July 18, 2010 - July 11, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
We're not there yet, but wouldn't it be really cool if
! Has anyone else noticed that there have been quite a few end
o' the world type of things floating around the media for the past few
Have you also noticed that, aside from maybe the "Left Behind" novels,
they spring primarily from the visionary
progressive left? Of course you have. Duh. But have you also noticed
that in each case there is a kind of celebratory longing for the
destruction to hurry up and get here? It's a bleak, soul-crushing
despair that says there's nothing we can possibly do to prevent the
apocalypse, but out
of this unavoidable badness will come a greater good. And if the
greater good never comes, that's OK, too because we deserve whatever
happens to us. To paraphrase what IP says in the link up there,
thinking about this
gives liberals a hard-on.
Like Denzel said in the Book of Eli: "People used to have too much.
More than they needed. They forgot about what was precious to them."
Poignant, no? Presumably Denzel is waxing poetic about the glory of
living in a
nuclear wasteland. Except that people in his world seem to not only
have much less
they need, but have even further forgotten about what is precious
to them, seeing as how there are roving bands of cannibals and what
not. But we're not supposed to think that far ahead. We're merely
think about the "tru-dat" of Denzel's words. We have more than we need
America, right? And we get so caught up in our capitalist pursuit of
money that we often forget to remember what is precious to us, yeah? So
wouldn't it be great if we had a nuclear holocaust or something and
start all over?
Well...no. Remember: cannibals. This thinking is very prevalent with
the lefties, though. Take, for example, this
from the WaPo (boldface added):
public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its
lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a
century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air
conditioning. It could again. While central air will always be needed
in facilities such as hospitals, archives and cooling centers for those who are
vulnerable to heat [WTF??], what would an otherwise A.C.-free
Washington look like?
In a world without air conditioning, a warmer, more flexible, more
relaxed workplace helps make summer a time to slow down again.
Three-digit temperatures prompt siestas. Code-orange days mean offices
are closed. Shorter summer business hours and month-long closings --
common in pre-air-conditioned America -- return.
Families unplug as many heat-generating appliances as possible. Forget
clothes dryers --post-A.C. neighborhoods are crisscrossed with
clotheslines. The hot stove is abandoned for the grill, and dinner is
eaten on the porch.
Saying goodbye to A.C. means saying hello to the world. With more
people spending more time outdoors -- particularly in the late
afternoon and evening, when temperatures fall more quickly outside than
they do inside -- neighborhoods see a boom in spontaneous summertime
Rather than cowering alone in chilly home-entertainment rooms,
neighbors get to know one another. Because
people outside, streets in high-crime areas become safer
[why not, right?].
As a result of all this, a strange thing happens: Deaths from heat
decline. Elderly people no longer die alone inside sweltering
apartments, too afraid to venture outside for help and too isolated to
be noticed [because they are herded into the aforementioned "cooling
centers"?]. Instead, people look out for one another during heat waves,
checking in on their most vulnerable neighbors.
Well there you have it. Easy, peasy, jap-a-neezee. Nobody will have to
go to work in the summer and instead can spend time grilling on the
with their neighbors, which will make crime go down since it only
exists in the first place because all the good guys are in their
cranking up the A.C. We know this because third world nations that
don't have the option to use air conditioning are virtually crime free,
yes? Can't wait to see his winter column talking about how you
shouldn't heat your home, either. Maybe mass snowball fights will keep
everybody warm. If you can manage to make your way through the entire
it's hard not to come away with a sense that the author is - how shall
I say - completely fucking nuts.
Is he, though? Perhaps not. I might be able to chalk it all up to
insanity if he
were the only one with these fantasies, but that's not the case. Here's
a quick list
of apocalyptic orgies, or what you might call "progressive porn":
Truth - It's not about saving the planet. It's about
selling you on the belief that the planet deserves to get back at us
since your mere existence is causing all the bad things that happen on
the planet. And it's about meaning well.
Eli - We've been over this one. [ED. NOTE. And now DocZero
has. He likes it, he really likes it.]
- Everything blows up. Just because. And it's probably your fault
somehow because the Mayans knew about it.
Tomorrow - Nature totally screws with everybody because
Americans drive SUVs and George Bush is president.
- The Road -
Everything blows up in an unspecified but probably nuclear event. If
you are unlucky enough to survive, you'll trudge around with a rusty
revolver and a shopping cart while trying to keep rednecks from raping
and eating your eight year old son.
- George Romero movies
- Everybody turns into zombies and eats you because of capitalism or
something. Or maybe everybody is already
zombies? In America, anyway. Deep, man. Pass the brains.
*nom nom nom*
- 28 Days Later
- Everybody turns into zombies because of an evil corporation. And some
well-meaning animal rights activists.
