Sunday, June 25, 2017

Waterworld (review)

I don't want to take up a lot of your time.  There are too many films and pulp novels which imagine a dark future.  That dark sci fi future explored to the point of formulaic certainty; 1) there will be at least some violence 2) there will be cool new technologies 2) there will be a sleek, sexy minimalist aesthetic.  The sad reality is that Waterworld is more realistic and sobering than normal distopias.  Imagine man-kind scrambling to higher elevations in the last days of land-earth: backstabbing goons with the strongest wills to survive the melting polar ice caps and creative engineers capable of fashioning useful contraptions out of reusable parts are selected by lose evolutionary principles to escape onto barges.  That's what would happen, if you are willing to accept Reynold's and Kostner's vision, most certainly.  The action format is a welcomed update from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.  The direction is incredible for that none of Waterworld's principle characters look particularly happy or comfortable in it - more of what you would actually expect in a real future in which planet earth is consumed by water.  The dialogue between Kostner and Tripplehorn is appropriately awkward, and Hopper's charisma over the Smoker gang reminds you of eating dead barnacles for supper with a sh*t-eating grin on your face.  Five Stars for that one.  Life is not going to get easier, actually, what if the men and women capable of surviving in a near-distant future retain features more closely resembling cave-men, and are forced to be tougher than you could ever possibly imagine?  That would be a cool Hollywood action-adventure sequence that is totally worth 2 hours of your time, 20 years after its initial box-office release, or whenever.  

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

2016 Presidential Campaign

Looks like Senator (NY) Chuck Schumer's been pushing around Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton again. Who has such influence over Congress that they can lift $4.9 million and stuff it into their pocket with no questions asked? Not Chuck Schumer, haha. Not since J. Dennis Hastert became Speaker of the House. Why does a U.S. Senator and Harvard Law graduate need to be baby-sat by congressional committees? Because he will steal money from U.S. tax payers unless he is baby-sat. It's no wonder the democratic party leadership wants a female presiding over the White House. Ms. Clinton will be much easier to manipulate than the Republican Presidential Candidate has been, she and Chuck Schumer have known each other for years.

Congress is investigating a floating $4.9 Million that was given to New York State as part of a Hurricane Sandy disaster relief package. Maybe you should eat more pork. How was that money actually spent? Nobody knows for certain.

Looks like Schumer's got her wrapped around his little finger. Guess what else? Women similar to Judi Bosworth are set up across the Tri State Area to work in Public Education, which is becoming more and more federated under Clinton's reform policies.

Check out page 6 of this New Jersey State Super-Intendant of Schools Employment Contract. Something called (Merit Bonus.) Last time I checked in on New Jersey politics, they were trying to place salary caps on them to prevent the state from going bankrupt.

Here's what's happening: A Democrat from a red state (not close to large banking centers) gets elected into congress, makes friends with Chuck Schumer while working for congress. Chuck Schumer teaches he or she how to wrestle money away from congress, and how to use that money to maintain his or her regional support network with a system of pay-offs known as Pork Barrel. His or her regional support consists of people who vote he or she into congress. If this congressman is not good at lawyering money away from congress, then they won't last very long on Capitol Hill. Progressive Taxation assuaged the obvious national tensions that using money to mediate proportional representation would have caused.  Wealthier states get a higher tax percentage (%) than poorer states. They have more money, taxing them supplies more money to congress. They can use this point to argue for progressive spending, in theory. Chuck Schumer is from a progressive state.

Chuck Schumer lawyers money away from congress and gives it back to the State of New York. He is popular in the State of New York for this reason. You should be like Chuck Schumer and become a Senator. Do the same thing for your State. Bare in mind, with progressive taxation, I doubt you will be able to take as much from congress as Chuck takes, because New York State gets taxed at a higher percentage than your state gets taxed, because it is a wealthier state. It sounds like you think there is a 1:1 correspondence between pork dollars spent and state problems removed.  Actually, the curve which symbolizes the efficacy of pork is exponential: 
y= amount of pork
x= problems solved by pork
That last .20 got rid of close to 50% of New York State's social problems! 

NOPE, it's this:

y= how good you are at using microsoft office
x= how good you are at getting pork from your Senator, 

but what if
 Rational Empiricism 

Here is a graph which shows the use of governemnt statistics measured against their effectiveness at stealing money from Congress, and nothing else:

Friday, July 10, 2015

you hear in 360 degrees, but see only what's in front of you; can you find the limit at which your peripheral vision slopes off into blankness? i wouldn't bother, but to think about a time your vision was important for survival, in battle you could imagine the field of severed limbs and the effects of aggression all around as stains of blood, either the dying in combat or massacres of combat, how special your peripheral vision was in the grand scheme of political history; sloping off to the glaring you wage a new and all too courageous battle whose twilight is irrelevant to this duty we impose?

