vjack could use his blog as an effective means of building a community; when I suggested just this thing in the comments to that post, I was criticized, insulted, and then ignored.

Like all the rest, vjack does nothing more than skim the top of the Atheist Blogroll. That blogroll is useless for publicizing your blog or building an atheist community. There are no criteria for inclusion other than being an atheist or writing from an atheistic point of view, so good blogs sink in a sea of dreck. Yet big name atheist bloggers have come to the defense of the Atheist Blogroll, almost as if questioning its benefits were somehow, well, blasphemous?

I have thought about the above while contemplating the fate of my blog. My posting has been light recently, and, honestly, I don’t know if it is going to get any better. The Event left me disillusioned, as it exposed the vapidity masquerading as substance within the online atheist community. I am still feeling its effects.

When I started adventures of ponzo, I had high hopes. I lacked a real-world avenue for expressing myself at the time, and I hoped that I would be able to do so on the internet. A year and a half later, with one reader, I called it quits. The Event brought another blogger unwarranted attention from probably the biggest atheist in the blogosphere, and increased the traffic for his site. I never engaged in any cheap stunts myself, but tried to publish well-written, thoroughly researched, and ultimately meaningful posts; I remained unnoticed.

I thought starting over again with Open Threat might reenergize me, and it did at first. That didn’t last, though, because I began to miss my old blog, to which I had devoted so much effort. I revamped adventures of ponzo and relaunched it under its original title, but I just can’t seem to get started. Every time I think about writing something, I remember that it will go unnoticed, except possibly by Deb, and that makes me pause.

I remain an atheist; only a massive blow to the head and the resulting mental confusion might change that. Yet I no longer feel any desire to be a member of the “online atheist community”. That community simply does not exist, and that makes me very sad. However, it has confirmed that it is not necessary to write from an atheistic point of view, but from a rational one, because those are one and the same. While my would-be fellows preoccupy themselves crashing fundamentalists’ online polls, I feel that, if I am to find my place, I must move on. My news reader has shrunk quite a bit recently, as I started paying attention to the ratio of quality versus mere quantity; I gave Atheist Revolution a bit more time, but I deleted it today. No loss.

Today is the first day of the tenth month of the two thousand and eighth year of the Common Era. If there is any synchronicity to this date, it is merely that it is the first day of my favorite month of the year. This may be the last post I write, or it may be the beginning of a new adventure. Regardless, I am deeply depressed right now. I feel abandoned all over again – ditched, perhaps. Maybe that will lighten the load, and leave me free to explore places that I’d not see otherwise. Or maybe – well, it’s hard to go on all alone.

Very hard.

abortions for everybody!

2008-09-28T17:13:00.002-06:00

If gays are allowed to marry, then straight people will stop having children. Gay marriage will open the floodgates: suddenly, everyone will get married to someone of his or her same sex, and there will be no children to populate the future.

As stupid as that argument is, there are a lot of people who seem to believe it. These are the same people who believe that, if abortion is legal, then the government will force people to have abortions regardless of whether they want to or not. They are also the same people who believe that even minimal exposure to evolutionary theory will undermine people’s sense of right and wrong, because, if we are nothing but animals, then we have no choice but to act like animals.

These are examples of all-or-nothing thinking, and this type of mentality is symptomatic of religious fundamentalism. The fundamentalist is unable to understand that not everyone has to live according to the same set of rules; that people can make their own choices in personal matters, and society will not collapse. That is because fundamentalism is about enforcing the beliefs of its adherents on the whole of society. The fundamentalist necessarily sees others as wanting to force their own beliefs on the fundamentalist, because that is what the fundamentalist wants to do to them.

Fundamentalists – fundies, from here on – are stuck in an unenviable psychological dilemma. They are bundles of anxiety, afraid of the world around them. They are unable to deal with social change or with individual freedom – that is, liberalism. Thus, they worry about the gay agenda, or the atheist agenda, or liberal agenda, or even the “Satanic” agenda. All the while, of course, they are members of the only social movement with a real agenda, in the sense that, for them, it truly is all or nothing: agree with them and live by their rules, or – well, there is no “or”.

