Skyscraper 18

The new issue of Skyscraper hit stands recently and includes a couple of reviews by yours truly, one of Joseph Arthur's recent (and excellent) album Our Shadows Will Remain, and the other of the collection of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds videos. You can find it at your local Borders, Barnes & Noble and quite possibly at your local independent music store. I'm reviewing the new New Order and the Eels double album for the next ish. And maybe some additional disks. When I'm gonna find time to do that, I couldn't tell you! But I never miss a deadline. [Crosses fingers.]

Brothers Andrew and Peter Bottomley publish the mag quarterly, and they're always great to work with.

Relatively Speaking

Free from the Teaching Company until July 31st, download two lectures by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College in honor of Albert Einstein's 100th Anniversary: Einstein's Miraculous Year and Relativity in a Nutshell.

I recently purchased a series of lectures by Barbara King of William and Mary from the Teaching Company and was really impressed with their quality. For ages I thought the Teaching Company was some sort of scammy online degree sort of outfit, but then they sent me a free CD in the mail with a couple of lectures on it, and I found them so enjoyable, I sprang for professor King's lectures on biological anthropology from an evolutionary perspective. Fascinating stuff.

MAD World

Recently, I wrote about the rather frightening future possibility nuclear weapons disrupting society as we know it. Once I had submitted the post, I thought about it a little more, and I thought about how difficult it is to write about this problem without sounding like a kook. Complain too loudly about nuclear proliferation and some folks look at you with the same look that they reserve for conspiracy theorists and new-age gurus. I think nuclear proliferation is a legitimate and large concern, however, and, more importantly I think it's an entirely reasonable concern.

So, too, apparently does Robert McNamara--yes, that Robert McNamara. He's written the cover article for the latest issue of Foreign Policy and here's what he concludes:

We are at a critical moment in human history—perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a moment no less crucial. Neither the Bush administration, the congress, the American people, nor the people of other nations have debated the merits of alternative, long-range nuclear weapons policies for their countries or the world. They have not examined the military utility of the weapons; the risk of inadvertent or accidental use; the moral and legal considerations relating to the use or threat of use of the weapons; or the impact of current policies on proliferation. Such debates are long overdue. If they are held, I believe they will conclude, as have I and an increasing number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security experts: We must move promptly toward the elimination—or near elimination—of all nuclear weapons. For many, there is a strong temptation to cling to the strategies of the past 40 years. But to do so would be a serious mistake leading to unacceptable risks for all nations.

Sobering, huh? Reasonable? Absolutely.

He also quotes William Perry, who shares a similarly depressing view of the near future:

[J]ust last summer, at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry said, “I have never been more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now.… There is a greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on U.S. targets within a decade.” I share his fears.

Me too. One of the shameless fallacies this administration has peddled for a while now is that Bush and company have been successful in preventing a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. What they neglect to point out is that almost decade passed between the first failed attempt on the the World Trade Center and the second horrifyingly successful attack on them. These large-scale terrorists attacks take time to plan and execute, and everyone in the administration has to know that just because there hasn't been an attack since 9/11 most certainly doesn't mean there isn't go to be another one.

Some of them don't mind using the absence of attacks--explicable in many different ways--for political gain. They're like the guy standing in the middle of his suburban living room with a can of anti-elephant spray. "It works, see. No elephants."

Cross with the Kids

Ideally, the physics of record reviewing are as elegant as actual physics, with each piece speaking to the essence of its subject as deliberately and as appropriately as a real-world force reacting to an action. --actual quote from Pitchforkmedia.com.

As any music lover and regular reader of Pitchforkmedia knows, the kids over there can be relentlessly pretentious and self-absorbed. So it's refreshing to read David Cross taking 'em down a notch or two, especially considering they all but invited him to do so.

Thoughts from a Founding Father

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.

I never told my religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged others' religions by their lives, for it is from our lives and not our words that our religions must be read.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise ... affect their civil capacities.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.

No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.

