Thursday, February 26, 2009

ho-hum

We may have five different ways to respond to a North Korean missile launch, but I'm betting we won't respond at all, except with the usual hot air. Neither the GOP nor the Dems have taken any real initiative regarding the Korean situation. Many of us have been ranting for years about the need to do so.

If Obama does order our military to shoot the NK missile down, I'll call up some friends, get drunk, and allow my friends to film me while I'm plastered.* I'm that confident that Obama won't pull the trigger. Instead, we'll see a lot of post-launch finger-wagging and hear that the US administration is "very disappointed" at the turn US-NK relations have taken.





*For those who don't know: I don't drink, though I have been known to add wine to certain sauces, and don't mind eating several slices of rum cake. I've never been drunk in my life.


_

measuring up

For no particular reason, I just revisited a site called RateMyProfessors.com and looked at reviews for a couple of my college prof friends. It was uplifting to see that the student comments were mostly positive, and quite positive, at that; only a small fraction of students used the format to make stupid comments, and those students' poor grasp of grammar and punctuation made it evident that their comments weren't worth much. The nightmare for us teachers is receiving a negative review from students whose opinions we respect.

Student flak is just part of the job. I imagine this is what celebrities endure, though on a far greater scale as every aspect of their lives is picked apart by the paparazzi and the tabloids. Teachers might not be stars, but they're only human, and they can be stressed by student evals. One colleague of mine at Sookmyung Women's University referred to the Rate My Professors site, years ago, as the Teacher Suicide Generator. She must have seen a lot of vicious reviews. I've seen a few nasty comments on the site, too, but the students who wrote such comments displayed their own worth in doing so.

My own experience with student ratings at Sookmyung was quite positive, but I also felt the ratings sheets were poorly designed, often conflating the teacher with the course (sometimes, course structure is partially or completely mandated by the department, not the prof; one infamous semester involving a twisted form of Content-based Instruction comes to mind). In some cases, the student comments for other teachers (some of us were open about sharing student reviews with each other; others of us were too nervous and insecure to reveal our ratings) were so far off the mark-- one very nice, very competent teacher was referred to as "scary" by some students-- that I wondered whether those students had been huffing glue in class.

I get the same impression while reading the Rate My Professors site. The ratings are divided into four categories: easiness, helpfulness, clarity, and rater interest. I have problems with the first and fourth criteria. What does a low "rater interest" score mean? If I give a low rating, does this imply that I don't have a dog in this fight? If so, then why bother rating the prof if he's not worth the bother to rate? The problem with "easiness" is that the rating can be interpreted in completely opposite ways. If a prof is "easy," is this a good thing or a bad thing? If I get an "A" in an easy prof's class, did I earn the "A"? It's not obvious what "easy" means or implies.

Helpfulness and clarity are good criteria, but here, too, there is room for ambiguity: a student might rate a teacher as "not very helpful," but for this rating to mean anything, it's important to know whether a student actually attended class consistently and bothered to take advantage of the prof's offers of help by visiting during office hours, writing emails, etc. At Sookmyung, one of the rating criteria was "teacher acts for the benefit of student understanding," a criterion that might be similar to-- and just as vague as-- "helpfulness." My rating in this area was always in the high 90s (written comments every semester almost always included notes about my detailed explanations), but the students who gave me lower ratings made me wonder whether they had (1) actually listened in class, or (2) sought help from me while I was at the office (which was all the time; I practically lived there).

As I told one person, I'm planning to write a book for Korean students of English that discusses how students should evaluate their teachers. For cultural and personal reasons, many Korean students fail to look for the essential qualities of a good teacher, rating them primarily on whether class was fun-- not on whether they felt challenged or had learned much during the semester. College students in particular need to shed their childish mental criteria and view teachers through the lens of mental and emotional maturity. Based on what I've seen at Rate My Professors, the same may be true for a small slice of American undergrads as well.


_

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

be careful out there

Eminent Sinologist Victor Mair, whom I know mainly through his excellent rendition of the Tao Te Ching (for him, it's the Te Tao Ching), wrote an essay long ago that debunks the supposedly Chinese notion that "crisis = danger + opportunity."

In a time of economic crisis, when people will be tempted to rely on this maxim, it might be a good idea to go back to Mair's essay and reread it thoroughly. As Mair notes:

Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his/her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.

Maybe the Koreans took the original Chinese and ran with it, but based on a hanja search of the Yahoo! Korean dictionary, the two Chinese characters that form the Sino-Korean word for "crisis" (wi-gi) are indeed the characters found in the expressions for danger (wi-heom) and opportunity (gi-hwae).

Is Mair's school of thought fairly prominent? I don't know, but his argument hinges on this:

It is absolutely crucial to observe that jī possesses these secondary meanings only in the multisyllabic terms into which it enters. To be specific in the matter under investigation, jī added to huì ("occasion") creates the Mandarin word for "opportunity" (jīhuì), but by itself jī does not mean "opportunity."

If I understand Mair correctly, he's saying that, just because a Chinese character has a given semantic field, this doesn't mean that that character can mean a specific thing outside a specific context. In other words, Mair might respond to me by noting that the gi in gi-hwae might indeed mean "opportunity," but the character has that valence only in that disyllabic context. In wi-gi, the character gi no longer refers to "opportunity."

So if you're in a crisis, don't get too optimistic. Treat the crisis with respect.


_

paradigm shifts

The walk, when it starts again in a few weeks, will be undergoing some changes. Some of these will seem obvious to sideline commentators; some might be unexpected.

1. The primary goal is now to get the walk done, preferably on or before my 40th birthday (August 31 this year). This will mean moving rapidly, lingering only a minimal amount of time in each place I visit, and sacrificing the chance to sweep through large population centers, which had never been a primary goal, anyway. Had I wanted to sweep through the largest possible range of religions, I would have continued down the west coast, ending my journey somewhere in the cauldron of southern California. That would have been a worthwhile trip, but it would have netted me insights exclusively from the west coast, and wouldn't have felt like much of a cross-section of the country (sorry: that's my east coast prejudice talking).

2. Inspired by BJ Hill's example, I'm going to invite people to come to me, to meet me as I'm walking. Hill did this to excellent effect; it allowed him to maintain a steady pace. The immediate corollary is that, in order to attract people to me wherever I am, I'll be needing signage (something that many commenters had recommended before, during the walk's prep stages). I'm working on that.

3. I'm opening myself to the prospect of speaking for pay. This feels dirty, but if I take the hated Facebook and make it work for me by using its event-organizing features, I can create events at which I request donations. If someone on site is willing to aid me as a volunteer event organizer-- locking down the event's location and gathering people for the event-- I'll happily give 50% of the donations to that person. Such events might also be an opportunity to hawk my book on the road-- something I haven't done up to now, mainly because I have no head for business and suck at marketing. (I'm one of those people who felt filthy while writing college admission essays about myself. I've always hated the notion of selling myself, which seems as nasty as it sounds.)

Speaking for pay may, on occasion, include open-mike nights at local bars, if people can stand a combination of raunchiness and irreverent religious humor.

4. I'm also planning to follow readers' advice to slap audio up on the blog. With a laptop at my side, this ought to be much easier to do. Be aware, though, that some people might balk at being heard. If I interview such people, I'll have little choice but to transcribe the conversation instead of offering you the audio.

5. During the first three months of my walk, I was at great pains to avoid trouble with the law. This often meant that I avoided actions performed by other trans-America walkers, such as sleeping illegally in parks, camping on someone's private property without their knowledge, camping beside the freeway (OK, I did do this once, but it was more like a 90-minute nap than an attempt at camping), and so on. The result was predictable: my walk became very expensive. When I did camp, it was almost always at a paying campground-- a state or national park. That ran me anywhere from $8 to $16 per night. If I didn't have any CouchSurfing dates, I dropped into a motel, and occasionally into a bona fide hotel. These are major cash drains, even when the stay is a comparatively cheap $45 per night.

I'm going to spend the next (and, we hope, final) part of the walk avoiding hotels and motels as assiduously as possible. This may mean doing something illegal, like sleeping by the roadside or in woods that belong to somebody. I don't really want to do this, but don't seem to have much choice.

Digression: thinking about my own walk prompts me to think about long-distance walking in general. It seems to be something of a fad at the moment, or it might be an incipient trend. Whether it's a fad or a trend, long-distance walking isn't particularly safe. I've walked along roads with almost no shoulder, forcing me to do a deadly dance with traffic while (1) being fat, and (2) carrying a heavy backpack-- two factors not conducive to nimbleness. Ironically, traffic-heavy I-84, on the south side of the Columbia River, has been safer than many smaller roads because of its wide shoulders. Then again, I-84's shoulders have shrunk to nearly nothing when crossing bridges or rounding cliffs, sometimes forcing me to chug along at a slow jog to minimize my time on the dangerous patches. Even the freeways have their problems.

One conviction that has grown in me since my walk began is that America needs to become a far more walker-friendly country than it is. Establishing safe walking routes that lead across the country should become a priority. I'm not saying such routes should be nationally funded, but this might be something for state governments and private concerns to think about. The conviction has reached almost write-your-congressman levels in me, and it's a cause I might pursue once the walk is done. The need for walking routes along the lines of Swiss Wanderwege is paramount... though I suppose we won't see any action on this if there's no general interest.

Anyway, the above are a few paradigm shifts. I had thought about turning this walk toward more of a "religion and humor" vein, but have decided that that might be a subject for a different walk... if I survive this experience with both knees still functional.


