You buy the media, of course.
Minor story this morning, in the not-news-to-anyone-who-cares vein. An early announcement, just a day before the planned media release, made to ars technics, concerning google's forthcoming operating system.
Now, I say "not news". But curious discourse. Google has been long rumored to have been working on an Ubuntu-derived linux. (independant of this, as indepedent as anything is in the sociolect of F/OSS, is the Ubuntu based gOS, which does a pretty good job of mixing google apps with the gnome desktop. ) Likewise, the open-source google Android has been ported to the Intel atom processor.
Not news, but a curious shot across the bow. The story is that google is making an os based on their open-source chrome browser for netbooks.
Or, translated, "the company that has become a common verb is mastering the tool that m$ used for world domination and making the centrality of the browser the basis of an interface for the only bright segment of the market, in which m$ has had to resurrect XP and bleed money to prevent linux from gaining market share, thereby destroying its FUD metanarrative".
Curiously, later in the day another article appears in the NYT, which is more accurately a commercial for m$'s google-killer search engine. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=384980&f=19
08 July 2009
08 April 2009
25 March 2009
From ashes?
Some know there are rants coming. They shall come. And soon.
----
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
14 March 2009
Right! This thing.
I do have a Blog. Keep intending to get back to it. A few nice juicy posts have been brewing, things that no one could possibly care about and thus need to be shot into the blogosphere.
21 January 2009
Yes we can.
And it is therefore quite fitting, one of the greatest and surprising validations of hope and change, to see this picture on the first day of a new administration.
The president is well dressed.
Let all the world take note: the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, can pull off impeccable white tie. Of great interest is the fact he is wearing a plain front, spread collar shirt. I have long argued with the prom industry, which foists winged collared monstrosities with pleats and poor fabric on unsuspecting American consumers, that a wing collar is only appropriate for white tie. It must never, ever be worn with anything else.
But it is appropriate to wear either a wing collar or a spread collar with white tie. And proving that he is the change we have been waiting for, BHO wore a fine spread collar shirt with white tie.
Yes we can. Yes we did.
10 January 2009
I do not want to die at burger king.
I don't freak out easily.
However.
Having battled the snow to get near school, needing food rather badly, at bk. On ironwood and 23, if this need serve as evidence in a homocide investigation.
So I eat what passes as a salad. A clearly deranged woman comes up behind me.
"excuse me, do you work in science?"
Stranger openers out there, right, so I just say no. Thank you, Nancy Reagan, for the lesson.
"I ask because I saw you were wearing a hat and you took it off. Are you sure you aren't in science?"
"no. "
"you aren't part of the university of Arizona bioengineering department?"
Getting weird there. But I continue my monotone mantra. "no"
"because my brother wears a hat like that"
I keep eating my salad. A brown fedora is hardly uncommon.
"my brother sold me to science. Are you sure you aren't here to stalk me for that purpose?"
Keep eating salad. "no. "
"and I see you have a knife and fork to disect my brain. Is that your purpose"
"no".
"ok. I wanted to make sure".
So. Almost done with the salad. She has been quietly and subtly building a defensive position in the corner by slowy rearranging furniture. And clutching her own plastic knife, shrink wrapped undoubtedly so the disection might be uncontaminated.
However.
Having battled the snow to get near school, needing food rather badly, at bk. On ironwood and 23, if this need serve as evidence in a homocide investigation.
So I eat what passes as a salad. A clearly deranged woman comes up behind me.
"excuse me, do you work in science?"
Stranger openers out there, right, so I just say no. Thank you, Nancy Reagan, for the lesson.
"I ask because I saw you were wearing a hat and you took it off. Are you sure you aren't in science?"
"no. "
"you aren't part of the university of Arizona bioengineering department?"
Getting weird there. But I continue my monotone mantra. "no"
"because my brother wears a hat like that"
I keep eating my salad. A brown fedora is hardly uncommon.
"my brother sold me to science. Are you sure you aren't here to stalk me for that purpose?"
Keep eating salad. "no. "
"and I see you have a knife and fork to disect my brain. Is that your purpose"
"no".
"ok. I wanted to make sure".
So. Almost done with the salad. She has been quietly and subtly building a defensive position in the corner by slowy rearranging furniture. And clutching her own plastic knife, shrink wrapped undoubtedly so the disection might be uncontaminated.
