Our First Sci-Fi President (sorry Arnold)

One of the seminal themes in the recent sci-fi remake of the classic Battlestar Galactica is the religious incantation, "Everything that has happened before will happen again."   In a twist that was anything but accidental, when the 1978-1980 series was revived in 2004, it chose to be ambiguous about its relation to the original.  Was it a sequel?  A remake?  They chose the term "re-imagining," allowing them the flexibility to suggest that both timelines could co-exist, somehow different cycles of eachother.Another relevant quote to the topic of hand is the fabricated admonition, again of religious origin in the show's canon: "So say we all."

As an avid fan of the new Battlestar Galactica (and let's be honest, a decent fan of the much lamer 1970s version), I could go 

on tirelessly about how brilliantly this is all constructed, abstracted, and generally used to create a wonderfully realistic and emmersive experience for the audience.

But rather, I'll fall back on the true nature of all good sci-fi, pointing a mirror at the events and concepts of our own time through the conceit of supposedly foreign, or in this case, alien, facades.

January 20th marked the 44th time in our nation's history that we have peacefully transferred power to a new president. That's the soundbyte anyway. In actuality, power shifts were not always so deliberate or innocent, as the several assassinations in our county's history illustrate.

Regardless, with the possible exception of the judicial hocus-pocus of 2000, there is no precedent for a change of power by coercion, military force, or outright coup. That's impressive, but when we celerbrate "consistency," all we're really doing is acknowledging that we've resisted the potential of dramatic change, even when necessary, and simultaneously affirming that this static approach to domestic and international policies is a good thing. That whatever we've done before, we will and should do again.

Indeed, with only rare exceptions, so say we all.

To be clear: I'm no fan of George W. Bush. In fact, with possible competition from Taft, Hoover, and Nixon, I believe him to be among the worst presidents in our nation's history. Not only did he lead poorly and make bad choices, his decisions were based upon concepts I fundamentally reject as being not only ill-informed, but unethical, immoral, unjust, and illegal. And these are not my opinions, though I express them as such, they are facts. This president broke not only international law, but those of his own constitution, then used Nixon's infamous, "it's not illegal if the president does it" excuse which smacks of all the totalitarianism 

from which our forefathers theoretically rejected in the Old World, and our government ostensibly combats in the modern 

Third world.
Having said that, and feeling in my heart the undeniable optimism and hope which all Americans place in the person of Barak Obama, I am finding it very, very difficult to let go of my cynicism. I like 

what he has to say, and as I've been commenting to many of my friends as of late, I think it's fair to say that we'd all like to live in the America that he describes; but is that really the America we're going to get? After congressional compromises, pork-barrel spending, and back-room deals?  I mean, he is just the President.  If the office were represented by a shoe, no matter how battered or slick it was, and admitting that some shoes are better for some jobs than others (see Maxwell Smart's shoe phone, for example), we still wouldn't expect a shoe to cure cancer.  right?

I watched the inauguration at a local pub, having decided that Columbia's campus JumboTron wasn't intimate enough for this profound m

oment.  By 10 am on a Tuesday the place was packed. People watched every second of CNN coverage, trying as they might to savor the moment despite the insipid punditry. (later inthe afternoon I caught some of Fox's coverage, and that was an instant begin

ner's lesson in identifying bias).  When the big moment came, I think everyone found meaning and a serious emotional connection. I don't know when that happened last in America, maybe 2001, but to be honest I can't compare moments of retrospect horror with those of anticipatory optimism.

So we're all excited, and I have no reference for it within the scope of my lifetime. But when facts hit paper, it becomes more difficult to sort out what exactly is so different this time around. I 

hope the mistakes of the past 8 years are rectified, that law and ethics can define US actions, not "again," but perhaps for one of the first times. As many savvy historians will point out, while the Bush regime was more blatant about their crimes and the motivations behind them, most if not all previous administrations enacted policies which in retrospect seem equally, if not more, objectionable. Torture, state-sponsored assassinations, funding of terrorists, condoning genocide, and anti-democratic coups are all verifiable legacies of the United States, confirmed in our own government documents, from just the past 50 years.

In this way, a more honest appraisal of the Bush legacy is not that he did terrible things, but that he didn't hide them or why he was doing them. If the only criteria we hold the new administration to is the obligation to help us feel less guilty about the actions of the USA, both domestically and internationally, then I fear we're setting the bar too low.