_

me, too

I have trouble with the easily offended.


_

the shortest walk

The shortest walk from Whitman College in Walla Walla to my parents' house in northern Virginia is, according to Google Maps, 2524 miles, which Google laughably renders as 33 days, 17 hours-- a pace I can maintain as long as I don't eat, sleep, or otherwise stop for any reason (it's about 75 miles per day).

The route passes through Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. It crosses-- impossibly-- Lake Michigan, leads through Michigan to Ohio, and continues through Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and then Virginia.

I'm not planning on ending the walk at my parents' home, mainly for privacy's sake. I'm planning to end it by the water in New York City (with thanks to Malcolm for his kind invitation), which effectively puts me on the coast, and therefore at the Atlantic. It's going to take me considerably longer than 33 days to do this, and my actual route probably won't hang too far north, as I'm hoping to encounter more people (then again, who knew that I'd find such worthwhile folks while walking the high desert?).

I'll be talking later about some of the paradigm shifts that will be affecting the second-- and much longer-- phase of the walk. Much cogitating done, and yet to be done. As so many gyopos like to say: Laters.


_

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

lift up your shirts!

In the spirit of Mardi Gras, which is today, I tried without success to find a Latin version of "Lift up your shirts!", my twisting of the Latin sursum corda ("Lift up your hearts!"), a liturgical exhortation familiar to Catholics and to a wide swath of Protestants (it's sometimes part of the Presbyterian liturgy). I have my buddy Mike to thank for reminding me that the Lenten period begins this Wednesday, Ash Wednesday. For those of you planning to celebrate Mardi Gras, the final bacchanal before the discipline of Lent, Happy Mardi Gras!

And if you're a lady, I've got beads to throw you.


_

yet another reason to hate Facebook

Are social networking sites literally warping the minds of the young?

...while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good.

Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain.

Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said.

'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday.

'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.'

Her comments echoed those she made during a House of Lords debate earlier this month. Then she argued that exposure to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites could leave a generation with poor attention spans.

I don't think children are the only ones in danger. I feel it in myself: prolonged mental focus has become a lot more difficult, and it's largely because, in recent years, I've logged more man-hours on the computer than with my nose in a book. Grad school might have been its own form of brainwashing in some ways, but it did have the virtue of disciplining my mind, forcing me to absorb large volumes of information in slow, deliberate, protracted doses: to grasp the subject matter, there was simply no substitute for reading.

This has always been the danger posed by cyberspace: it's a universe governed by few rules and open to the whims of all who visit it. If cyberspace has one advantage over TV, it's that TV demands almost total passivity (a fact cleverly satirized in the recent spate of Hulu.com commercials starring Alec Baldwin and Elisha Dushku), whereas cyberspace requires some proactivity on the user's part. But this doesn't absolve cyberspace: the user navigates it from roughly the same "market" perspective as the channel surfer: if you don't like where you are, navigate away and find something more entertaining.

Reading a novel requires more than passivity; it requires the reader's imagination to fill in the visual details, to generate empathy for the characters (a book has no musical score to manipulate your emotions), and even to speculate on how the plot will unfold based on what one already knows. It also requires patience and focus, virtues that have little bearing in cyberspace, which is increasingly becoming a visual medium, like TV.

At the same time, inculcation in the cyberspatial way of thinking does grant a user certain advantages, including the ability to think on one's feet, to adapt to new situations and resolve problems with puzzle-solving swiftness, and to search quickly for data at need. But this comes at a cost. As the above-linked article notes:

Psychologists have also argued that digital technology is changing the way we think. They point out that students no longer need to plan essays before starting to write - thanks to word processors they can edit as they go along. Satellite navigation systems have negated the need to decipher maps.

I fully sympathize with this sentiment, even as I participate in the downward spiral. My own map-reading skills could use a kickstart, and because I've spent a large chunk of my life interacting with some sort of word processor, I'm guilty of editing on the fly instead of planning as deliberately as I should. But according to the article, it's worse for kids:

A study by the Broadcaster Audience Research Board found teenagers now spend seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of a screen.

Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning.

Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia.

'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'

I agree: computers and cyberspace pose dangers on several fronts, including the areas of social skills and intellectual development. Parents will have to be watchful of their children (and adults will have to become more self-aware as well). But despite a need for circumspection, we also need to face the fact that cyberspace is here to stay, and is not merely the sum of its disadvantages.


_

alarming the neighborhood

I had the brilliant idea of cooking sam-gyeop-sal downstairs this evening; Mom had bought some high-grade pork for the occasion, so we prepped a Korean-style meal with pan-chan and ssam ingredients, and took the whole mess downstairs so we could eat and watch the news, as has become our ritual since the renovation began to wind down (we have no dining room furniture; all the old stuff is gone).

I fired up the gas stove and we got to cooking... but barely a few minutes into our repast the new fire alarm went off. All I can say this thank God it's not wired to dial 911 automatically; that would have been embarrassing. I should have realized that grilling pork would produce a lot of smoke, and sure enough, it tripped the alarm. The problem is that the downstairs alarm is connected to all the other alarms in the house (we now have one in every major room, bringing our house up to county code), so they all went off, too. What started out as a very tasty dinner quickly degenerated into piercing madness. My brother's dog Maqz is still in residence; I can only imagine how horrible this experience was to his enormous, sensitive ears.

Eventually, Dad and I ventilated the downstairs, clicked off the circuit breaker that feeds the alarms (they also have their own batteries, so we're not completely sure that this move actually worked), and pressed the "hush mode" button on the alarm to quiet things down. But for about 20 minutes or so, we must have been quite entertaining to the neighbors.

Nerves settling back down, we continued our meal in a more low-key manner, with Mom frying up the pork, mushrooms, and onions in the kitchen, where we have access to an over-the-range fan, then bringing the whole thing downstairs. I apologized to the parents for having suggested such a dinner; they promised not to behead me.

Whew.


_

Monday, February 23, 2009

moles!

Tonight's "24" revealed that there were two moles in that FBI office: squirrelly agent Sean Hillinger (we learned he was a mole last week) and his office squeeze Erika, the blonde with whom he's been cheating on his wife. Well, Sean killed Erika and then got caught, which goes to show that crime doesn't pay! I anticipate a scene in which Jack gets to work Sean over, but it might be more satisfying to watch Sean's wife work him over, once she finds out he's been cheating on her.

"24" is often simplistic in its morality, but it also shows good people doing bad things because of the enemy they're fighting. This takes an emotional toll on some characters, and in tonight's episode, Agent Walker has the breakdown that we know has been coming. It occurs not long after the death of Marika, an innocent who had been dating the bad guy, Iké Dubaku, without knowing who he was. Marika is, sadly, another in a long line of sacrificial lambs on "24," and Agent Walker has had her fill of killing and ruthlessness. When she confronts Jack with this, demanding to know whether Jack feels the same pain she does, Jack coldly tells her, "Then quit." He then warns her that, if she ever draws her gun on him again (she did so earlier, when Jack tried to stop Walker from rescuing Marika from the burning SUV), she had better be prepared to use it. Agent Walker responds that she was prepared to shoot Jack, but the tear rolling down her face after Jack leaves belies her expressed conviction.

It's enough to make one wonder whether Jack is eventually going to kill Agent Walker, depriving beleaguered Larry Moss of his lady love. I somehow doubt this will occur, but it's at least possible at this point. Were I a betting man, I'd say that Agent Moss's name is on the dead pool.

Next week's "24" features a storming of the White House by African commandos. It's enough to make me think that the White House is now the surrogate CTU-- just as mole-ridden and just as accessible to all the baddies. It's a vision of our nation's capital that's a far cry from that of "The West Wing."


_

who can tell the dancer from the dance?

I note with amusement that the number of "Followers" for this blog goes up and down like a tide, varying somewhere in the 12-18 range. How fickle some Followers can be.*

It does make me wonder what prompts a person to Follow this blog, and what prompts some to un-Follow it after a time. If I were to ask someone who had recently un-Followed this blog their reasons for doing so, I can immediately imagine two responses: (1) they had begun following the blog because they were intrigued by its content, and have become disappointed because the content no longer seems to be there; and (2) they began following this blog because of a kindred interest in religion and/or travel (etc.), but have soured on me personally, given my love of off-color humor (or whatever unsavory personal traits they think they see).

The above division separates people into two camps: those who follow the blog for its content, and those who feel/felt some connection with me personally. The people who latch on to the content will inevitably be less loyal that those who take more of an interest in me personally. Imagine that you're a fan of a particular sports commentator, and one day that person suddenly refuses to talk sports and instead talks about movies or the weather. You'd probably drop that person quickly, because you were never there to hear about movies or the weather; you were there to hear about sports. Now imagine the same situation, but change it so that you're a fan of the commentator, whose engaging, affable manner is what keeps you coming back. If this commentator suddenly jumps the track, you won't mind so much because you're already hooked: you'll be interested in this person's career trajectory, wherever it might lead.

With a blog like mine, the reader's perception and worldview count. This blog is primarily about me and my personal project-- a walk across America to learn something about American religious diversity. But what does that entail in terms of content?

Because I've taken a break since last September, I obviously haven't been blogging anything about walking, though I have written quite a few posts related to religion, philosophy, etc. during my down time. Because I've spent many months busy either with my family renovation project or my two current jobs as proofreader for two Korean establishments, I haven't slapped up as much overtly religion-related content as some might expect, especially if they were expecting daily doses of it.