- Resident Evil
- See "28 Days Later" minus the well-meaning animal rights activists.
- Everything blows up in a nuclear war not long after the Chinese
invade Alaska. This one is at least somewhat plausible.
After People - All the humans disappear just because. Thank Gaia.
Join us on the History Channel as we jerk off to Western Civ falling
apart one non-maintained skyscraper and highway overpass at a time.
- Basically the same thing as "Life After People", but Nat Geo was
jealous they didn't think of it first.
Turning - You should be excited that the global economy is
crashing down in flames. We all deserve it because of America and the
Industrial Revolution. Then we can get back to basics like starving to
death and dying of malaria.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Feel free to mention any glaring
omissions in the comments. What I have never quite understood is, if
all of these progs are so miserable and spend every waking moment
fantasizing about humanity dying, why don't they just kill themselves?
Some of them do, but a
pitifully small percentage of them. Why do the rest of them feel the
need to hang on to life and try to make us just as miserable as they
It's because these people think they are going to be spared the worst
of whatever is coming. They know this because when Al Gore flies around
on his private jet, he's really winking and sending a private message,
ya know? "Don't worry, baby. I'm talking to 'them', not you." Same with
the op-ed writer above: "some" places will still be allowed to run the
air conditioner *wink, wink*. "Oh right, like my house and my social
justice non-profit group's office" thinks the prog disciple. And even
though Obama contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth,
whichever sentence has the stuff these guys like is the one that must
be true; he's only saying that other stuff to be political. So since
they blame everybody else for their self-imposed misery, they think
they'll get a front row seat to watch the payback happen to the rest of
planet's population. Not them.
The progs think that they're
going to be in a car with John Cusack, miraculously driving away from
going to be the guy that
gets away from the zombies and meets a hot chick in the process.
going to be the
skeleton in the bombed-out car or the dead guy Denzel takes the shoes
off of. They're
going to be
the lone wasteland wanderer, gallivanting around the rotten remnants of
a capitalist society. However, there's not so much room in John
Cusack's car, and the lone wasteland wanderer is a
-lone, not part of a group. It's a
little bit like a high school athlete fantasizing about and betting his
whole future on becoming an NFL hall of fame player. It's probably not
going to work out that smoothly. They haven't thought that far ahead
yet and they probably never will.
a little bit already:
When the ultimate deathlord descends and decides that he
will lead mankind to species-wide suicide, his most ardent followers
will be half-smart, half-educated women who are absolutely committed to
the cause. They will be eloquent, articulate, and totally f___ing nuts
on his behalf. Why? Because a small percentage of women are wise and
wonderful, but a far greater percentage are permanently, completely,
absolutely OUT OF THEIR F____ING MINDS about absolutely f___ing
everything. Especially their conviction that the deathlord loves them
in the deepest possible way, even though they only see him on alternate
But it's not only women, it's men, too. [ED. NOTE: The archives also
Including Stan Cox the op-ed
writer, who is definitely batshit crazy. He and all the rest of them.
They are all out of their fucking minds about everything. It's an
important thing to remember.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go run my dryer with no clothes
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Fourth of July
. Not many wanted me to write this review. I know
that. So I'll keep it short. Here are the contenders:
The Boston Pops Fourth of July
The Macy's Fourth of July Celebration
The Philadelphia Fourth of July
I guess what I have in mind isn't really a review. It's more a kind of
liveblog long after the fact. Which would make it a deadblog. Sounds
promising. So we watched all of them. Because it was so infernally HOT
outside. And I honestly don't fully remember which was which in all
Macy's had outstanding fireworks. I remember that. They went on and on,
and they were gorgeous. The DC fireworks were also spectacular. I
especially liked the fact that those two little windows at the top of
the Washington Monument were lit. Why is it the little things that make
you tear up? And I think -- I think
-- it was the Macy's show that played all
the verses of The Battle Hymn of the
. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It must have
been the Macy's show, the stark incomprehensibility of hearing the name
of Jesus Christ belted out in an unashamedly lavish patriotic display.
As if New Yorkers are actually Americans. It sends shivers down the
spine. Even now, as I write this so long after the fact.
The Philadelphia show was a mess. Some band with a lot of dreary grunge
love songs. I mean, being from here, you want to like it. But you just
can't. Awful is awful when all is said and done.
I wasn't expecting much more from the Boston show. But there I got two
surprises. One good, the other just baffling. Probably the reason I'm
writing this. I know a lot of conservatives love Toby Keith. Me, I'm
agnostic on the Toby Keith question. Or I was anyway. Seems to me he's
fallen into a lucky career thanks to his fortunate hit and Hannity
support. But up there in Boston, that night, he sang his newest hit,
"American Soldier," and I saw Marines and other military personnel
singing along with him, tears streaming from their eyes. They knew all
the lyrics and even I could see what he meant to them, that whatever
his motives, he somehow understood them. So whatever it was I might
have had against Toby Keith I no longer do.