- Thomas Jefferson here and here. And there's a whole lot more where those came from. (First quote via Iddybud)

That was a founding father. The religious (far) right talks about maintaining the philosophies of the founding fathers. Clearly, what they want to do is reverse the intentions of this particular founding father.

Can you imagine a modern-day politician reflecting Jefferson's thoughts in public today? We've grown in economically, technologically, militarily--but is it possible we're back-sliding intellectually?

On the whole, I suspect--or hope--not. I suspect a greater percentage of Americans may appreciate what Jefferson had to say on these matters. Perhaps the religious right has only grown more fervent in recent years in reaction to the overall growing secularization of the United States they see taking place around them. One can only hope. Of course, we've also seen that growing enlightenment and secularization in other parts of the world have been met with fundamentalist intolerance and, inevitably, violence. Let's hope that pattern isn't repeated here.

Arguably, it already has. Consider Eric Rudolph, who bombed an Birmingham abortion clinic and was protected by the people of Andrews, North Carolina, for nigh a decade after. It's not difficult at all to find folks sympathetic to him, though he fits the very definition of a terrorist. But how often have you seen him described that way?

As our nation becomes increasingly secular, do we have more and more violence to look forward to--violence curling up and striking from within our borders, in addition to violence from abroad?

Fire & Ice

I once read a rather depressing explanation for why we may not have heard from alien species already: the theory is that alien peoples may evolve to a point that they discover the power of the atom, then they somehow end up eradicating themselves before they can be discovered by other sentient beings. One would hope that some order of beings would escape such a horrific cycle. So perhaps this is a theory best embraced by only the least hopeful among us. (I should also note there also many other good reasons that we may not have heard from other sentient beings in the universe, chief of those being the distance involved and the eons it would take for any signals to reach us.)

But what are we to think? Nuclear weapons are still proliferating around the world. As technology evolves, it may be easily to replicate smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons. Is it too hard to imagine that the world might reach a point of secularization that pushes a religious minority into a corner (from their perspective), so that the only way they see to retaliate is by splitting a few atoms in significant locales across the planet? If you know much about nuclear winter at all, you know that you don't have to blow up the whole planet in order to destroy most of sentient life.

What a sad and terrible ending that'd be for this peculiar pocket of consciousness in the universe.

(I could say that I just need more coffee and I wouldn't have such a negative view of the future, but this is a theory I've been mulling over for a long time now. I used to have much more positive view of the future, something I thought of as "the inevitable democratization of human thought." I still hold out a little hope; I'm just afraid that such glorious ends may be interrupted by fiery, deadly means.)

Defining Diplomacy Down

Definition of "diplomatic":

relating to or characteristic of diplomacy; "diplomatic immunity"; skilled in dealing with sensitive matters or people; able to take a broad view of negotiations between states

Anyone find room for John Bolton in there? Is this surreal or what? Is Bolton really the Bush administration's idea of a legitimate ambassador to the U.N.? Are they really that blind to his profound lack of sensitivity, sophistication and finesse? Is he really just the *perfect* and obvious ambassador to come out of the Bush administration, since he accurately mirrors that administration's attitudes and demeanor? The inevitable product of the administration's cowboy diplomacy? Or is this just the administration's way of giving the finger to the world? All of the above maybe?

Future's So Bright

"Getting the government to change the way they kill people is difficult."

That's Douglas Carpenter, chief scientific officer at nanometals company Quantumsphere, explaining why the government has been slow to adopt the technology the military has been developing: nanoaluminium bullets. Apparently, these bullets would kills more quickly and would cost less. In other words, Kevin Walter, VP of technical business development at Nanoscale Technologies, can't resist saying, "You get a little better bang for your buck."

And Andy Oppenheimer of Jane's tells us that nanotechnology will help folks create smaller nukes with smaller detonators. They're small they "blur the line with conventional weapons." "(The bombs) could blow open everything that is in place for arms control," he says. "Everything gets more dangerous."

What's the bet they invent the mininuke well before they perfect the nanobots which will course through your body cleaning the plaque from your arteries. You know, technology which saves lives instead of destroying them.