But as one of the members of the Red Cedar Zen Center pointed out while he and I were talking about mundane matters, how is it not religious to speak of mundane things? That's why I say the reader's worldview matters: if, in your mind, you've created an unscalable wall that separates "religion" from everything else, then of course you'll think this blog has wandered from its primary purpose. What this blog is depends on how you view it, especially if your focus is on a narrow notion of what sort of content should appear here.

The other school, the folks who hang here less for content-related reasons than for personal reasons, won't have this sort of trouble, which is why they stick around. Their loyalty is assured, and they won't drop away unless I start doing something truly ugly online (I'll leave the meaning of "ugly" to your imagination).

None of which is to say that I resent the stupid bastards who un-Follow this blog. Verily I say: they have their reward.





*The "Follow this blog" function is a Blogger gadget, which is why I've capitalized "Follower" in this context, to distinguish such people from regular readers who follow the blog simply by reading it more or less routinely, without e-subscribing to it.


_

"la vedette du petit écran"

Over at the Marmot's Hole, Koreablogging deity Robert Koehler notes that Korean TV star Ida Daussy-- a Frenchwoman who became a naturalized Korean-- is getting divorced. Knowing nothing about Mme. Daussy apart from her divorce, I looked her up on YouTube and found this very interesting French-language interview between her and two very metro French dudes. If you speak French, you might enjoy it. If you want a summary (or even a translation), please tell me in the comments. If you'd like to be the one to do the summary or translation, feel free to go ahead and do so in the comments.

(Pronounce her name "Ee-dah Doh-see.")


_

Sunday, February 22, 2009

with thanks

I'm back from a fun weekend with my buddy Mike and his son, whom Mike calls "the Wee Villain" over his fine blog. I had a brief chance to see the ladies (Mike's wife and two daughters, one of whom is my goddaughter) when they returned from their weekend outing earlier today.

As Mike noted, the weekend could have been spent chopping wood, but we opted to just hang, which turned out to be the perfect thing to do. Mike's family has a Wii, which I was able to try for the first time ever: I've been a Wii virgin* since the console came out. The Wee Villain, all of four years old, beat my ass at several games... but I knocked him out at boxing in the very first round, which made me feel like a child batterer when the fight was over. Luckily, the Wee Villain was having a blast the entire time, so he was a good sport about his loss. Along with the Wii, we played a few video games on the family's Xbox 360; here, too, the Wee Villain beat me at a few different games, though I did manage to win one racing game against him, mainly because he was more interested in driving his car in drunken arcs than in actually following the course.

Much of Saturday was also spent thumb-wrestling and tickle-fighting; the Wee Villain was a bit nauseous this morning, and I guiltily wondered whether the tickling might have had something to do with the boy's matinal distress. One form of tickling, prevalent in my own home when I and my brothers were young, involves having the victim lie on his back while you place your foot on their stomach and vibrate it violently enough to shake any blood clots loose. I passed this tradition on to the Wee Villain yesterday, and am thankful I didn't cause any poop or snot to shoot out (of him, I mean).

Mike and I hung out in the downstairs family room when his son was put to bed. We caught the most recent BSG episode (Mike wondered aloud whether BSG has jumped the shark), watched that dude on "Man Versus Food" eat the hottest curry in America, and cast aspersions on the movie "Forrest Gump" while watching the last half of it on cable.

Mike's family has a beautiful dog named Maia, whom I adore. Maia is half whippet and half black Labrador, which turns out to be a gorgeous combination for a dog. Alas, I'm slightly allergic to pet dander, so I spent some of my time sneezing or blowing my nose or rubbing dried muck out of my eyes. When I got home this evening and helped Mom prepare a chicken-and-couscous dinner, I ended up sneezing yet again because Mom had been transferring ground black pepper from one bottle to another. I'm very sneeze-prone, and I just know that, one day, I'm going to sneeze hard enough to expel one or both brain lobes.

But not yet. I survived my trip-- and tonight's dinner back at home-- with my brain more or less inside my skull. A good time was had by all. Thanks, Mike and Family, for the books, the Kierkegaard mug, and the always-appreciated Nutella. I'll be walking over to your place at some point before I head back west.





*Good Lord, that sounds bad when you say it out loud.


_

Saturday, February 21, 2009

thumb-wrestling

I've been enjoying an all-guys Saturday at my buddy Mike's house, a good part of which has been spent tickle-torturing and thumb-wrestling his 4-year-old son. The ladies are out this weekend, you see, so Mike invited me down south for two nights (I arrived here Friday night) for some estrogen-free madness.

More later, folks.


_

Friday, February 20, 2009

the mystery of freedom

WARNING: Major spoilers appear in this post.

My buddy Charles wrote an excellent post titled "On Limitations" that deals at least in part with a theme I've encountered through my many re-readings of Stephen R. Donaldson's fantasy novels-- especially his First, Second, and Final Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. The theme is the mystery of freedom, and in order to understand where Donaldson is coming from and how he meditates on this issue, I need to provide you an overview of Donaldson's narrative world.

The protagonist of the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever is the eponymous Thomas Covenant, a man from "our" world who, around the age of 30, had a successful career as a writer before he contracted leprosy through unknown means. Covenant's wife Joan left him, along with their infant son Roger, and Covenant himself became a pariah in the small American town in which he lived.

In the First Chronicles, Covenant journeys to an alternate Earth-- specifically, to a realm known simply as the Land-- four separate times, in each case by being rendered unconscious through some means or other. In the first book, Covenant apparently faints in front of a car. In the second book, Covenant's journey occurs when he trips inside his house and hits his head. In the third book of the trilogy, Covenant is summoned to the Land twice-- first after hitting his head on a rock, then a second time after succumbing to rattlesnake venom. In the Second Chronicles, Covenant is stabbed in the chest in "our" world; his impending death facilitates his passage to the alternate Earth. A companion from our world joins him: Linden Avery, a doctor who has only recently moved into Covenant's small town, and who is not afraid of Covenant's leprosy. Linden is the primary protagonist in the Second Chronicles; most of the narrative occurs from her point of view. Her translation into the Land occurs during the same incident in which Covenant is stabbed: Linden is struck with a rock by the same group assaulting Covenant. In the Final Chronicles, only Linden journeys to the Land-- in this case, by being shot in the chest while trying to rescue her adopted son.

The passage between worlds evokes CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. As happens in Narnia, time in Donaldson's Land moves faster than it does in our world: a single day in our world equals a year in the Land. Some sort of metaphysical boundary-- the "wind between the worlds," as it's known in the Second Chronicles-- separates our world from the universe in which the Land resides. The alternate world is also nestled within a different metaphysical structure: something we never see, but which is known as the Arch of Time. How this works or what such a situation looks like is never clearly explained. Perhaps it can't be.

The beings of the alternate Earth vary in their beliefs as to whether there exists a Creator. Many of them do know of a being called the Despiser, who is something like a satanic presence. The Despiser, true to his title, hates the cosmos in which he is trapped, and speaks of his "Enemy," who we can assume is the Creator. The relationship between the Despiser and the Creator is never entirely clarified; the Despiser is sometimes referred to as the son or brother of the Creator, who was cast into the alternate universe by the Creator when the latter discovered that the Despiser, perhaps working alongside the Creator, had been sowing banes into the Earth-- concentrated malice in the form of stones or other objects. The alternate Earth also contains lesser evil beings that are independent of the Despiser, whose motives are often twisted in the service of Despite; they willfully or inadvertently aid the Despiser in achieving the ruin of the Land, and perhaps eventually the entire Earth.

The Despiser's ultimate goal is to escape from this time-bound prison, perhaps simply to regain his primordial freedom, but just as likely to wreak vengeance against his father or brother: the Creator, his Enemy. Every action this malefic figure takes is designed to weaken the fabric of the Law of Time, which is the law of sequence, cause, and effect-- the very substance of the Arch of Time in which the Earth resides. The First and Second Chronicles are the story of the Despiser's failed attempts to shatter the Arch; in both cases he is thwarted by the Land's at-first-unwilling champion, Thomas Covenant, who loses his life in the Second Chronicles, but manages a post-mortem defeat of Lord Foul.

Despite his status as a cosmic being that doesn't belong to the universe in which he has been trapped, Lord Foul the Despiser is constrained by the Law of Time, a fact that frustrates him, driving him to the limits of sanity. This constraint means the Despiser is unable to transcend Time in order to know the future exactly, which is why Covenant (and, later, Linden Avery) is able to foil his plots twice. Foul is able to predict certain outcomes through a type of middle knowledge (knowledge of consequent counterfactuals based on actual initial conditions), but Time itself prevents Foul from absolute knowledge of whether his plans will unfold exactly as he wishes.

Foul is also, strangely, preserved from destruction by the very same Law of Time that constrains his actions. Covenant's first battle with the Despiser ends with Covenant withholding the final blow. "You can't kill Despite," Covenant says. Because the capacity for Despite is inscribed in all the beings of the Earth, and because Foul is trapped on this Earth along with all these beings, Foul's essence will be forever nourished by them. Also, if Foul is as eternal as the Creator, then his eternality in a time-bound universe can only be expressed by his endless persistence in time. This is different from the "eternity" espoused by CS Lewis, who sees true eternity as transtemporal, something free of the shackles of sequence and causation (something like this idea motivates Hindus and Buddhists to free themselves from karma and samsara, the painful churning of existence and causation). Foul's struggles might, however, be interpreted as a striving toward this Lewisian eternity.