Take school prayer, for instance. There are no laws prohibiting children from praying in school, whenever or however they want to. Yet fundies are constantly claiming that liberals are trying to prevent Christians from exercising their religious rights in school. What they mean is that they do not want their own children to be able to pray as they want to; they want everyone to pray their way. They want Christian prayer to be mandated and official. To them, that is “religious freedom” – the freedom to believe the way they do.

Fundamentalism is inherently a theocratic movement. Its reaction to social change is not to adapt, but to take control of society and force it to conform to its way of thinking, such as it is. Its only mechanism of ensuring this outcome is organizational control, starting with local school boards and ending with the federal government itself.

Fundies cannot live and let live. They cannot learn to live and let live. The only way that they can do so is by abandoning their theocratic straitjacket.

TAGS: fundamentalism, religion, christianity

faith vs. anxiety

2008-09-27T09:35:00.002-06:00

PalMD at denialism blog asks a great question: Why is the faith of creationists so weak?

The very concept of faith is that an individual can endure in his belief no matter the lack of empirical evidence or the attitudes of his neighbors. The individual in question is capable of considering ideas with which he disagrees, though he does so through his lens of faith and will not necessarily agree with them. That is to be wholly respected, because it represents commitment as well as open-mindedness.

The goal of creationists, however, is not to live their lives in commitment to their personal faith. Their goal is to impose their beliefs – not their faith – on others. This stems both from an obvious desire for social control, but, on a more basic matter, on a deep psychological unease. It is symptomatic of fundamentalism, no matter what specific form it takes or from what religion it derives.

Fundamentalism arises in a traditionalist culture when that culture undergoes extraordinary change that dramatically alters its social status. The culture, due to its blind adherence to tradition, is unable to adapt to changing conditions, and turns inward. Its adherents seem to think, “We tried to do God’s will, but God abandoned us. This cannot mean that we were wrong, but that we were insufficiently devoted to the dogma of our religion. The only obvious response is to become even more dogmatic and extreme in our beliefs, and impose them on society to prevent further change and draw back the change that has occurred.”

The world has seen a modern example of this in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which was the product of both European colonialism and its downfall, and social liberalism. The Taliban perfectly epitomize fundamentalism in their extremist beliefs and practices; they also epitomize the dead end that fundamentalism represents, because imposing God’s will on the world turned their adopted homeland, Afghanistan, into a sub-Medieval nightmare.

Christian fundamentalism emerged in the American south following the Civil War. It was a direct response to the south’s defeat in that war and, in particular, the abolition of slavery as a legal institution in the United States. Southern society had been based on slavery to such an extent that it was no longer an economic institution, but a cultural one. Christian leaders, particularly in the south, had played a direct role in this by rushing to the defense of slavery at every opportunity; the Southern Baptist Convention itself arose solely over a dispute over abolitionism (it was on the anti-abolitionist side). Slavery was regarded effectively as a tenet of Christianity, and opposing slavery was seen as opposing God’s will.

Creationism is not distinct from Christian fundamentalism, and shares the same origin in racial hatred: the core purpose of creationist ideology was to reject the implications of biological racial equality inherent in Darwinian theory.

Having lost their racially biased social system, which they believed had been ordained by God, the emerging fundamentalists believed that they had failed to be sufficiently devoted to the dogma of their religion, and reacted by forming a movement that would impose their beliefs on the world to halt or reverse the spread of civil rights legislation. Fundamentalism and creationism have remained rooted in this racist ideology ever since, even though the public pronouncements of adherents have changed over time to avoid unwelcome social stigma – to hide their true motives from outsiders.