04 January 2009
Understanding American Foreign Policy and Grand Stratergery: 2000-Present
Ok. It has been clear for a very long time that there has been some terrible shift in grand strategy among whomever it is that runs such things in this country. It has long been my contention that the uniquely American approach to grand strategy and the role of military force in foreign policy has really been founded on Alfred T Mahan's classic work, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. This is something that goes beyond tactics or even real theater strategies, proven by the survival of Mahan's notion of projection of power through the development of the battleship fleets, their transformation into carrier groups, the shift to sea control through submarine warfare -- in short, until very recently. Something has gone terribly wrong, that much we all know, but i think I have finally found the answer. I have found a text that gives insigt into the strategic thinking, or the strategery even, of the now passing regime of our commander in chief.
Behold. The full transcript of the first episode of G.I.Joe.
Really, as terrifying as this is, think about it. It all makes sense. Too much sense, in fact. Following Vietnam, Hasbro had some difficulties with the original GI Joe, something about people not liking the army. So they transformed him into a fiction with a deep but somewhat fuzzy backstory. It may be a stretch to take that as an analogue to Saddam and his WMD's, but we're just scratching the surface. GI Joe is now part of "Team Joe" -- exhibiting a kind of bizarre egalitarian pseudo equality masking a hard and forced solidarity. We're all team members, we're all in this together, right? But Duke was still always in charge. Who exactly is Duke? Name, rank serial number? No, we just know he's a "man of action". That's enough. (Who exactly is running the congressional Republican caucus these days?) And who the hell is COBRA? And DESTRO? Shadowy "terrorist" organizations. But, for all the backstory which, ultimately, doesn't tie together or make any coherent sense, you know in the end good is good and evil is evil. Good must win and evil must perish.
But, to the text, shall we?
Consider, for starters the theme song.
What clearer expression is there of the "Bush Doctrine?" "Wherever there's trouble", without any clear specification or criterion for what constitutes "trouble," go fight. That, plus useless repetition of key terms and phrases, and you get both the strategic vision and rhetorical apparatus used in the last eight years of american foreign policy.
I note in passing not only the state of total war implied by this doctrine, but the convenience of having an enemy who can be used to complete rhymes. How well this prepared Republican strategists for an easy use of Obama / Osama taunts!
The useless repetition works so well, I was struck in a recently aired "oxford-style" debate on NPR considering the motion "George Bush 43: The Worst President in the Past 50 Years" where the team against the motion, headed by Karl Rove, parroted every line used in the 04 reelection. Suddenly we were still talking about "cut and run".
But of course, we know, through use of primary colors and endless repitition, that G.I. Joe never gives up and he'll stay till the fight's won. A Real American Hero!
A clear policy of interventionism and preemptive strikes, right? and why? to defend freedom. It's never entirely clear ideologically or politically how freedom is really threatened by COBRA, but apparently it is. COBRA may be some early code for "Islamofascism", a term whose meaning or scope remain unclear to me. But that's backstory, isn't it?
Now, there remains the question of violence. As we know, there's hella much fighting. But is it really violence? We know that COBRA and Destro constantly loose material and money. Part of being evil is loosing money, though squander is not necessarily a sign of evil. Ultimately, however, it is noteworthy that when the Joes triumph, they don't actually kill COBRA troops, they destroy a couple of machines. There's a lot of laser fire, it looks like the Joes are in trouble, but finally they surge and overcome, and the effect of shock and awe of good-colored-laser-beams beats back the evil-colored-laser-beams (adopting this might help prevent "friendly fire") and the enemy, being evil, will always disperse, run away, and vow revenge which we know will never happen. Why? because good will prevail. Tack on a PSA to reinforce how good the good is, and there you go.
The similarities to the invasion of Iraq are a bit too eerie to overlook.
After all, Saddam and his Al-Quaeda colleagues were supposed to retreat in disarray, disband, maybe vow revenge. Why? Because we go in (wherever there's trouble! G.I. Joe is there!) and overwhelm them not with our strategery, but with a campaign of "shock and awe." If only we had the laser beams. Or the SkyStrikers. Or Duke leading the charge. Nevertheless. But as long as we flood the newly "free" Iraqi media with the right PSA's, and stick to the backstory, all will work. Because knowing is half the battle, right?
and keep talking about "The Surge." That's what the Joes always did. If it worked against Cobra, it will work in Afghanistan.
Oh wait, there's more.
This post-Vietnam reincarnation of GI Joe turned generic "Action Man" turned special-forces "Team Joe" comprised of a cadre of specialists whose training or experience are less apparent than their loyalty to "Team Joe" are all, down to a man (or token and occasional woman) "heroes." So too, anyone in uniform now is a hero.