The Creator, whom we meet three times in the first two trilogies, is powerful enough to create this alternate Earth and the Arch of Time in which it resides, but after casting the Despiser into that world (note the parallel, here, with the traditional Christian notion that Satan has been given dominion over our world) and then sealing the Earth within the Arch of Time, the Creator can no longer combat the Despiser without putting his hand through the Arch, thereby unmaking his creation.

This is the bind in which the Creator finds himself. He wants to help all the innocent beings in his creation, but cannot do so directly. He selects Thomas Covenant to be the champion from our world who must enter the Land and eventually battle the Despiser. But because of a doctrine called the necessity of freedom, the Creator is unable to persuade Covenant to do the Creator's bidding, lest Covenant become a mere tool of the Creator, thereby also unmaking the Arch of Time and destroying all of creation. Covenant, plunged into this alternate Earth in an extreme example of Heideggerian Geworfenheit, must figure everything out on his own, and make his own choices.

The First Chronicles relate Covenant's internal struggle with the reality of the Land. For him to accept the Land's reality is to risk insanity; in our own world, Covenant has had to learn the strict disciplines necessary for a leper's survival. A leper cannot risk even minor bumps and bruises: unable to feel them, and with a compromised immune system, a leper would quickly succumb to infection and, in Covenant's case, the renewed virulence of his leprosy. In the Land, however, Covenant is quickly healed of his leprosy, and he also discovers that his white gold wedding ring-- which he has insisted on wearing even after his wife has divorced him-- is regarded as a periapt of cosmic might: the wild magic that paradoxically defies Law and supports the Arch of Time.

The Earth's very existence is a combination of Law and Earthpower, concepts analogous to dharma/Tao and ki, respectively. Donaldson isn't clear on whether all beings have Earthpower or are Earthpower, though a certain set of beings, the Elohim, are clearly described as Earthpower incarnate.

Much as the Matrix trilogy did later on, Donaldson sets up the chessboard by associating goodness with freedom, and evil with inevitability. Power, in Donaldson's universe, symbolizes the exercise of freedom. Lord Foul rarely exercises power, preferring instead to formulate plans that require the direct or indirect service of his minions, plans meant to lead his victims along the strait path to destruction. Despite his lack of omniscience, the Despiser displays a supreme confidence in his vision of the future.

A prominent theme in Donaldson's narrative is that great power often entails a reduction of freedom. The Creator himself* is constrained by the rules of the universe he has created, which is why he is forced to send a champion in his stead. Thomas Covenant initially refuses the responsibility that comes with the power of his white gold ring, and eventually realizes (as does Linden Avery after him) that the power he wields has limitations-- limitations inherent in the nature of white gold, but also inherent in Covenant's own nature. All power-- and therefore all freedom-- requires a form through which it can be articulated. Power is never simply power; by analogy, freedom is never simply freedom. All freedom therefore must be expressed within parameters and constraints; all power must have limits even to qualify as power.

In the Second Chronicles, the Despiser seems to have grasped this point. He attempts to stymie Covenant by poisoning him with a venom that increases Covenant's might. Knowing how powerful he is becoming, and knowing that the increase in his potency is not accompanied by the facility to wield it precisely, Covenant is forced to withhold his power in almost every instance where it is needed: only wild magic, which is unconstrained by Law, can shatter the Arch of Time from within the Creator's creation.

The Despiser is hoping for one of three possible outcomes: (1) that Covenant will shatter the Arch of Time through the exercise of his venom-tainted white ring, (2) that Covenant will be rendered absolutely powerless by his absolute power, or (3) that Covenant, having realized the futility of his situation, will willingly hand his ring over to the Despiser. Covenant's solution to this problem is ingenious: he freely gives the Despiser his ring and allows that demonic entity to kill him with wild magic, but when the Despiser aims that same magic at the Arch of Time, Covenant's spirit is there, protecting the Arch and absorbing the blow. Because Covenant's own nature is wild magic-- heralded as the keystone of the Arch of Time-- his spirit cannot be undone by Lord Foul's attack. Quite the contrary, his revenant is strengthened by each attack. The Despiser, maddened by the failure of his plan to shatter the Arch, and being a cosmic entity incapable of surrender, flings wild magic against Covenant again and again, expending his own energy until he flickers and fades out: a second defeat.**

In his Liminality essay, my friend Charles writes the following apropos of the coexistence of freedom and constraints in language:

This will come as no surprise to long-time readers, but I happen to love language. I like working with it, as if it were a malleable metal to be worked into intricate shapes. Sometimes these shapes aren’t always as beautiful as I would like them to be, but I still enjoy working with them. Although I do not write as much poetry as I used to, I particularly enjoy the confined and compressed nature of the art form. I have never been a fan of free verse. I have always preferred poetry with set rhyme and meter. For one, it appeals to the analytical side of my brain (if that makes any sense). More importantly, though, it feels great when I am able to express myself poetically within the confines of a certain meter and rhyme scheme. Poetry that really works within those confines has always seemed to have more power.

And I suppose that’s what it comes down to for me. I find the idea that humanity can overcome its limitations through sheer grit and willpower to be somewhat boring, to be honest—far more fascinating is the idea that humanity’s brilliance lies in those limitations themselves, not in overcoming them. Sure, language may not be perfect, but when a writer crafts a gem of a sentence using that imperfect language, how glorious the result! Think of the music of Mozart or Bach—made by imperfect men using imperfect instruments, and enjoyed by people with imperfect ears.

This is, I think, the mystery and paradox of freedom: freedom entails its own restriction. You cannot have true freedom without also having constraints. You cannot exercise power without channeling that power in a specific way. An artist can do an infinity of things with a mallet, but such a blunt instrument can perform almost none of the things a chisel can do-- or a brush. Each tool contains its own infinity of possibilities, but the nature of each tool limits what can be done with it. Freedom is what happens in and through non-freedom, just as perfection can be found only in the midst of imperfection. These things are not-two.

A long time ago, I described myself as a "closet compatibilist." I think that's still largely true. If we insist on dichotomizing freedom and determinism, then in terms of human ethics, I fall on the side of freedom. But because I also acknowledge the not-two-ness of freedom and its constraints, I admit that freedom must articulate itself in specific ways: the Formless is seen only through forms-- power is articulated as specific powers; language is articulated as specific languages; art is realized as discrete arts; life manifests itself as different living things. As the Heart Sutra says: Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.

Stephen R. Donaldson's meditation on the nature of freedom isn't academic; he does it through the vehicle of narrative, and it's obviously a question he takes very seriously. I do, too, which is why I thought of Donaldson's work while reading Charles's essay.





*In our world, the Creator meets Thomas Covenant in the form of an ancient beggar who appears, from Donaldson's description of him, to be a Hindu monk (the author spent his childhood in India with his father, a medical doctor), though this is never explicitly stated. Donaldson devotes very little narrative time to the Creator; much of what we learn about this being comes through speculations by the people whom Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery meet in the Land and elsewhere, and also through hints given by Lord Foul himself at the very end of the Second Chronicles. At the end of the First Chronicles, Covenant has a conversation with the Creator, which gives us some insight into the deity's character.

**Covenant's defeat of the Despiser in the First Chronicles is more through brute force: his wild magic, once he evokes it, simply overpowers the Despiser's own ancient lore. The battle itself isn't interesting on that score: the First Chronicles is more about Covenant's attempt to reconcile his Unbelief in the Land (because his acceptance of the Land would violate his leper's instinct for survival, leading to insanity and death) and the love he eventually feels for the Land. The final battle is therefore compelling not because of what happens externally, but because of what happens to Covenant internally: he summons the might of his ring because he finally discovers the crux of his personal paradox-- Covenant concludes that his love of the Land is not contingent on its reality. With that resolution in place, Covenant gives himself fully to his passion for the Land, which in turn allows him to summon enough power to defeat the Despiser in magical combat.


_

Thursday, February 19, 2009

ecclesiology in action

My ecclesiology course at Catholic U. was an eye-opener; it was strange to realize, early in the semester, that I had never really asked myself a basic question: "What does 'church' mean?" The course was taught by the always-excellent Father Joseph Komonchak, a man who can crack open a Latin text and sight-read it into full-speed spoken English, translating as he talks (he's also pretty fluent in French, and I'm fairly sure he's got at least some Italian background, given his time at the Gregorianum).

My paper for Fr. Komonchak's class was on Presbyterian polity, which is similar to Catholic polity in some ways, and very different in others. Anglican polity is apparently a complex matter, which brings me to this interesting blog post over at Get Religion. It reads in part:

When discussing the Anglican wars, one of GetReligion’s mantras is that reporters must struggle — even in short stories — to place these events in the context of church structures at the local, regional-diocesan, national and global levels.

That’s the bad news.

The problem for reporters is that things are going to get even more complex in the very near future. The structures are all changing and are, frankly, becoming even more confusing and harder for outsiders to understand (and cover in mainstream media).

Why is that? It helps to note that the U.S. Episcopal hierarchy tends to be very liberal when it comes to traditions about doctrine, but almost fundamentalist when it comes to traditions about power and ecclesiastical structure. Meanwhile, the people running the emerging conservative structures are very strict about ancient doctrines, but many of them lean to more open, congregational, even megachurch approaches to church life.

Give the post a read. And if you feel moved to give your own definition of "church" in the comments here, I look forward to reading your insights. (Personally, I have more trouble defining "church" than I do defining "religion."