The second surprise was Craig Ferguson. I can't figure this dude out.
Which bugs me because he's a Scot and I think I should be able to
figure out Scots. At least. But I've been seriously annoyed with
Ferguson for a
long time now. He was responsible for my first ever glimpse of Sarah
Palin. Back when he was conducting his public campaign to get made a
U.S. citizen faster than average. Which he did by actively soliciting
"Honorary Citizen" status from every state, municipality, and village
in the country. Palin played along and named him an honorary citizen of
Alaska, and he was
(Not that this accrues any particular merit to Scotland. The woman is a
beauty.) But when she became the VP nominee, he did exactly the same
kind of trashing of her everyone else was doing, and I wrote him off.
Another Hollywood lefty. And NOT a gentleman, to boot. She'd done him a
favor, and he was a cad in return.
It was Craig Ferguson (obviously) who presided over the Boston Pops
Fourth. And I have to say I'm now totally mystified about who he is. He
is a citizen of the United States. That happened some time ago. And his
hosting of the event was actually moving. There was a singalong portion
featuring all the patriotic songs, and there he was, unabashedly
singing along next to Toby Keith, obviously, obviously, loving every
patriotic lyric and moment of American belonging. And I'm watching with
jaw on the floor. Who the hell is
The easy answer to the Palin bashing I saw
him do is that he's a
dyed-in-the-wool Hollywood lefty. But if you want the United States to
be a socialist paradise like Europe, why fight so hard and loudly to
become a citizen of a country that's not enough like the one you left?
A marriage of convenience maybe? You have a career here, as opposed to
the slim pickings in Scotland? Okay. But then why put your newly
American heart on your sleeve and sing along as if you really really
love this new nation of
yours? Exactly what is it about the United States you love, Craig?
The thing that would resolve the mystery is an apology to Sarah Palin.
But I'm guessing that's not going to happen.
Therefore, the mystery remains. He's a Scot, a patriot, and a cad. Not
unusual, but in this case a mystery nonetheless.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
. Things are exploding right now. My wife is is figuring out how
can rejoin the newly recreated Boomer
, courtesy of our old friend Null. That will happen.
More importantly, I'm trying to figure out how I can set before you a
lifetime of work, including The
Boomer Bible, The Naked Woman, Shuteye Town, Shuteye Nation,
the maybe dozen books embedded here at InstaPunk
. In the meantime a random
shot into the void resurrected a totally vanished friend, an incredibly
talented young man named Matthew. I asked if anyone remembered my
speculation about time, and Matt did: He's still the smartest kid I
know. Ever. Scary smart. Like a guy who'd hang onto this:
DIMENSIONS OF TIME
Let’s say we have a box of three-dimensional time. For any event En
we can assign a location in the box based on three coordinates: X, Y,
Z. Thus event E1
is identified by coordinates X1
. Now: what attributes of an event require
being called out uniquely and necessarily? Remember, there is no before
or after here; the location information provided by the coordinates
must constitute a replacement for the before and after, because before
and after mandates cause and effect, which do not apply here. To
explore this question, let’s imagine that event E1 is me striking the
letter Q of the keyboard at my computer. To assign E1 a unique
location, what do we need to know about it? First, I would suppose is
the identification of the event; that is striking the letter Q, which
gives it a unique identity on the axis called “What event”?, which we
can designate as the X-axis. Next, to my view, would come the
identifier Who; that is, from whose perspective the Q key was struck,
which we can designate as the Y-axis. Is this sufficient information to
give us a unique identifier? No. For it should be obvious that I have
struck the Q key many many times. Yet, if I am declaring all events
simultaneous, I cannot determine a third unique attribute by
identifying a “when” in terms of before or after some number of other Q
keystrokes by me. I must frame this third category of identifier very
carefully. It is clearly a matter of defining context uniquely, but the
cause and effect constraint complicates the question enormously.
“Purpose” is not acceptable. “Physical location” is presumably
identified by the other three dimensions, and does not allow us to
distinguish between the numerous events of me striking the letter Q at
this very keyboard on the second floor of Melanie’s house. Perhaps
because it seems direct and simple, and perhaps because I am not smart
enough, I choose to identify this third coordinate as corresponding to
“which”; that is “which unique key,” was struck. I do so because at
every instant, this key is identified uniquely in the same way that I
am identified, as an entity in the “real world” which has a “right now
state of being” different from every other apparent “right now state of
being,” even if in the case of the key it is is a minuscule difference
in weight, color, edge integrity, etc, associated with what we in
chronological time would call “wear.”