Oh yeah, and Korea may have weapons-grade plutonium for five or six nukes.

Ah, the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

(Via Charlotte's Creative Loafing May 11-17, 2005, p. 21 and News of the Weird)

Elite Libs for Bolton

Larry David may have a second career ahead of him as a political satirist. His post on Arianna Huffington's new MegaBlog is easily the most entertaining thing I've read there.

David explains why he supports John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the U.N.:

I know this may not sound politically correct, but as someone who has abused and tormented employees and underlings for years, I am dismayed by all of this yammering directed at John Bolton. Let's face it, the people who are screaming the loudest at Bolton have never been a boss and have no idea what it’s like to deal with nitwits as dumb as themselves all day long.

Personally, I think sending Bolton to the United Nations is like nominating Jerry Falwell to the board of GLAAD. An affront to the very institution. It's not like there aren't hundreds of of conservatives better qualified to reprsent the U.S. at the U.N. I'm not suggesting Bush should've nominated a liberal. It's the particular and peculiar selection of Bolton that speaks to the arrogance of this administration.

The Huffington Post comes off a bit like Boing Boing gone mostly political. Lots of posts in a single day, most of them by celebrities who don't seem to have a whole lot to say. And as others have noticed, the vast majority of the contributors--and the appears to be dozens of them--appear to be men. Hopefully, Ms. Huffington will do something to remedy that soon.

Kennard & Phillips

Satirical art from British artists Peter Kennard and Cat Picton Phillipps showcased on Britart. Be sure to check out the other images from the series, too. Very arresting stuff.

A Blog for Everything and for Everything a Blog

Here's a blog by Emily Turrettini devoted entirely to ringtones. I just bought a new cell phone recently and thought I'd undermine any image of maturity I may have acquired by adding a ringtone to it. Until I heard it ring at work, cringing a little, I didn't think about how fitting it was to hear the song I'd chosen ring out through the bank's ecommerce division: Jamiroquai's "Virtual Insanity."

Anyway, Ringtonia actually covers some interesting topics: info about a ringvideo film festival, anti-drug ringtones, Sprint (my carrier) and Verizon turn down Motorola's iTunes phone, and the use of ringtones by bands like Coldplay to market their new albums. All this and lots of links to interesting stories about what we can expect to be broadcast to our cell phones in the future. Despite her blog's narrow focus, Turrettini often posts several times a day. I have to say, it's a very impressive blog.

I've been working on the Web for over half a decade now (light years in Internet time), so you'd think I'd have gotten over the fact by now that you can find a site devoted to anything and everything. I guess I'm not so surprised by the fact that these sites exist, but by the utter devotion people devote to such granular subjects. I that's what makes some blogs compelling when I'd not otherwise be particularly interested in the subjects they cover.

Turrettini also directs us to this blog which is entirely about the convergence of music and mobile communications technology.

Augusten Burroughs

Since we're doing Top Ten lists, I just finished reading Augusten Burrough's Running with Scissors. So, from his site, here's a list of ten things you didn't know about him:

1. I can change the spark plugs in a 1972 VW Fastback.
2. I have shot with a Leica rangefinder camera for fifteen years.
3. Lauren Bacall kissed me on the cheek when I was 20.
4. I like early (1600's, 1700's) American furniture.
5. I would like a pet pig but Dennis says, "No."
6. My favorite show is "Car Talk" on NPR.
7. I have seen Orville Redenbacher's penis.
8. I subscribe to Backwoods Home magazine.
9. I am reserved and serious by nature.
10. I drink Blenheim Ginger Ale by the case.

How was the book? Pretty good. Highly entertaining in that craning at the roadside crash sort of way. I didn't find the writing particularly strong or inventive. In fact, at times I thought the opening chapters really smacked of workshop material, and I worried I was going to have to trudge through the effort. Burroughs uses a couple of cutesy repetition devices early on that grate, but, largely, as the book unfolds it gets better, less self-conscious. He certainly does remind me of Sedaris, though he's not as gut-bustingly funny. The similarity lies more in the utter lack of hesitancy to describe the more sordid facets of one's family history in crystalline detail. In fact, considering his incredible upbringing, Burroughs certainly comes out sounding pretty balanced, and the characters he roundly depicts benefit from that truth-is-stranger-than-fiction quality that good creative non-fiction can offer. Good, if not superlative. As a survivor, however, Burroughs seems nothing less than superlative.