Fundamentalism is therefore never about faith, but about anxiety over the insufficiency of faith. The fundamentalist is at the most basic level a bundle of Freudian defense mechanisms: denial, projection, reaction formation, etc. Like any individual experiencing such anxiety, the fundamentalist’s primary option is to avoid or stamp out the things that cause him anxiety. As a movement, this involves removing evolutionary theory from science classrooms, barring homosexuals from legal marriage, opposing immigration reform, using any method available to undermine reproductive rights, etc. All the central issues of the modern fundamentalist movement in America are civil rights issues, in that they reflect the fundamentalist’s – or creationist’s – attitude toward the valuation of individuals and their social interactions.

Of course, not every member of the fundamentalist movement is a confirmed racist, homophobe, or misogynist. Their leaders are, however, and, by using the mechanisms of religion, they have deluded their followers by appealing to the ever more irrelevant concept of “faith”. These leaders, and their deluded followers, continue to engage in a program that is designed not to deal with the real world, but to block it out so that they can live in a world of fantasy. On a social level, they are enacting the very same behaviors that an individual experiencing extreme anxiety would enact.

TAGS: creationism, fundamentalism, christianity, racism

funhouse mirrors in oxford

2008-09-26T22:29:00.002-06:00

I watched/listened to the entire debate, while looking for a missing piece of paperwork. Throughout, Barack Obama trounced John McCain. Of course, my opinion might be biased: although my opinion of Obama changed significantly in June with his vote on the FISA bill, but I still prefer him next to McCain. Nevertheless, with McCain’s vague non-sequitur answers, his occasional senile outbursts, and his refusal to look at Obama even once during the entire debate (including when the two shook hands at the end), Obama seemed to come way out ahead.

With the debate over, coverage switched to the talking heads. Chris Matthews, in particular. There seemed to be this insistence on promoting McCain as having done a good job, while focusing on things Obama could have done better. What a perfect example of the corporate media bias in favor of McCain – yes, even on MSNBC. They like him, even though he has treated them like garbage recently; they are drawn to Republican talking points, because they think they are somehow “moderate”; they want him to like them.

Only during Olberman, when the poll numbers started coming in and the general consensus was that Obama had indeed trounced McCain, did the attitude start to change. By the time Olberman finished his hour of pointing out McCain’s shameful performance, Matthews was back with even Republobot Pat Buchanan now acknowledging the reality of the last couple of hours.

I can’t wait to watch Sarah Palin embarrass herself. If the McCain campaign lets it happen. The electorate doesn’t need to be informed, after all.

(Oh, and that piece of paperwork: it was the very first item in my personal documents folder. I had overlooked it several times.)

TAGS: 2008 presidential debates, corporate media, Barack Obama, John McCain

body language

2008-09-26T19:47:00.001-06:00

Yeah, I’m watching the debate.

My impression so far is that Barack Obama is doing much better. He has provided real answers to the moderator’s questions, regardless of what you think of those answers. John McCain, on the other hand, has been vague; when he has provided specific examples, they are almost irrelevant. He has made a couple of good points, but those are commonsense ideas that could have come from either candidate. He has also told multiple provable lies.

However, much more than the content of their speech, one thing in particular has stood out to me. That is the demeanor of the two candidates.

Obama has the appropriate debater’s stance. He appears open and energetic, and he divides his attention between the moderator, the audience, and his opponent. When he speaks to McCain, he looks at him; when McCain is speaking, Obama looks at him.

McCain will not look at Obama. He keeps himself turned away from his opponent. When Obama speaks to him, McCain keeps his head down or turned away. On the few occasions when he has spoken (semi-)directly to Obama, he doesn’t even look at him then. He even has his body turned away from Obama.

That is bizarre. It is either defensive or dismissive. Regardless, it is rude, and displays a lack of respect for his opponent. That violates one of the most basic rules of debating, in which both individuals, no matter their difference of opinion, treat each other with general respect.

McCain is a liar. By this point, his entire campaign is based on lies, which have come almost on a daily basis. It is remarkable that his behavior during the debate is that of a liar: the downcast eyes; the defensive physical posture; the refusal to look at his accuser directly.