Then again, is it too much to expect an elected official, who can only come to office through the use of connections, lobbyists, broken promises, etc. to substantially deviate from virtually every precedent? Aren't we asking too much if we want one man to not only fix 8 years of proactive decline, but also resolve 2 major foreign conflicts and a financial meltdown all without violating our supposed values and principles?

When the speeches were finished, there wasn't a dry eye in the pub, and I'll bet it was a similar situation at many other locales across the nation (not sure about Oklahoma - someone want to chime in?). And I get caught up in it, and I do want to hope, but every time I start to get optimistic, I see the curve of history on the horizon, and wonder what new absurdity we're returning to this time around?

I can go on and on and on, but truthfully I have no idea what it means that Barak Hussein Obama is the President.  Our President.  In America.  It sounds like a plot straight out of Sliders, but no Jerry O'Connell in sight (wait, wasn't he at one of the Balls?).  

I'm in total limbo, with nothing to grasp onto intellectually except my exceedingly limited experience, and what little of that I have demands a staunchly pragmatic skepticism.

It's not much fun to want to hope, and yet have your brain constantly telling you what a bad idea it is to expect much.  

If you'll pardon just one more bad sci-fi reference, I think David Duchovny put it best almost a decade ago.  It's not that I feel certain of Barak Obama's intentions or abilities to deliver on his promises, nor do I immediately deny them.  I don't believe in Barak Obama, but I very much Want to Believe.

Do or Do not?

Engage.

Frak.

Weber

::super(lame) Texpatriot

Violent Snowflake Destruction

-more than the best Indie band name ever.

Have you ever watched snow fall?  True, it's about as interesting as watching ice freeze, or the Mets, ever, but with the first serious snowstorm of 2009 driving me into self-imposed apartment sequesterment (?), you've got to pass the time somehow.  What I noticed is this:  The big, fluffy snowflakes drift and dance through the airwaves like crystaline feathers.  They see

m bouyant, soft, delicate, pretty, and a whole host of other (largely feminine and attractive) adjectives.  In my mind and my recollection, they met their inevitable end with dignity, coming to rest gently on the ground where they either joined their brethren in the growing layer of innocent white, or landed like a butterfly and melted into the concrete like chocolate on my tongue.

But No!  Upon closer consideration, and in full expectation of the utopian demise described above, when large slow-falling snowflakes intersect cold wet concrete, the result is a violent, powerful, explosion.  Crystaline shards bolt away from the decapitated core, escaping the ravages of destruction for nanoseconds before succumbing to a same crude end.  I know energy must be conserved, but that means the delicate little snowflake had, hidden within its precise bonds and lattice work, a vulgar wealth of energy.  The only further analogy I can think of 

that's currently attracting widespread  media coverage is that of a cuddly Giant Panda suddenly going berserk and trying to gnaw off a man's legs.

So where's this heading?  Beautiful things can be destructive?  It's only in the eye of the beholder?  Don't get drunk and try to hug a Panda?

Well, sure, but more than that.  Things often aren't in reality as we perceive them to be, or certainly not in their entirity.  We can understand visually the difference between a 2 and a 3 dimensional object, so let's relate that to time (the 4th dimension).  If what we see and experience in our lives were a 2 dimensional object; the thing as it is at that moment, then it's additional dimension - time and the fullness of what it has, could and will become, is not available to us.  If that's too odd, just use an iceberg metaphore, it seems topically appropriate.

The point is, we make assumptions, and sure, they could be wrong.  But more than that, I'm suggesting we make most of the decisions in our lives based on these assumptions and perceptions which not only May be inaccurate, but in point of fact Must be inaccurate because we're dealing with objects, people, and concepts for which we do not have the '3rd / 4th' dimensional vision to comprehend.

A snowflake is not going to kill you, no matter how hard it hits your head.  Unless 2 weeks ago its proto-formation Cumulonimbus cloud drifted over a toxic chemical plant and it picked up a dose of acid with a similar freezing point.

Now who's being ridiculous?