The graphic [up top] is a primitive representation of the
dimensionality we have been imagining. Note that an event does exist in
three dimensions; that is, it has a shape featuring height, width, and
depth. We can also imbue the shape with other attributes that
correspond to the reality of human experience. An event may have color
if we assign to each axis an illimitable spectrum of unique hues. Such
hues may vary in intensity according to the brightness or lack of it
that causes an event to be vividly perceived or hardly perceived at
all. The shape may also have a weight/solidity that corresponds to
impact; that is, its gravity to the agent and/or others who may
perceive it, such that it takes precedence over the natural
conformations of other events in nearby time-space.
It will be observed that the the choice of these dimensions is roughly
analogous to syntax. The “Who” axis represents the subject, the “What”
axis a verb or participial phrase, and the “Which” axis the direct
object. I concede that the “What” does, in our example, seem to contain
its own direct object; however, the syntax analogy still applies and
neatly illustrates an important distinction: the “What” in this model
is conceptual, i.e., striking a key, and the striking only becomes real
when a unique key becomes the actual direct object of the “sentence”
the event signifies. The inclusion of an apparent direct object in the
“What” corresponds to the concept of a transitive verb, wheich, when it
is used, brings into the sentence the requirement for a direct object
to complete its meaning. Thus the direct object is implicit in the verb
itself. The additional refinement here is that the concept may be more
specific than a transitive verb; that is, in the time world of events,
there are as many different verbs meaning “to strike” as there are
things which can be struck.
Why is this distinction important? Because it is obvious from the
graphic that not everything we might conceive of as an event requires
coordinate information from all three axes. We must therefore consider
the variations of events made possible by this observation. For
example, it would be possible to have an Event Et that does not have a
coordinate on the “Which” axis. On our graphic Et would still exist in
time-space, but its shape would be two-dimensional. What would such an
event be in reality? It would be the thought of “What” by a specific
“Who”; in this case, my thought of striking the Q key without doing so.
It does not acquire the three-dimensional reality of an actual
keystroke, yet it exists as a thoughtform which may also have a color
and intensity, and perhaps even a certain solidity.
Note that imagining a thought event allows us to refine our
understanding of the role color may play in this time-space. For if
every “Who” has its unique hue in the spectrum of all “Who hues,” then
perhaps it is the case that this is the only color which is transparent
to the percipient of an event. The significance of this will be clearer
if we realize that an event like E1 or Et can, and almost always is,
part of some larger event Ec; that is, an event which consists of
multiple/innumerable sentences, such that its size is large, its shape
complex, and its connections to other events manifold. The “What” of Ec
might be “write a letter,” and the “which” might be this letter. This
larger event does contain E1 within it, but E1 is not an event wholly
observable by anyone but me. Thus, the enclosing form, shape and color
of Ec would conceal the overall shape and size of E1 from everyone but
me. Even so, attributes of E1 would be observable by other
“whos”—specifically, the point at which E1 connects with the “which”
axis—because Ec could not exist without E1. Not so for Et, which would
be entirely invisible to everyone but me.
Returning to the matter of incomplete sentences, we can also postulate
an event Ex, which has coordinates on the “What” and “Which” axes, but
not on the “Who” axis. An example? A thunderstorm. Envisioning this on
the graphic provokes an intriguing observation. It has the
two-dimensional existence of a thought form, but differs by being
oriented at an angle to that cannot be formed by a thought form; that
is, all of its possible angles vary from a center that is perpendicular
to the corresponding arc center of a thought form. Thus, we may
caustiously assert that a real world event without a human agent is
conceptually perpendicular to a thought that is not translated into a
real world event.
Initially, this seems an oddity. A thunderstorm is a very vivid and
spectacular event, but only if there is a “who” to perceive it. Thus,
it is the consciousness of the observer which gives it its
three-dimensionality and therefore its real size and weight. These are
only latent in the event itself.
A corollary generalization is that this model does seem to confirm the
relation posited by quantum physics between the conscious observer and
reality. The thunderstorm does not fail to exist because there is no
observer, but its existence is quite similar to that of a thought not
The third possible variation of an event, coordinates for “Who” and
“Which” but not “What” can also be displayed on this model, resulting
in an arc center that is perpendicular to both the thought form and the
agentless event. What is not clear, however, is the real experience
such a two-dimensional form might represent. A verbless sentence? Or is
this the realm of the verb to be, of identity itself? And is the “Which
plane” also the home of Jung’s archetypes of the collective unconscious?
I wrote that years ago. I was smarter then. And dumber. Back then I
thought it was possible to share ideas. Now I know different. But I
still miss Matt.