So McCain is either displaying the characteristic behavior of someone feeling shame, or he is being intentionally disrespectful of his opponent. Either way, I can’t imagine how that could play well with a general audience, though I’m sure the right-wing racist Christofascist base will love it.

And then there is McCain’s death’s-head smirk.

TAGS: 2008 presidential debate, Barack Obama, John McCain

there is no god. apparently, there are no adults either.

2008-09-23T22:05:00.004-06:00

The “atheist blogosphere”, you say? Hmmm, what exactly might that mean?

Atheists do not live their lives under the delusion that the world’s problems can be fixed by imposing their religious values on everyone; after all, we do not have religious values to impose. We have examined religion, often from the inside, and know its shortcomings; we understand that every religion, no matter its pretentions, is little more than an insular cult, more concerned with its temporal power than helping its would-be adherents.

So what do we, those who should be offering ours as the voice of reason in the world, do while the world crashes down around us?

Take a look around the atheist blogosphere, and what do you find? Childish bullshit, mostly. You get the very real impression that you are back in high school, trying to win a seat at the popular table with the football players and cheerleaders. There is little to no discussion of the important issues of the day. In fact, those atheist bloggers who do discuss such topics do not really belong to the atheist blogosphere; they typically fall under the liberal or leftist political wing.

This is bullshit. We should be talking about these things, instead of engaging in juvenile social networking and asinine online poll crashing. Ripping the occasional creationist wackaloon a new asshole can be fun, but creationists and anti-abortion crusaders are a real danger; they are the vanguard of the fascist movement that has provided the core of Republican politics for the last several decades. That fascist core has a new postergirl in Sarah Palin; what prominent atheists have risen to challenge her vapid but dangerous aspirations?

None? You’re fucking right, my droog.

Here’s a current example: the $700 billion Wall Street bailout/utter subversion of the very concept of democracy. Slacktivist gave it the dissection it needed; however, Slacktivist is not an atheist, but a rational evangelical. We atheists should be making connections with people like Slacktivist, but instead we have spent our time just giggling at his fantastic dissection of that horrible Left Behind book.

Vapid and meaningless, and I’m sick of it.

There are real voices in the atheist blogosphere. Well, there would be real voices, if they ever rose high enough to gain the attention of the big boys. You want to get noticed by PZ Myers? Don’t write something meaningful and insightful; just beg him to fucking notice you and you’ll get your own post! Pharyngula is probably the biggest atheist blog, and it has turned into a joke. I’m sick of sticking nails in crackers; let the Catholics fume, and get on with something that might make a real difference in the world.

I’ve read too many atheist blogs that are dying for lack of attention, while the most prominent atheist bloggers wonder fretfully why there is no atheist activism. Maybe that has something to do with this insular and sycophantic and childish behavior?

I am one of the former: a blogger who came very close to throwing up his hands and quitting because he did not want to obsess over trivia with the Heathers. I came back, though, because I cannot stay away; I merely broadened my targets.

TAGS: atheism, atheist blogosphere, politics, activism

up & down - a request

2008-09-17T21:43:00.000-06:00

In August, I got a job. I had been unemployed since leaving the Army, and I was starting to get worried. I had my savings, but they would have run out eventually; what would I have done then?

Then I got the job. It was the one I had been hoping for, and it was more than halfway across the country. For the first time, I got to leave the place of my birth and irrelevance without shackles (the Army may be great in many ways, but it comes with many conditions that put restrictions on your life).

So I moved, and I like my job, my coworkers, and my new home. The only thing that I dislike is the drive to work in city traffic every morning. For the first time, it seems that things are starting to work out for me.

At the same time, two of my friends have suffered serious downturns in their own lives. One of those friends is a real-world, personal friend whom I have known for many years. The other is a virtual friend whom I have known for only about a year and a half, and then only through blog comments and email; nevertheless, I owe her a special debt of gratitude, and feel very close to her despite the fact that we will never meet in person.