Weber

::(lame) Texpatriot

Merry (secular) Christmas

I think we need to recognize that in America there is a SOCIAL and a RELIGIOUS definition for certain institutions, and that the two have not been historically, nor should they be continuously, directly related.  Christmas is a good example.  Religiously, it's about Mary, the baby J, Magi, stars, salvation, etc.  But in today's America, Christmas is more about personal consumerism, family, economic booms, job vacation, and college football.  I probably missed a few other major definitions, but the point is that the Religious Christmas has nothing to do with any of this, but we cannot discuss Christmas in America today without giving these equal, perhaps even greater consideration than the religious element that "started it all."

I'm not joining in on the Christ- vs X-mas debate.  That's just semantics.  I'm talking about the underlying beef, which is that atheists celebrate Christmas and Christians become hyper-materialistic.  'Tis the season?  

Obviously, the way I'm framing this discussion I want to talk about other issues under the same umbrella, primary among them the question of "gay marriage," or as I like to call it, "marriage."

I could rant for days about the absurdity of even having a debate here, but what's germain to this subject is that, like Christmas, marriage has a Social (and in the US, legal)  definition which is not identical or exclusive to its Religious definition.  Again, atheists get married, often even in churches.  Isn't it a bigger problem for a Pastor to knowingly united 2 people whom he knows don't really believe in God than to unite to other people (who happen to look the same naked) who Do believe in God, Christ, and all that?  I mean, if they believe, and belief in modern America is between a believer and his Lord, then shouldn't the Pastor just do the deed and get out of the way?  If lightning's going to strike (immediately or in the afterlife), it won't hit him unless he's standing between the two, right?

Again, the point is not the argument, but the realization that the existence of an argument is predicated by the incorrect assumption that 'Marriage' can have only one definition, only one use, and only one social-legal-religious construction.  

Just to reiterate using simple iconographies.

Santa = Social Construction

Christ = Religious Construction

Or better, offensive amateur web video.

That's why we don't need to lie to our children about how Santa was one of the original 3 Wise Men.

Weber the Grinch

::(lame) Texpatriot

Family + Traditions = what?

Bizarre family traditions.  We all have them, but how/why do they get propagated?  

For every 'weird uncle Bill' or 'crazy aunt Harriet' in the family, shouldn't the remaining sane majority countermand their irrational suggestions?  Can there even be real meaning in perpetuating traditions which stretch back without explanation beyond the memories of any living relatives?  

I'm sure your family has some odd elements, and I won't claim mine has the oddest, but the Annual Webber Family Musicale has got to be in any Top 100 list on the subject.  It includes a majority of non-family guests, pot-luck dinner with an established annual menu, mandatory amateur musical recitals by all guests, a middle-aged (sorry gals) chorus line (w/ high kicks), and a cultishly-beloved seasonal green punch.  In the 40+ years since its inception, the event has changed considerably as participants grew up, moved away, had kids, and then returned to impose the same embarrassing public performance requirement on the next generation.

Still, while most of us balk at its weighty 1950s aura, it does retain a lasting nostalgia which is as undeniable as it is irrational.  Some years are more eventful than others (the year 2 son-in-laws dressed in drag to fill out the 4-person chorus line is the penultimate example); and these days many of the "young'uns" don't make it back every year from their disparate lives, but it seems to be the creepy, warm, aging centerpiece of our family .

In other words, its peculiarity, both historically and presently a source of some embarrasment and frustration, also serves as a unifying core for our family identity.

And at 40+, it's no spring chicken in the family tradition field, especially compared with more recently (and thankfully aborted) examples:  Christmas Octave campout, anyone?  But it's not timeless either.  It's a result of a particular family and a particular neighborhood circa 1959(ish), and while those people have kept it going ever since, what is to become of it when they are all, eventually, gone?  If the event that is the core of my larger family identity withers, what does that mean for my perception of the family?

Again, I delve into my situation because it's all I know, but surely my experience cannot be that different from others.  Many immediate families have their special celebration methods, especially around the holidays, but these are easy to maintain (barring losses and distance) because they involve so few people.  But larger family traditions, where the tradition is a primary component of uniting the family, seem much more precarious.  I know of other examples from the lives of my closest associates, but as yet have seen no solutions inacted or even much recognition of the fragility of these practices.  It's always, "just something we do," again usually referred to only after pressed and often with embarrasment.  