so first the engine roar of that station wagon which held us safety, warmly in our winter knitted scarves and heat channeling from the engine; just air that's passed over the engine, which is hot enough to make it waves, bringing our transport to a zone of distinction in January of the coldest season; our little souls knew cold was death while summer we slept under the stars without sweating; through the hostility of a winter you thought about respect, caution, about discipline to ration our resources and to control our behavior in awe of the season that would devour us without sympathy, only we imagined the final thoughts in freezing outside this hub of protection would be the omnipresent ambivalence of nature, so we cherished our every vision of charity; it was a warmth to exceed kindness in every dimension, it was the very energy of ourselves;

we were children then, not ready to administer the source of our survivals; but our first feelings were sympathy to consume the nurturing which would remain our world, only to consume and how long did it take to feel pathetic? only to consume and never to provide this source of sweet precious life? how long until you are locked out in the cold, skinned your knee far from home to discover the neighborhood gangs less sympathetic than your mother about stains of blood? sympathy for the unloved? hardly; that sweet naivety's poetic justice was flickering inside your tummy at 8 years old when you moved your eyes back and forth frantically like some categorical impression an insect leaves, watching the shapes and colors of this world pass by the window of a moving car too quickly for significance; they were broken down, bruised and ugly streets you could never avoid, and they were sad places that needed your childish sympathy because they never felt the nurturing you felt; and at that moment in time, if you remember, you were sympathetic to everything that wasn't you; how long did it take to realize you were alone in your feelings?

Monday, June 29, 2015

Technology always sparks the reactionary. I read something in anthropology, that early civilization was at odds with the development of written language for fear that it would make them stupid. I can't remember where or which but you get the point.  Too many frivolous technologies are developed to change the world. A sober picture of this "change" would be the reallocation of billions of dollars rather than something more meaningful. Written communication wasn't one of those.

In the silicon valley, so called tech evangelists believe technological progress is the solution to the world's problems.  The demographic of that region is diverse. The brain power of that region is dominated by those affiliated with Stanford University, whose student population is mostly Asian. But there are Arabs, Southeast Asians, Latin Americans, and also Caucasians, many of whom have lost touch with their ancestry living and working there.  I know this first hand.  You might think: sure, progress sounds nice for us on classist (my own terminology, not unlike racist) grounds, after all, we're just the descendants of desperate immigrants and/or "conquered" natives.

But there is more weight to the economic theory behind tech evangelism (zealous advocacy of a cause) than an ideological ploy for people trying to better themselves.  Thinking about the value backing money as coming from natural resource exploitation, as the stock market saw it, capitalism and global trade, this economic understanding has evolved in conjunction with depleting earth.  Imagine getting rich from tech instead of Steel, Oil. For people accustomed to that sort of thing, making money with intellectual property is optimistic. The most interesting development I've caught wind of from that scene recently was bitcoin.

But they get carried away. Writing about art now:  big tech picked up on the popularity of unrestrained human expression among restless youth. This knowledge would have seemed foreign to most developers and would have gotten to them by way of a marketing report.  They develop software, mostly for OSX, with private money called venture capital. Steve Jobs' genius was not for designing computer technology, but rather for tailoring it to dominate a consumer market (contrast consumers with military or industrial clientele.) To this day, "a marketing wiz" at Apple is more valuable than a programmer. A programmer's life consists of sitting in a computer lab.  Marketing teams are more in touch with folk psychology, they know what people are likely to purchase, they study their values. This is not how IBM worked.

IBM was initially developed with government funding, although I've heard the two companies have recently merged.  Developing technology in the private sector for personal consumption is bigger than you realize.  Most people don't know the foundation of modern computing was intended for military applications, a very different situation than PC (if the term ever seemed odd.) A good marketing team is therefore what makes PC even possible.  Does this help you understand the significance of Google, who came close to controlling all public information in the United States? Or Microsoft, still in every corporate office?  PC is tech modified for and sold to ordinary people instead of government and/or corporate insiders.  It's not exactly new, or particularly special.  OSX is just a consumer marketing application of UNIX.  If this interests you at all, my advice is GO TO STANFORD and study economics. 

Back to art. Private companies get a marketing report, there are many art tools and distribution formats surrounding this which were designed by men and women who work much harder than the average person, designed for the purposes of making money with OSX, the web. That almost anybody can effortlessly craft an image which 20 years ago would have been really impressive, upload it to the web and walk around thinking they are Picasso is absurd and offensive to classically trained artists.  The reactionary response is the more interesting one.  For controversial art forms that were budding in the late 20th century: photography, film, recording, the web is so saturated with it now that calling yourself an artist is about as poignant as calling yourself a Republican.  Ahh, to call yourself an artist at all...My hypothesis is that you will eventually relax with Macintosh, if it ever did anything to the arts, it was empower the reactionary.

The novelist still needs an imagination...harmony is still strength in illustrator in full bloom is still more dexterous than the Photoshop end-user. As far as web art is concerned, bullshit is hastily exposed to a world in which everything and thus nothing is impressive except the developers who are horsing the consumer technology that makes it possible.  I got into the habit of posting YouTube videos and thinking it was clever. I have to remind myself: it is clever, but it's not me who is clever no matter what I post, it's data storage and retrieval, HTML 5. If you saw the working conditions which enabled these technologies to be deployed effortlessly by the masses, you'd feel embarrassed taking credit for web presentation instead of getting something approved by a professional editorial staff. A lot harder, yeah, might even impress code monkeys from the silicon valley. YouTube and Vimeo are brilliant programming and brilliant marketing applications. I would admire this if I was you. The irony is that they should humble the average user, instead of what actually happens.