_

sleep eludes me

I had only about 4 hours' sleep last night, and woke up this morning with a nasty headache. I took some aspirin, and now I'm probably going to nap for a bit. Sorry about yesterday's post, if it made you go "Huh?", but I truly was swamped with work and thought I'd turn the situation into a fun little story about me getting my head crushed and then finding out that Heaven needs proofreaders. Death isn't the final respite.


_

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

swamped

The last thing I could remember was the accident. There I was, flat on my back, with the asphalt vibrating beneath my skull as the 18-wheeler roared toward me. I remember the monstrous pressure of the truck's tire rolling over my face, followed by the sense that something had both shattered and exploded-- all of it happening too fast for me even to form a proper emotion. I could feel my consciousness spreading, splattering all over the road, chunks and smears of it liberated by the tire. Everything went white... then black.

I woke to find myself in a bright realm with no walls, a gently whirling mixture of azure and alabaster all around me. A breeze, as warm as breath and as sustaining as truth, blew past or through me like an exhalation of sheer purity and uncomplicated care. There were shades, but no shadows. I was floating-- that, or resting on a material so soft and evanescent that it might have been living cotton candy. I twisted my body; the surface, if that's what it was, yielded beneath me, allowing me to orient myself vertically. The light seemed to come from everywhere at once, and despite the strange sensation that I may or may not have been waist-deep in some sort of diaphanous substance, I found that my reorientation provided me no clue as to which way was up. But this did not discomfit me: whatever calm had stolen over me had left me content, not disoriented. I was nestled in the comforting palm of an alien-yet-familiar sky.

The shapes around me might have been clouds. Like clouds, they were open to interpretation: a horse here, an old man's face there, a copse over yonder. I cast about me, descrying shapes, imposing patterns on formlessness. I felt no pressure, no hurry: if time flowed in this realm, it flowed in a manner completely unknown to me. I felt buoyed and comforted, as if this realm where more than a mere place: every part of it felt alive, suffused with meaning, and I too was alive to enjoy it.

But after a second or a century of contemplation, I spied a solid shape winging toward me. It reminded me of a bird, and as the shape neared me, I saw that it was a mighty eagle. Its approach caused me no fear; I stared at it in awe and fascination, and with an upwelling warmth in the breast that might have been love. The eagle was many things-- this I could see at a glance-- but above all it was supremely good.

The bird of prey slowed. A tentacle of whiteness snaked across my line of vision like a branch conjured out of nothing, and the eagle settled onto it as if that wispy tendril were as firm as ironwood. The bird eyed me sternly, then it spoke.

"Your work is not done," the eagle said, as if it were pronouncing a sentence. Its voice was both grave and gentle, but hinted at immense power. With one cry, this creature could shatter a mountain.

I blinked. Thought seemed suddenly difficult: I had settled into this realm so comfortably that my mind had contented itself with passivity. I hadn't bothered to ask myself why I was here, or what was to happen next. The eagle had stirred these questions within me, but my sluggish mind could not give them voice.

The eagle seemed to understand my confusion.

"O Kevin," it said, "You were indeed killed in that horrible accident, but your presence in this realm is not condign. There is work for you to do."

I blinked repeatedly, striving to comprehend the import of the eagle's words.

"Come," the eagle said, and took off. Purely by instinct, with no idea how I was capable of this, I took off and followed the eagle. Our path was a strange one; to my merely human mind, it was both simple and complex. We seemed to follow a series of loops and spirals, rushing this way and that, describing some impossible, writhing shape in the holy sky. At the same time, we seemed to be flying as straight as an arrow toward our goal, whatever that goal was. My mind was unable to make sense of the journey.

When we stopped, I found myself standing in what appeared to be the bottom of a vast, living cylinder. A sound that might have been music, or singing, or something else entirely, filled my ears; its general tone was that of gladness and praise. Far above, if "above" was indeed the word, shone an immense light, but the light did not burn: it illumined the cylinder, whose walls moved and danced in rough bands or rings, clearly alive. It was almost as if each ring were composed of imponderable masses of creatures, perhaps creatures like the eagle, dancing in stately rounds. Some rings rotated slowly; others rotated more quickly, each ring the expression of the natures of the creatures that composed it.

Something like confetti began to fall or drift toward me from one of the rings. Before I had time to ask the eagle what it was, a familiar rectangular shape appeared in my hands: my laptop. Dumbfounded, I said nothing as the confetti fell toward me in happy little fragments. The fragments rearranged themselves, coalescing into twelve sheets of paper that continued to fall or fly toward me and my laptop. Quite without my willing it to be so, my arms stretched forth, holding the laptop before me. All twelve sheets of heavenly paper flew smoothly into the machine without a single impact, like ghosts passing through a wall.

"Open your laptop," the eagle commanded. I did so, and saw that the twelve documents had resolved themselves into MS Word email attachments on my screen. I looked at the eagle uncomprehendingly.

"Open the files," ordered the eagle.

I did so... and was confronted with something I knew well: documents in varying states of English, some good, some mediocre, some terrible, all authored by Korean translators versed in business and legal English.

"Proofread these twelve documents, and your entry into the glorious realm is assured. But, be warned: here in the Great Presence, time does have meaning. You have only six hours to proofread all twelve documents, some of which are unwontedly long. Good luck." The eagle gravely turned its head toward the awesome light, gave a great cry, frayed, and disappeared.

A swirl of cloud approached me, helpfully solidifying into a desk and a chair. I flopped the laptop onto the desk, sat in the chair, looked at the computer's clock, and desperately began proofreading.


_

a possible defense of "Everything is holy"?

Dr. Vallicella's post on contrast arguments may-- or may not-- provide ammunition for a defense of the claim "everything is holy." I need to read his post more carefully before saying more. A quick excerpt:

The idea behind contrast arguments is plausible: if a term applies to everything, or everything in a specified domain, then there is a 'failure of contrast' that drains the term of all meaning. But I will argue that contrast arguments are not probative.

[...]

Everything is self-identical and nothing is self-diverse. And this is necessarily so. Hence necessarily there is nothing to which 'self-identical' does not apply. This fact, however, does not render 'self-identical' meaningless. Since it is true that everything is self-identical, it follow[s] that it is meaningful.



_

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

"passed" is prologue

Our renovated house has passed its final county inspection. We... are... DONE.


_

why I'm for spanking

This lying piece of garbage exemplifies one of the reasons why I stopped teaching high schoolers. While I never had to deal with this specific problem back when I was a French teacher (in 1992, cell phones weren't nearly as small or as ubiquitous as they are today), I was daily confronted with similar problems, all of which involved students who lied with perfectly straight faces.

That's why I often envy PE teachers: it's hard to bullshit your way through a 600-yard run. Whatever story you're concocting usually has to involve a doctor's note, and that's easier for a teacher to verify than some of the intricate fantasies woven by students in non-PE classes.

Teaching your kids discipline early in life keeps them from messing up in major ways later on. I don't think all kids respond the same way to all forms of discipline, so please don't lump me in with the "beat 'em with a stick" crowd. But parents do teachers a favor when they actually take the time to parent. Ideally, school shouldn't be a surrogate day care center, and teachers shouldn't be saddled with the burden of coping with their students' psychological baggage. It's too bad that reality rarely matches the ideal.


_

what day is it?

Starting sometime yesterday, the BK office sent me a blizzard of work to do; I ended up pulling an all-nighter, which left me insensate by morning. While I'm happy to receive so much work (given how little my net pay is, after taxes and bank transfer fees, I need all the work I can get), yesterday's barrage was positively debilitating.

Ah, proofreading. It's worse when you're dealing with a long document written in poor English. Sometimes it's hard to know which cuts of the scalpel will salvage the bloody mess in front of you, which stitches can be tightened without pulling another part of the wound asunder. A correction in one spot of the paragraph might end up changing the intended meaning of the entire paragraph. If that happens, is it possible to preserve the change you've made while also making some new changes elsewhere? Or will you, in so doing, wreck the conceptual structure and be forced to start anew with the original bloody mess?

None of the little linguistic disasters proved impossible to surmount last night and this morning. Two of the seven documents I proofed were, truth be told, excellently written. But the remaining five documents were fairly mangled when they rolled into the ER; even the shorter docs were slow going. I hope the end result is pleasing to the powers that be; it's my understanding that BK does a re-review, after the proofreader has done his work, before finalizing any given article.

Here's hoping they don't dump such a load on me tonight. My contact kept apologizing, in her emails, for the workload, but it was apparently an emergency, hence the inundation.

BK has been mailing me copies of their magazine. I flipped through the January edition and recognized dozens of articles that I'd proofed. February is going to be pretty much an all-Kevin show at this rate. We'll see.

I'm about to eat a late lunch. The Verizon cable/DVR box is on the fritz for some reason; the power won't go on. As a result, I'm yanking out a Korean DVD to watch: "Lady Vengeance," which I've never seen before. I hope your day's going well; mine's been something of a daze, and I'm not sure I like feeling so out-of-rhythm.


_

taxes, taxes, taxes

In Oregon, they're seriously contemplating a 1900% hike on beer tax.

In Australia, which has had enough problems with those massive fires, they're planning on taxing every flush of the toilet.

Break out the Fremen stillsuits.


_

Monday, February 16, 2009

ha ha! wrong again!