Some take great offense when I say this, but no, they're not heroes. They are soldiers and marines and men and women serving their country. That alone is a sufficient honor than anyone should be proud to claim it. Heroes perform heroics, which are notable and beyond the call of duty. George H. W. Bush was a hero, he saved a transport ship over the pacific. This is an exceptional action. Senator McCain, however, while he is to be honored and lauded for his service to his country throughout his entire life, is not a hero. And I do not think he would take offense at this. his actions, especially including refusing an early release from a prison camp, were his duty. He was a soldier and an officer, and those titles should carry sufficient honor. My problem is not valorizing those who serve, it is undervalorizing service and making everything and everyone into a matter of heroics.
But leaving that aside. All the Joes were heroes. Check. Got that one covered.
Oh wait, even more.
Not just heroes. "Real American" heroes. Not from Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, California, Maine, or Vermont. Real American Heroes from Real America. Not from fake America.
Wow.
Of course, this is especially problematic. Much like the philosophical bind I think the English Reformation left us of tying together the words "Real" and "Presence" into some "Real Presence" that seems to neither be sufficiently present because it's real, nor sufficiently real because it is present. GI Joe, the Real American Hero, is sort of a triple-whammy. Leaving aside the criterion behind hero, let's face it, the Joes, the Team Joe, the earlier incarnation of 12" Joe posable anti-Barbies, the whole nine yards, are neither real nor, I really think, American. While they may be the subject of intellectual property rights under the laws of the United States, I'm not quite up enough on my citizenship law to say whether or not a fictional character, set of characters, plastic action figures, whether in their earlier 12" or later 3.75" incarnations, can be granted citizenship.
If I'm wrong on this, then I really hope citizenship is formally extended to Big Brown, recently tragic Kentucky Derby Winner, whose racing career is over. The Governor of Illinois should immediately grant him citizenship and then name him to the Senate. Horses have served with distinction as senators before. But! back to reality...
* * *
Now, my current working hypothesis: the role of Mahan as foundational for the understanding of military force in foreign policy and the development and execution of grand strategy has been supplanted by a short lived early 80's cartoon, GI Joe: A Real American Hero.
Thus far, all the empirical evidence point to this hypothesis proving true.
What, in this postmodern, postcritical, intertextual sociolect, will be the foundation of any Obama doctrine?
I sure hope it is not TeleTubbies.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Behold. The full transcript of the first episode of G.I.Joe.
Really, as terrifying as this is, think about it. It all makes sense. Too much sense, in fact. Following Vietnam, Hasbro had some difficulties with the original GI Joe, something about people not liking the army. So they transformed him into a fiction with a deep but somewhat fuzzy backstory. It may be a stretch to take that as an analogue to Saddam and his WMD's, but we're just scratching the surface. GI Joe is now part of "Team Joe" -- exhibiting a kind of bizarre egalitarian pseudo equality masking a hard and forced solidarity. We're all team members, we're all in this together, right? But Duke was still always in charge. Who exactly is Duke? Name, rank serial number? No, we just know he's a "man of action". That's enough. (Who exactly is running the congressional Republican caucus these days?) And who the hell is COBRA? And DESTRO? Shadowy "terrorist" organizations. But, for all the backstory which, ultimately, doesn't tie together or make any coherent sense, you know in the end good is good and evil is evil. Good must win and evil must perish.
But, to the text, shall we?
Consider, for starters the theme song.
He'll fight for freedom, wherever's there's trouble,
G.I. Joe is there!
G.I. Joe! A Real American Hero!
G. I. Joe!
What clearer expression is there of the "Bush Doctrine?" "Wherever there's trouble", without any clear specification or criterion for what constitutes "trouble," go fight. That, plus useless repetition of key terms and phrases, and you get both the strategic vision and rhetorical apparatus used in the last eight years of american foreign policy.
It's G.I. Joe against COBRA and DESTRO
Fighting to save the day!
He never gives up, he's always there,
fighting for freedom over land and air,
G.I. Joe! A Real American Hero! G.I. Joe is there!
I note in passing not only the state of total war implied by this doctrine, but the convenience of having an enemy who can be used to complete rhymes. How well this prepared Republican strategists for an easy use of Obama / Osama taunts!
G.I. Joe is the code name for America's
daring, highly trained special mission force.
Its mission: to defend human freedom against COBRA,
a ruthless terrorist organization
determined to rule the world.
He never gives up, he'll stay till the fight's won.
G. I. Joe will dare!
G.I. Joe! A Real American Hero! G.I. Joe!
The useless repetition works so well, I was struck in a recently aired "oxford-style" debate on NPR considering the motion "George Bush 43: The Worst President in the Past 50 Years" where the team against the motion, headed by Karl Rove, parroted every line used in the 04 reelection. Suddenly we were still talking about "cut and run".