It seems terribly unfair, though one could say that I’ve already experienced the suffering portion of life. Just a few years ago, everything in my life was different; my future was only a sliver of hope, and I had no idea what to do about things. If it had not been for my mother, I can imagine what would have happened – though I do not like to do so.

It is because I’ve been there that I believe the things that I do. I have watched religion fail those in need time and again, and I know that the only things we have to rely on is each other. I have seen the self-interest and indifference of those in positions of power, and I know that the hierarchy – any hierarchy – is always going to fail those who near the bottom. I have no confidence in the government to solve our problems in society, because the government is always incompetent – though some shades of governments are worse than others, and we should continue to fight against them.

We live in a world of particles and forces, and the only intelligence comes from our own brains. That is also the only source of goodness, just as it is also the only source of evil. I spent too much time trying to convince myself otherwise, so that I could rationalize the dichotomies in my life. Disillusionment was the result.

I don’t know what to do to help out my real-life friend. However, if anyone stops by and reads this, you can help out my virtual friend, Deb, by going to her fantastic site, clicking the PayPal button, and helping her save her mother. If there is anything else you can do, then please do it.

Remember: if we do not have each other, then we don’t have anything at all.

i'm back, and more pissed off this time

2008-09-11T20:57:00.001-06:00

What, you didn’t think some whiny little bitch and his childish stunts would keep me down forever, did you?

Actually, I did consider shutting the blog down forever. For the second time in a year, I had become disillusioned. This time, it was about the “blogosphere”, and I had to stop and consider whether I still wanted to have anything to do with it.

You see, when I started this blog in March 2006, I naively believed that there really was a serious conversation happening online. I wanted to contribute my voice to that conversation. I never hoped to be one of the big blogs that receives millions of hits a day, but I did hope that others would find my observations worthwhile and worthy of notice.

Instead, I discovered that I had willfully blinded myself to what really appeared online. I had noticed only the substantial posts, and not the effluvia – and I certainly had not noticed that the effluvia predominated. Even on the big blogs – the ones with millions of daily hits – the majority of posts were of no real consequence whatsoever. Yet these seemed to be the most consistently popular! Commenters engaged in no discourse with one another, but seemed only interested in seeing their usernames in pixels; hundreds of posts would say nothing worth reading.

Even worse, the blogosphere seemed almost designed to prevent anyone new from getting noticed. Established bloggers linked to one another, and never cast their nets wider. Even Technorati, the essential index required for even moderate publicity, was biased against new blogs: by default, it is set not to return search results from blogs with less than “some” authority (whatever “some” means). It was like being back in high school again.

Let me be honest: what happened a couple of months ago hurt me. I had never attempted any cheap stunt to get myself noticed; I wanted to be noticed because I had written something worthy of notice. My first post was noticed, but by only one person, who has the same problems I do when it comes to publicity for her blog. When PZ Myers, whom I greatly respected, chose to reward the childish whining for publicity of some third-rate blogger by giving him his own post – yeah, it hurt me. I looked through that guy’s site; if it deserved notice, it certainly was not on the level that Pharyngula would give it. Meanwhile, I languished – what was it? – 28 pages down on Myers’ blogroll.

For over a year a half, I placed quality before quantity. If I had nothing to say, then I said nothing. If a post did not come together, it did not get published. In the end, it meant nothing. I realized, to my great personal shame, that I had deluded myself when I started adventures of ponzo, and I was no longer willing to continue in that delusion. All the posts I had written from that perspective had to go; they have been archived, but only for my own reference: they will not appear here again.

Yes, adventures of ponzo is herewith relaunched. This time is different, though. Like the title says, I am “more pissed this time”. And not just at the same things my would-be peers are; I am also pissed off at them. In the end, they could not keep me down, but how many others have abandoned trying to contribute their ideas to the world because they were not cute and perky enough?

Fuck them. I once said that the “adventures” part of the title of this blog was no longer relevant, but I was wrong: my adventures will just be very different from what I though they would be when I started out.