So it turns out that Janis Gold is not the mole, which means I'm wrong yet again. Instead, the most obvious candidate for mole turned out actually to be the mole! I had dismissed him early on simply because he looked like a shady, unlikeable character from the very beginning. "Surely the '24' scripters wouldn't go with someone so obvious, would they?" thought I. Ha ha-- a thousand kicks to the groin for my naivete!

Is it my imagination, or is "24" underperforming this season? While it's still gripping TV, it doesn't seem quite as gripping as in times past. On the bright side, if I keep making predictions that turn out wrong, this means two things: (1) the writers are still good enough to keep me guessing, and (2) good ol' Bill Buchanan has a chance to get through the day alive.

I was happy to see that the battle for Agent Walker's soul continues. At this point, her internal struggle is probably the best subplot in the show: she represents the American people at large, and their struggle in dealing with the ethics of counterterrorism.


_

feel them bad boys twitch!

This YouTube vid gives new meaning to the expression "playing with yourself." Be sure to read the interview.

(Don't worry: this is safe for work, but it might still leave you unsettled.)


_

what do you know about Hwaseong City?

I'm proofing an article about Hwaseong City (Hwaseong, literally "firestar," is the Sino-Korean designation for Mars). According to this article, Hwaseong was rated as the city that underwent the most expansion in the space of a decade. I've never heard of it, but if you've been there, feel free to write a comment describing the place, and whether it'd be worth a visit when I'm back in Korea.


_

bring back Neanderthals!

An interesting preemptive argument, contra bioethics ombudsmen, in favor of bringing back Neanderthals, Jurassic Park-style:

If we discovered a small band of Neanderthals hidden somewhere, we’d do everything to keep them alive, just as we try to keep alive so many other endangered populations of humans and animals — including man-biting mosquitoes and man-eating polar bears. We’ve also spent lots of money reintroducing animals into ecosystems from which they had vanished. Shouldn’t [we] be at least as solicitous to our fellow hominids?

I'd be all in favor of bringing back ancient life forms for scientific study, but the above argument isn't the best way to persuade people. By the logic implied in that paragraph, we should feel permitted to bring anything and everything back from the dead. Is that really what's being argued, here? Are we prepared for the consequences?

UPDATE: Follow the link and read some of the interesting comments.


_

le mépris machinal

Agent Smith (enfleshed in Bane), "The Matrix Revolutions":

Still don't recognize me? I admit it is difficult to even think encased in this rotting piece of meat. The stink of it filling every breath, a suffocating cloud you can't escape. Disgusting. How pathetically fragile it is. Nothing this weak is meant to survive.

Yes. That's it, Mr. Anderson. Look past the flesh. Look through the soft gelatin of these dull cow eyes and see your enemy!


John/Cavil on the base ship, "No Exit" episode of BSG:

In all your travels, have you ever seen a star supernova? Well, I have. I saw a star explode and send out the building blocks of the universe: other stars, other planets, and eventually other life. A supernova-- creation itself. I was there; I wanted to see it and be part of the moment.

And do you know how I perceived one of the most glorious events in the universe? With these ridiculous gelatinous orbs in my skull! With eyes designed to perceive only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. With ears designed only to hear vibrations in the air.

I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me.

I'm a machine, and I could know much more. I could experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body. And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way.

Oh, how the machines hate us. Cavil introduces an interesting wrinkle, though: some machines also hate themselves.


_

your sae ong ji ma links

Right here, in case you've never heard this very popular Asian story, which probably originates in China.


_

I guess Sean Penn is happy

Hugo Chavez no longer has to worry about term limits.


_

Sunday, February 15, 2009

tantrum!

People who stereotype Asians as stoic really need to see this hilarious video, which has become an instant YouTube hit. The vid depicts a woman's highly theatrical tantrum after she misses a flight.

How we express anger and frustration is largely culturally determined. Western and Asian notions of "dignity" can be, at times, almost shockingly alien to each other. A Kiwi buddy of mine, while living in Seoul, refused to engage in the Korean practice of running desperately across the street before the crosswalk signal turned red. His reasoning: "I'd rather keep my dignity." This makes perfect sense from a Western standpoint, wherein dignity might be associated with a measured, deliberate pace when walking (truth be told, the upper echelons of Korean Confucian hierarchy would probably agree with this idea; I have a hard time imagining a high-powered Korean CEO sprinting desperately across the street). But most Koreans don't worry about how they look when crossing the street; that behavior is somehow unrelated to whatever concept of dignity is in operation.

The above-linked video shows the woman rolling around on the floor-- behavior that we in the West would immediately associate with children. I think most Koreans would also giggle at this sort of behavior, but in my experience living in Seoul-- a city that attracts all types-- it's conceivable that some Seoulite will be seen doing much the same thing, or something similarly undignified from a Western standpoint.

Koreans have their own varied but largely overlapping standards for dignified behavior; they've also got their own laundry list of Western behaviors they consider undignified. Westerners will, for example, throw tantrums while in line for something at a Korean establishment-- a bank, say, or a subway station, or the Seoul Immigration Office. Koreans often turn away in embarrassment or openly stare at such behavior. The shame is worse, from the Korean perspective, if the Westerner acts this way toward a superior in the company. Misuse of the Korean language-- not knowing which grammatical endings are required in polite company, for example-- can be a source of embarrassment. Little things that Westerners do, such as drinking directly from a bottle or can while in a group, can be viewed as the sign of someone with no sense of sanitation. Kentucky Fried Chicken isn't advertised as "finger-licking good" in Korea because finger-licking isn't supposed to occur at table (or anywhere else, really): that's why God made napkins.

A good book about the ways in which we offend each other is an oldie-but-goodie by hagwon king Min Byeong Cheol (Min Byung Chul) titled Ugly Koreans, Ugly Americans. I don't know whether this tiny book is still in print, but it's a very good, very quick, and often funny look at cultural differences between Koreans and Americans. Much that Koreans find ugly will be found ugly in Japan and China and other Asian countries as well; much that Americans find ugly will be found ugly by other Westerners.

I've seen some truly embarrassing public behavior while living in Seoul, and not all of those people were drunk. I'm tempted to say that such behavior occurs in Korea with greater frequency than it does in the US, but the truth is that I don't know that for sure. As an American suburbanite, I have little basis for comparison: big cities like Seoul (and we shouldn't forget that Seoul, with its 12 million people, is huge) play host to all sorts of people, including a lot of crazies. Here in northern Virginia, we don't see as many crazies thanks to the much lower population density, but a quick trip up the road to the seedier parts of DC (and even some of the more whitewashed parts, too!) will reveal that we have our own home-grown stock of nutjobs and generally undignified folks. I've seen plenty of undignified behavior in Paris and Rome as well-- some of it from rude public servants.

While I'm not a fan of cultural relativism, I do think that complex issues, such as the wide topic of cultural differences, deserve to be approached with a measure of caution and care. The behavior of that woman in the airport might be unseemly, but in America we've got people who sue McDonald's for millions of dollars after they spill hot coffee on themselves. Which tantrum is worse?


_

SR Donaldson's Fatal Revenant

I've been consumed by Stephen R. Donaldson's Fatal Revenant, the second book in a tetralogy called The Final Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I'm a big fan of the First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (mostly the First Chronicles), which subvert the Tolkien template and inject heavy doses of Hinduism and CS Lewis-style cosmology into the mix.

What distinguishes the Final Chronicles from the first two is that this one involves time travel. Donaldson seems to play fast and loose with this; he goes with the idea that history has a certain flow and momentum to it, allowing it to rebound from any damage inadvertently caused by time travelers; this resilience comes courtesy of the Law of Time, the fundamental law of sequence and causality. As long as the Law of Time isn't violated too deeply, history will remain intact. One powerful character in Fatal Revenant devotes his efforts to "cleaning up" history in the wake of activities by the protagonist, Linden Avery, who is transported 10,000 years backward against her will.

The history described in these novels is too complex to get into, so I won't even try that in this post. If you're a fan of the earlier chronicles, you'll probably enjoy the first two books of the Final Chronicles-- the only two out so far. Donaldson's story includes all the familiar Donaldsonian themes and tropes: women under pressure, beings with no eyes (or none that function), cosmic-scale machinations, self-sacrifice, madness (plenty of mad characters in Fatal Revenant), meditations on the nature of freedom and service, love of the land and of the wider Earth in general, and so on. Readers might find Linden Avery's inability to summon the power of the white gold to be a head-scratcher, given her mastery of it in the previous trilogy; Donaldson provides a thorough explanation for Linden's current incapacity, but it never quite rings true.

Give the books a read if you're interested. And even if you're a newbie to Donaldson's world, you can start the Final Chronicles without having read the previous two: Donaldson provides a lengthy "What Has Gone Before" intro in both of the new books, just as he did with all his previous novels-- except, obviously, the very first one.


_

Saturday, February 14, 2009

it does exist

It might have been during a discussion with my buddy Charles-- or maybe it was someone else, like my mom-- that I mentioned the Konglish expression "han beon try haebosaeyo" ("Try it once!"). My interlocutor said he (or she) had never heard that before, which caused me to doubt myself.

Well, the memory of that conversation just burbled up, so I did a Google search on the expression "한번 try 해보세요" and, sure enough...


_

mail bag: BSG insights

Andy writes:

Hi Kevin,

A few thoughts.

#1: Love it or hate it.

I was kinda torn - the TV shows I love all die quickly, and this seems to be a case of it. Now that I'm interested, it's a dead-man walking.

