The Apocalypse (minus the metaphysics)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.