But of course, we know, through use of primary colors and endless repitition, that G.I. Joe never gives up and he'll stay till the fight's won. A Real American Hero!
A clear policy of interventionism and preemptive strikes, right? and why? to defend freedom. It's never entirely clear ideologically or politically how freedom is really threatened by COBRA, but apparently it is. COBRA may be some early code for "Islamofascism", a term whose meaning or scope remain unclear to me. But that's backstory, isn't it?
Now, there remains the question of violence. As we know, there's hella much fighting. But is it really violence? We know that COBRA and Destro constantly loose material and money. Part of being evil is loosing money, though squander is not necessarily a sign of evil. Ultimately, however, it is noteworthy that when the Joes triumph, they don't actually kill COBRA troops, they destroy a couple of machines. There's a lot of laser fire, it looks like the Joes are in trouble, but finally they surge and overcome, and the effect of shock and awe of good-colored-laser-beams beats back the evil-colored-laser-beams (adopting this might help prevent "friendly fire") and the enemy, being evil, will always disperse, run away, and vow revenge which we know will never happen. Why? because good will prevail. Tack on a PSA to reinforce how good the good is, and there you go.
The similarities to the invasion of Iraq are a bit too eerie to overlook.
After all, Saddam and his Al-Quaeda colleagues were supposed to retreat in disarray, disband, maybe vow revenge. Why? Because we go in (wherever there's trouble! G.I. Joe is there!) and overwhelm them not with our strategery, but with a campaign of "shock and awe." If only we had the laser beams. Or the SkyStrikers. Or Duke leading the charge. Nevertheless. But as long as we flood the newly "free" Iraqi media with the right PSA's, and stick to the backstory, all will work. Because knowing is half the battle, right?
and keep talking about "The Surge." That's what the Joes always did. If it worked against Cobra, it will work in Afghanistan.
Oh wait, there's more.
This post-Vietnam reincarnation of GI Joe turned generic "Action Man" turned special-forces "Team Joe" comprised of a cadre of specialists whose training or experience are less apparent than their loyalty to "Team Joe" are all, down to a man (or token and occasional woman) "heroes." So too, anyone in uniform now is a hero.
Some take great offense when I say this, but no, they're not heroes. They are soldiers and marines and men and women serving their country. That alone is a sufficient honor than anyone should be proud to claim it. Heroes perform heroics, which are notable and beyond the call of duty. George H. W. Bush was a hero, he saved a transport ship over the pacific. This is an exceptional action. Senator McCain, however, while he is to be honored and lauded for his service to his country throughout his entire life, is not a hero. And I do not think he would take offense at this. his actions, especially including refusing an early release from a prison camp, were his duty. He was a soldier and an officer, and those titles should carry sufficient honor. My problem is not valorizing those who serve, it is undervalorizing service and making everything and everyone into a matter of heroics.
But leaving that aside. All the Joes were heroes. Check. Got that one covered.
Oh wait, even more.
Not just heroes. "Real American" heroes. Not from Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, California, Maine, or Vermont. Real American Heroes from Real America. Not from fake America.
Wow.
Of course, this is especially problematic. Much like the philosophical bind I think the English Reformation left us of tying together the words "Real" and "Presence" into some "Real Presence" that seems to neither be sufficiently present because it's real, nor sufficiently real because it is present. GI Joe, the Real American Hero, is sort of a triple-whammy. Leaving aside the criterion behind hero, let's face it, the Joes, the Team Joe, the earlier incarnation of 12" Joe posable anti-Barbies, the whole nine yards, are neither real nor, I really think, American. While they may be the subject of intellectual property rights under the laws of the United States, I'm not quite up enough on my citizenship law to say whether or not a fictional character, set of characters, plastic action figures, whether in their earlier 12" or later 3.75" incarnations, can be granted citizenship.
If I'm wrong on this, then I really hope citizenship is formally extended to Big Brown, recently tragic Kentucky Derby Winner, whose racing career is over. The Governor of Illinois should immediately grant him citizenship and then name him to the Senate. Horses have served with distinction as senators before. But! back to reality...
* * *
Now, my current working hypothesis: the role of Mahan as foundational for the understanding of military force in foreign policy and the development and execution of grand strategy has been supplanted by a short lived early 80's cartoon, GI Joe: A Real American Hero.
Thus far, all the empirical evidence point to this hypothesis proving true.
What, in this postmodern, postcritical, intertextual sociolect, will be the foundation of any Obama doctrine?
I sure hope it is not TeleTubbies.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