As you said, tonight was a 'bridge' episode. Between Resolution and Important Things happening. And let's be honest, between the suicide and the Adama/Tigh fight.... all the other episodes are going to have a damn hard time garnering impact.


#2: About the Cylons copying Humans down to the molecular level.

I think my 3.89 year hiatus has left me out on something. When everyone was looking at the brainscan with the bullet in the skull... why didn't someone make a quip to the effect of, "And *that's* the part that makes you Cylon"?

As I understand it: physically, the only difference between Humans and Cylons is a silicon widget in the brain [ and yes, the undefined-method to upload to a resurrection ship when you die ]. The folks in the hospital made no note of the silicon widget-bits.... is the widget not visible? Or did I miss something through my extra-lax viewing habits?


#3: Dean Stockwell. During the run of "Quantum Leap", my Mom told me repeatedly that Dean Stockwell was quite the item in his prime. And watching tonight's repeated soliloquies, I'm starting to seeing more of the magic he projected. Not the physical attraction, mind you, but his intensity is engaging. And reminiscent of the 'Perry Mason' era of television. I respect his acting chops even more as time progresses.


#4: Starbuck. While in the hospital she made a comment to the effect, "I thought *I* was one of the 5!" You aren't, babe. But how the heck are things going to be resolved with your carcass being on Dead Earth, and still flying back to the fleet?

I know tonight they touched on the Relativistic Effects of travel... but they still haven't addressed her duality.


#..., nothing you raised directly.

Kevin: Do you remember when I wrote to you about about James P. Hogan's novel "The Gentle Giants of Ganymede"? I hope not. You've been busy.

http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Giants-Ganymede/dp/0345323270

Long story short: big ol' aliens (who are long gone) populated the planet that's now the Asteroid belt beyond Mars, in order to raise human-sized slaves. But the giants never came back to harvest their crop of slaves.

The slaves evolved over eons without supervision. After a time, they ended up with intra-solar-system space travel, and finally a war between factions of Mars and the 'other planet' left all but a few slaves dead. And a of those couple slaves managed to make it to Earth.

Those who made it to Earth became our "Missing Links", those millions of years ago.

My first impression from tonight's episode of BSG that talk of: the 5, the 7, the 8, Humans and Cylons, the 12 colonies, the Missing 13th Colony... was going to end in a paradigm like that. Or similar.

I only watched it once, though. But that was my first reaction.


_Andy

Thanks for the email, man.

re: Cylons

Cylons are enfleshed organisms, but they're entirely artificial, simulating humans right down to the molecular level, but perhaps not down to the atomic or subatomic level (a case of functionalism in action?).

Baltar initially built a bogus Cylon detector, but he later went on to build the real thing early in the series. Through the real detector, he discovered that Boomer was a Cylon. Out of fear for his own life, he told Boomer that she had tested negative and was human. Baltar had been worried that, had he revealed his knowledge that Boomer was a Cylon, her hidden programming would have activated and she would have killed him on the spot. This cowardice set up a chain of events leading to Boomer's shooting of then-Commander Adama, who had no idea that Boomer was a Cylon sleeper agent. In true Lee Harvey Oswald fashion, Boomer is shot not long after.

A different copy of Sharon Valerii, stuck with Helo on the surface of post-holocaust Caprica, falls in love with Helo; their coupling leads to the first successful case of Cylon pregnancy. This seems to imply that Cylons can become pregnant, but not reliably so. To that extent, we might say that they're organic.

At the same time, humaniform Cylons are obviously programmable, and they can interact directly with machines, as the "good" Sharon does when she physically interfaces with Galactica's computer system and stops a Cylon assault. She does this in what appears to be a crude and bloody manner, jamming one of Galactica's data cords into her arm. The interface works perfectly.

The series is unclear, though, on how Cylons do what they do while possessing bodies that, when scanned in the typical manner, look perfectly human. An X-ray or MRI would not have revealed the way in which the "good" Sharon had interfaced with the Galactica's wiring. Reference has been made, on several occasions, to "silica pathways" used in Cylon neural structure, but these pathways are undetectable by colonial technology. Perhaps the genius of Cylon tech lies in something like "nanoswarm" technology: particles distributed throughout the body can temporarily come together; they self-assemble into a needed component, then fray apart when no longer needed.

Cylons have been inconsistently portrayed as alternately super-strong and of normal human strength. It seems they can do whatever the show's writers require of them at a given moment in the plot. Sam Anders was shown, at the beginning of Season 4.0, unconsciously sending out a burst of IFF signal to the aggressor Cylons, who responded by immediately halting their attack against the colonial fleet. How his body was capable of emitting such a signal is beyond me; the feature has been cleverly hidden, perhaps in a diffuse, distributed manner, throughout his body, much the way that cognitive functions are distributed throughout the human brain (e.g., a memory is not a single, distinct chunk of flesh, but is instead the result of electrical activity interacting with the evolving hard-wiring of the brain). Anders's eye might be another example of nanoswarms at work.

re: your theory about origins

My buddy Mike had a similar-sounding hypothesis. I hope I'm getting this right, but I think Mike's idea was that humans and Cylons arose from some third-party life form, something not seen yet. I think this theory is as plausible as any of the theories out there, given how little we still know, and how few episodes remain. The only reason I don't lean toward this theory is that, up to now, we've seen only humans and Cylons in an otherwise "empty" universe. In terms of dramatic structure, the sudden revelation of "the race behind the races" at the very end of the series would be something of a deus ex machina-- a Tolkien lover would appreciate such a move, but "hard sci-fi" David Brin acolytes would resent it forever. Then again, such a reveal would strike an almost religious note, which would be perfectly consistent with what the series has done so far, thematically speaking. Much of BSG is about a Creator-ward (or origins-ward) striving.

I'm still stuck on the fact that Ellen Tigh somehow came back to life aboard a second-generation Cylon vessel, and not aboard a Final Five-type vessel. Does this mean the Significant Seven/Eight had extra Ellen bodies lying around? How is that possible?

I'm also fascinated by the origins of Cylon monotheism, which according to that episode traces back to those boxy Cylon centurions on the colonies. I'm unclear on whether Ellen Tigh's own monotheism is the result of the centurions' religious insights, or a separate epiphany.

In any case, the thirteenth tribe appears to have begun as human; the holocaust on Earth was a nuclear war similar to what happened on the colonies, i.e., it was between humans and Cylons. The colony's temple on the algae planet may well have been in honor of a "one true God," who could not be named. Perhaps strains of that monotheism existed quietly elsewhere on the other twelve colonies, and were somehow passed on to the centurions developed on those colonies.

The whole chronology of what caused what is very confusing. One theory over at the Battlestar Wiki site is that Earth, not Kobol, is the original cradle of humanity, with everything, all history, blossoming outward-- and curdling-- from there. The evidence for this argument lies in the show's description of the ages of the various landmarks encountered on the path toward Earth: they seem to get progressively older as one gets closer to Earth. While I consider myself a BSG geek, I obviously didn't have the insane level of commitment needed to spot this fact. To do so would have required multiple viewings and probably a bit of note-taking. (Then again, blogging BSG episode commentary is a sort of note-taking.)

Sam Anders's account of events still doesn't explain why the Cylons of the thirteenth colony had a culture that exactly mirrors the culture of the twelve colonies. The twelve colonies and the Earthbound colony should have diverged a great deal in terms of language, culture, etc. Again, the best explanation for such rigid consistency over time and space is the Everyone's a Cylon theory. But we'll see.


_

Friday, February 13, 2009

BSG: "No Exit"

[NB: Check this post for updates and revisions. I'm watching the episode again, as it was a concentrated dose of BSG mythology.]

What we now know:

1. Ellen Tigh is indeed one of the Final Five; there's no more ambiguity on that point. Not only that, but she and the other four Fivers were apparently the creators of the Significant Seven Cylons.

2. There are actually eight "Significant" models, but the missing Number 7 is an artistic type named Daniel, who seems to be a Cylon we have never seen before (or, hey, maybe we have). So I was wrong about Starbuck's status; who and what she is remains a mystery.

3. Sam Anders's bullet to the brain seems to have released a flood of memories related to Cylon history. I'm going to watch the show again, because I'm fuzzy on the details. It seems that the Final Five were developed by humans on Kobol, and the Five developed the remaining Eight. Lucky Thirteen, eh?

4. The Cylon conversations in this episode constantly refer to the humans, the humans, the humans. Brother Cavil gets a series of passionate monologues-- including an Agent Smith moment in which he rails against his enfleshment-- and vents his resentment of humanity and all things human. This seems to be strong evidence against the hypothesis that, at this point in history, there are no humans left-- only Cylons.

5. Cylon base ships can produce fresh apples and brie cheese at need. If only the beleaguered humans knew how close at hand a decent food supply was! This does, however, bring up the question of whether base ships are stocked with gardens, or if their fresh produce is the result of some combination of genetic engineering and the force-growing of organic entities (how else to produce enough food for beings that are churned out in amniotic assembly lines?).

6. Greek mythology alert! Ellen Tigh is a theist, and Brother Cavil, whose "real" name is apparently John, is a Cylon she considers to be a son. Given that they had repeated sex on New Caprica, the creator and her firstborn, I couldn't help thinking this mirrored the Ouranos-Gaia relationship. Ouranos (a.k.a. Uranus) is both son and lover/husband of Gaia, the Earth, the All-mother.