Of course, a movie's in the works, starring Brian Cox as Dr. Finch (perfect) and Annette Bening (quite possibly perfect) as Augusten's mother, the deeply troubled poet Deirdre.

iPOTUS

Kevin Drum directs us to a NYT article about the Presidential iPod, which got me to wandering what might be on it.

Top 10 Tunes on W's iPod

1. You Don't Bring Me Flowers - Barbra Streisand
2. Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater Revival
3. Ride of the Valkyries - Richard Wagner
4. Thank God I'ma Country Boy - John Denver
5. Don't Worry About The Government - Talking Heads
6. God Shuffled His Feet - Crash Test Dummies
7. Would I Lie to You - The Eurythmics
8. Bombs Over Baghdad - Outkast
9. Money Talks - Alan Parsons Project
10. Rock the Casbah - The Clash

I reserve the right to update W's tunes at will, even as he may update my social security account. You can add your own in comments, too.

Light blogging lately. Been busy with other stuff, including finally getting back to writing some fiction.

RIP Saul Bellow

Nobel winner Saul Bellow is dead at 89.

Because Herzog behaved like a philosophe who cared only for about the very highest things--creative reason, how to render good for evil, and all the wisdom of old books. Because he thought and cared about belief. (Without which, human life is simply the raw material of technological transformation, of fashion, salesmanship, industry, politics, finance, experiment, automatism, et cetera, et cetera. The whole inventory of disgraces which one is glad to terminate in death.) - from Herzog by Bellow

Notes from Bizarro World

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez apologizes profusely for accidentally stating that ordination of woman to be priests might become a possibility:

MEA CULPA [K. J. Lopez]
An e-mail:

I was distressed to hear you say on the Hugh Hewitt show that the priestly ordination of women was "theoretically possible." Although I was relieved to hear you are not a proponent of this, I must disagree with you that it is even a possibility. Like the abortion issue, the ordination of women is a closed issue. It has been dealt with twice, and most recently by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Prior to this, Paul VI made the same statement in Inter Insigniores. Please don't give those wishy-washy parish priests any more ammunition with which they might deceive their well-intentioned parishioners.

The reader's right. The example I meant to use was married priests, not women priests. There is a whole theology behind the male priesthood (see here). I in no way meant to suggest otherwise. Married priests is what I thought I said--what I meant to say.

I wanted to revise and extend my remarks before Catholic blogger caught wind of my mistake and banned me from speaking at Christendom College or somewhere (or a dissenting Catholic blogger embraced me)!

Er, thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure Christian woman everywhere who favor equality thank you. Not?

(Yes, a literal reading of the Bible probably does bloster her stance. Of course, a literal reading of the Bible could also justify the ownership of humans as property, stoning children for being rebellious, covering your hair if you're a woman, und so weiter.)

Carrot Monster?

OK, sorry, but this is political correctness run amok: Sesame Street's Cookie Monster will defy his own name and begin recommending that "a cookie is a sometime food."

"We're realistic; we're not trying to get kids to stop eating cookies," said Lewis Bernstein, an executive producer of "Sesame Street."

"But (Cookie Monster) is broadening his eating habits, I'm glad to say."

Each season, the producers of "Sesame Street" get together with educators and advisers to discuss the needs of their show's target audience, which is mainly preschoolers. This year, they decided to focus on exercise, nutrition and health in general.

Can't some things be just for fun? Wasn't the point of Cookie Monster the fact that kids would understand that just eating cookies alone was verboten? (OK, well maybe German kids understood it was verboten.)And that's what made him funny? Sheesh. He's the Cookie Monster.

Next, the Count does PSAs to encourage blood donation, but pauses to clarify that drinking blood is not good for you.

(Via NPR's Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me.)