I've lost the focus here because I don't have an end in sight.  I can see an eventuality when younger generations will take up the mantle on this, as other, family traditions, but as tradition changes, and indeed it eventually must, how does it retain its authority, credibility, and value?  Clearly this question pushes beyond the limited scope of familiar relationships; if tradition is based on continuity and authority from the past, how can that be maintained when continuity breaks down, and how can new traditions attain that same austere reverence?

While you're thinking about it, make sure to practice whatever musical instrument you own.  Doesn't matter if you actually play it or not, if an invite to the Annual Webber Family Musicale lands in your mailbox next December, you'll need to have your A-game ready.

Weber

::(lame) Texpatriot

The Unwritten Blogs

Having not posted anything in the past 2 weeks, and truthfully very little over the past month, you the reader might to assume I was running short on things to talk about.

But then, by now you probably know better, right?

Truth be told, it's been an especially productive month for blog-worthy thought processes, events, and reflections.  With school in recess and me only nominally employed, time availability, while not utterly rampant, certainly hasn't been an adequate obstacle to explain my semi-retirement from the blogosphere.

Nope, it's mostly lethargy, apathy, and a dash of who-gives-a-flip.  

My purpose in writing this blog, for what little value it may have, is to provide something which is both for myself and for you, the reader, of more/deeper interest than a personal journal or diary.  What I'm doing and how I feel about it is barely of any concern to me let along the greater public, and I certainly don't intend to impose it upon you.

However, sometimes as I (and all of us) go through these events and feelings, other thoughts emerge.  Thoughts which lead to bigger questions, more interesting debates, and if considered, I believe, a fuller awareness and appreciation for all the dull minutae that fills the countless pages of memoires and facebook pages alike.

In short, I try to take what I do and what I see, look deeper, and share the sub-surface view with you, like peering into the undersides of the icebergs and periscopes we bump into daily.

Hard to do as a semi-coccooned human tree sloth.

So I'm turning the radar back on, snapping out of it, etc.  Since I can't bring myself to play full catch up for the month that has passed, I'll try to post the more interesting ones in full, and display here, for whatever benefit they may provide, some short exerpts from the blogs that never were.  Your comments (and interest) will shape if and where the discussions continue.  

New Year; New York

Where did 2008 go and what does 2009 have in store?  And why can't I just reprint my 2007 recap/predictions column like i have for the past 4 years?

Radio Return, or Why I feel most at home in a place I don't live.

Digital routers, DAT machines, Codecs, 2 Turntables, and Yes, at least one Microphone.  It's a world of double-paned glass, thick furniture and dusty wires that comprises the physical component of the mystical realm of radioland, where despite my efforts to leave and a total lack of professional expectations, I can't keep myself from returning for that feel-good comfort.  What gives?

What Will Obama Do After He Cures Cancer?

And don't say AIDS.  Jerry Falwell won't stand for anyone putting a stop to God's punishment of "the gays."  Seriously, we are in a bad place as a country, a bad place daddy W drove us to, but not with much more than quiet protest from our profitable back seat.  We need a major cultural and political solution, and while I want to hope that Mr. Barak Obama can be all that (and a bag of tax chips), I think we've all become frighteningly optimistic on this issue.  He's just a politician, and even the most impressive within that field have rarely achieved the type of solutions we're counting on.  Isn't he just our escape?  An excuse for us not to take personal responsibility for fixing the country ourselves?  "Sure honey, I was going to rebuild our infrastructure after I finished mowing the lawn, but it looks like Barak's got that taken care of, so I'm gonna watch the Packers."

80s Goggles - Mullets, Leg warmers, and all the newly re-Cool.

It's cliche to say how much cooler, smarter, better some things are now that we have more time to influence our perspective.  Devo was brilliant and Fraggle Rock was pretty messed up.  So two questions - 1) why is that?  Why can't we recognize the value of something immediately?  Is durability an important component in most valuations?  What about age of audience?  Is it that kids/younger people don't/can't properly "get it" ?   2) Don't some things go the other way?  I was recently re-watching Short Circuit, and while the soundtrack, message and jokes were tremendously funnier than I recalled, the writing and general plot were rather disappointing.  Watching as a kid (over and over and over) did I miss the bad parts, or was I more capable of appreciating parts of it than I can as an adult?

Weber

::(lame) Texpatriot