7. All of this answers the question of why the Significant Seven (or Eight) might hold the Final Five in reverence or feel the need to forbid any thoughts about them. Mystery demystified.

8. Still no resolution on several fronts: the significance of the music that "activated" the Final Five, the question of whether the BSG universe really is theistic, the ontological status of Head-Six and Kara Thrace, etc.

9. Adama's chest pains continue, and Laura Roslin coughs in front of Lee Adama, to whom she is passing the torch.

10. Some mention was made of near-lightspeed travel and relativistic effects, which may be part of the explanation for the similarities between Earth's culture and language and those of the Twelve Colonies. Then again, I recall hearing something in the dialogue about false memories. I'm confused on these points.

11. Adama seems resigned to the presence of friendly Cylons, and even asks Tyrol to use Cylon tech to "heal" the Galactica, which is literally falling apart.

12. Where was Baltar, dammit?

13. It appears that Cylon monotheism originated with the old Cylon centurions, and that monotheism was transferred to the Significant Seven/Eight when the Final Five came back to the colonies to help the centurions engineer the enfleshed, humaniform models.

14. It seems that the Significant Seven/Eight ended up being the result of a joint effort between the Cylon centurions, who had been developed by the human colonials as part of their ongoing project to create artificial life, and the later efforts of the Final Five, who had a hand in stopping the First Cylon War, forty-some years previously.

General remarks:

1. I think BSG fans will be divided into those who love this episode (titled "No Exit," possibly after the Sartrean play, in which a vanishingly small number of participants are trapped in hell together, constantly shifting in their relationships with each other, then renewing the cycle at the end of the play) and those who hate it. It's very, very late in the game, and the revelation of this much important information in a single episode means the episode serves as little more than a vehicle for exposition. Some will love this, because all that info provides a bit of relief and release for the viewers' pent-up frustrations after 3.75 seasons of ignorance. But others are guaranteed to hate the episode because it's essentially a talkfest punctuated by scenes of brain surgery performed by the dude who says "I'm a PC!" in those Mac commercials. "Show, don't tell!" is supposed to be the rule in writing, including screenwriting. Tonight's episode included a lot of telling.

2. Ellen Tigh's conversation with John/Cavil demystifies such phenomena as the Temple of Five and the mandala (another Matrix trope, prophecy as control, appears in this episode, at least by implication), which makes me wonder whether the series is leaning toward an objective atheism.

[NB: An anonymous commenter-- whose comment is unpublished, alas, because it was anonymous-- pointed out that, in reference to the Temple of Five, Ellen disavowed involvement in what had transpired there, ascribing the 3's vision of the Final Five to an act of God. In that sense, yes, the events surrounding that temple and the ensuing supernova remain a mystery, but Ellen did reveal that that temple was originally called the Temple of Hopes, built 3000 years ago by the thirteenth tribe after the tribe had left Kobol. I think we already knew the algae planet was an outpost of the thirteenth colony, but the name "Temple of Hopes" is new to us. Not a demystification, then, but we do get some new information.]

3. I'm still holding out re: whether everyone's a Cylon, despite all the talk of humans, because it's still not obvious to me that we've heard the most fundamental revelations about Cylon nature. As I mentioned before, the faithful repetition of history is more likely when history's participants are sentient machines than if they're humans.

4. I enjoyed the way the episode opened with a sweeping recap, though I still don't understand how Ellen "resurrected." I gather it happened several months ago, before the hub was destroyed, which may mean that Ellen was around even before the fleet began its beeline for Earth.

UPDATE: Ellen's resurrection occurred 18 months previously, immediately after Saul Tigh had killed her. I should have followed the time captions more closely; I noticed them more clearly upon second viewing.

5. It was good to see Dean Stockwell have his Shakespearean moments, railing against his resemblance to humans. These scenes are what will most likely redeem the episode in the eyes of those BSG fans who would otherwise dismiss the episode as a mere expository device.

6. I'm beginning to think the series is going to end on a bittersweet "and the cycle continues!" note. It might not. It might end up like "The Matrix Revolutions," in which the humans and machines arrive at a type of truce not seen before, a truce that could be permanent, but that still leaves open the possibility of future human-machine war, plunging everyone back into the old cycle of violence. However the series will end, it's a safe bet that not everything will be resolved. I'm pretty sure Adama and Roslin will die, though. Humanity might survive, though I suspect that that survival will be tied to Cylon tech, especially their work in genetics.

6a. This brings up a subsidiary question, though: why the hell were the Cylons able to copy humans down to the molecular level, but have been unable reliably to produce versions of themselves that can procreate? And how susceptible are artificial genes to mutation? How organic are the Cylons? The science on this is suspiciously fuzzy.

7. One thing I'm curious about: we found out that Tyrol and Tory were apparently an item back on Earth. But what is Tyrol going to do if/when he discovers that Tory killed Cally? Will the Final Five experience a schism, or will Tyrol quietly accept that Tory was acting according to the dictates of her nature?

8. Wild thought: Baltar was missing from this episode. Could he be Daniel? Or is Daniel as gone as Cavil seems to think he is?


_

BSG liveblog

Aha-- see? See? They're saying there are eight Cylon models besides the Final Five!


_

values question 2

I was shocked, but then fascinated, by the game Grand Theft Auto when I first saw a version of it being played by a Korean cousin of mine. The game's freewheeling violence, its anarchic subtext, and the player's ability to do almost anything he or she wanted gave GTA its evil charm. I've never actually played the game, but I'm sure I'd be hooked if I tried it. What red-blooded male driver hasn't shouted "200 points!" when passing a pedestrian and fantasizing about mowing him down? That primal urge is what GTA plays on, and why it sells so well. Ever thought about running through the streets with a baseball bat and a sack full of bricks, just breaking store windows? Yeah-- me, too. Violent fantasies are part of the male psyche, especially in an age of milquetoast modernity. (Ladies, if you're shocked by this aspect of maleness, you obviously don't know your guy, or guys in general. And, guys, if you're shouting "200 points!" in front of your woman, you obviously don't know your woman, or women in general. Unless they're into that kind of thing, of course. And some of them are.)

So men generally respond to and indulge in fantasy violence-- wreckage, killing, and mayhem. My question is this: is it therefore inconsistent of me to react with revulsion and horror to the existence of a video game that promotes gang rape and forced abortions? Just a few minutes ago, I had a "holy fucking shit!" reaction when I learned of a game called "Rapelay" (I guess that's a lame combination of "rape" and "play"), which you can read about here (not to worry: it's just a news article, not a sample of the game, which I think Amazon was right to ban from its cyber-shelves). Whatever imaginative silliness I might engage in, I never have fantasies on the order of what this game portrays. I suppose what I'm fishing around for, though, is something that may require some uncomfortable introspection: what makes running over a video granny funny, while video game portrayals of rape are over the line? Is there a double standard at work here, or is there one single, consistent standard that accounts for both the fun of GTA-style violence (which I'm pretty sure doesn't include rape... or does it?) and the repulsiveness of Rapelay-style violence?

We could talk about the consistency of the pacifist's perspective: the dude or chick whose stomach churns at the thought of any violence, and who therefore shies away from all such video games. But this perspective is boring, and judging by the success of the GTA franchise (which must be doing well outside of America, given my Korean cousin's love of the game), it isn't the perspective of the majority. No: instead, I'd rather talk about the rest of us, the normal folks who don't think twice about playing a video game like GTA or Crazy Taxi (which also involves running over pedestrians and engaging in other forms of hazardous driving), but who, as I was, would be revolted by the mere thought of a game like Rapelay. It seems that most of us draw a line somewhere, but what is that line? How do we put it into words? Is it a legitimate line? Does it express a self-consistent morality, or are we just going to have tolerate a certain level of hypocrisy in ourselves if we refuse to become total pacifists? Color me curious.

Your thoughts are welcome.


_

the dismal science

I have a feeling that the economy's going to improve at some point, stimulus package or not, because that is The Way of Things-- the Way of the Force. It's a bit like global warming, really: a massive cyclical phenomenon might be helped or hindered by human activity, but the overall cycle won't be fundamentally affected.*

That said, I think Republican John Boehner was right to call the Dems out for the hypocrisy of drafting a package that's over 1000 pages in length, then insisting on voting on it (a) before the public has had a chance to digest and debate it, per President Obama's promise of a 48-hour public review of legislation; and (b) before the legislators themselves have had a chance truly to digest and debate the package.

At the same time, I think the GOP expended its credibility, apropos of fiscal discipline, over the past eight years (and, as many have pointed out, GOP hero Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly known for small deficits, making one wonder how the GOP ever became associated with fiscal discipline), which makes it rich for them to be harping on the Dems' spendthrift ways. Oh, sure: the GOP has the right to harp on that issue (we don't want to commit the genetic fallacy here), and they may even have some valid points, but can the public be blamed for not wanting to hear their side of the story?

Because the economy is subject to cycles, I think it's simply a matter of time before attitudes and outlooks become more positive, which will affect perceptions and thereby affect the stock market and other aspects of the economy. You might scoff at this admittedly glib and unscholarly assessment of a dire situation, but judging by the discord I see and read about in economic and political circles, no one else seems to have a better lock on things than I do.





*You might respond by noting that, unlike climate, economic reality is entirely a function of human activity. That's true, but it's also true that the global economy is no less a massively cyclical phenomenon for this reason. US attempts to change the tide may prove fruitless simply because of the sheer momentum inherent in the concerted activities of nearly 7 billion people.


_