Talking First Amendment Cues

Since a lot of people seem to forget this (oh so constitutional) point whenever someone - most recently Milo Yiannopoulous - loses a business deal as a result of saying something terrible, let's take it from the top. Freedom is the freedom to say horribly offensive things and have private-sector entities take you to task in a variety of perfectly legal ways while the government takes no interest whatsoever.

Some Parting Thoughts on the Future of Our Republic

Now that we live in Donald Trump's America - Trumpistan, you like - it's worth taking a moment to consider how much of our public conversation pivots on the question of just which groups we're allowed to disparage based purely on the misdeeds of a small minority. For example, demonizing just the 1% of "the 1%" who improperly use the system to enrich themselves (even though so much is already stacked in the wealthy's favor) is typically shouted down as "class warfare". However, any suggestion that government run social welfare programs do more good than harm despite a tiny amount of actual fraud will regularly be called "un-American". Seriously, we're getting to the point where the only people we're allowed to dismiss based on their occupation and/or economic status are the poor, government employees and prostitutes. To be honest, even that last group get a lot of credit for their skills at draining the balls of "happily married" politicians who like to spout off (so to speak) about "family values" and "self-sufficiency). If we can't get past this nonsense as a nation, maybe it is time to do a hard day reboot after all. Hiroshima, mon amour?

It's All Fun and Games Until Your Way of Life Implodes

I love the Internet and not just because you couldn't have a blog - short for "weblog" - if it wasn't for the World Wide Web. That said, it hasn't all been positive, and we owe it to ourselves to have an honest accounting of the Internet's impact on America.

-The first casualty was the music business.

-The second casualty was empathy.

-The third casualty is apparently democracy.

There Has to Be a Morning After

Dear Friends,

I hope you'll all indulge me in taking a few moments of your time to offer an encouraging thought about the now concrete prospect of President Trump. As all but his most delusional supporters surely realize, Donald Trump is not a great business man. Don't worry, I'm not going to rehash Atlantic City hotels or Trump University. No, the real indictment of his incompetence can be summarized with two words - Trump Steaks. Trump Steaks failed. Yes, Donald Trump was unable to sell beef successfully to a nation whose relationship with beef borders on co-dependence. 

So, having established that Donald Trump is a walking dumpster fire as a businessman, you may be wondering how that benefits America. The truth is that the President really has relatively little impact on the broader economy. Presidents are like NFL quarterbacks if NFL quarterbacks didn't actually impact the game -  they get too much credit when the economy is good and too much criticism when it goes bad (unless, of course, you're Barack Obama in the first case and George W. Bush in the second). In other words, Donald Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office not tending to his businesses and not really doing anything to affect the American economy. With someone other than himself running his businesses, the chances of those businesses prospering and creating jobs is significantly increased. Combining that increase with the lack of effect his actions will have means that President Trump will end up improving the US economy more as President than he would have had he remained (scratch that, ever been) an actual businessman.

On top of that, it's widely documented that Donald Trump does not like to pay people. This seems to be one area where his business experience could be brought to bear on the economy in a positive light. By not paying those to whom America owes money, a Trump Administration will be able to keep the national debt from rising. 

Clearly we live in an age of wonders. What's more, we live in an age where we can learn much if those around us are willing to teach. The lesson today - courtesy of "The Real Donald Trump" is that in America, all things are possible. Anyone - yes anyone - can grow up t become President, provided they're not an older woman who made some bad decisions in decades of highly scrutinized public life.

At the end of the day, we got into this mess together and we're going to get through it together one way or another. My way involves somewhat inappropriate humor and a daily haiku taking aim at President Trump. To one and all I say, follow your path, the way is love.

Love to All (even those of you who voted for Trump

Professor Dolby and the Hyperactive Science of Embracing the Family Business

Photo from npr.org

It would be interesting to make a Venn diagram marking the overlap of musical artists who are considered both “cult favorites” and “one-hit wonders”. It might be even more interesting to hear how those performers feel about these labels. Even when it's applied accurately, the latter carries an undertone of dismissive-ness, while the former can be seen as devaluing the successes that they've achieved. Superficial considerations aside, one such artist for whom neither label seems quite appropriate is Thomas Dolby.

This was readily apparent from Dolby's appearance at the recent Intervention7 convention in Maryland. Taking place not far from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where he’s currently a member of the faculty, Intervention is an annual celebration of the creative arts with a tangible lean towards technology and science-fiction media. Dolby fit the event perfectly - and not just because of his acumen with synthesizers and having watched Doctor Who as far back as 1964. His presentation, which was followed by an enjoyable Q&A and punctuated by a trio of musical performances, was equal parts autobiography and case study in adapting one's talents to a changing cultural environment.

Though he directed the audience to his upcoming memoir The Speed of Sound for anecdotes such as his performance with David Bowie at Live-Aid, Dolby offered plenty of background about his early days in the music business. The stories about working with late-70s and early-80s synthesizer technology were particularly entertaining for anyone whose musical tastes were informed by that era's pop music. Many of his later endeavors have been somewhat removed from that world, but this phase clearly informed much of what came after. Understanding that he developed the visual concept for the hit “She Blinded Me with Science” before coming up with a song that fit it so perfectly makes it clear that he's not enslaved to conventional approaches.

The same commitment to following his own path led him to step back from music and start his own Silicon Valley tech company, Beatnik, in the early-90s. Not surprisingly, they focused on the technical challenges of delivering music online as the "dot-com era" took shape. The work with Beatnik in turn led to him working with Nokia in the early 2000s where he worked on one of contemporary life's most ubiquitous examples of digital technology, the mobile phone ring-tone. 

Not one to outstay his welcome in any endeavor, a move to England's East Anglia region several years ago dovetailed with a return to making music, albeit with a different mindset than his 1980s work. Dolby had arguably been among the first to understand that the music business as it had been when he started out was fading in both relevance and substance. At the very least, he understood the shift better than those within the industry who, as he described it, couldn't understand why so many consumers were reluctant to pay $0.99 for an actual song but willing to spend double that for a low-quality excerpt in the form of a ring-tone. Rather than just releasing a traditional album, he decided on an approach to presenting new music that was a more natural fit for a media environment dominated by social networking and gaming.

Set in a post-apocalyptic alternate history, the game A Map of the Floating City unfolded over three months in 2011. While the effectiveness of its resolution was apparently undercut by a technical mistake on Dolby's part, he seemed genuinely proud of both the game, which fostered significant player interaction within the narrative, and the music that accompanied it. Recorded on his boat-based studio (names the Nutmeg of Consolation. the varied collection of songs makes it plain that his musical curiosity is undiminished. Among the highlights is “Spice Train”, a song characterized by a slinky groove and some nice use of found sound that he performed at Intervention.

The through-line for Dolby's public life has been that each step is very different while still connecting to what's come before. This holds true for his entry into what he calls “the family business”. Both the son and grandson of Cambridge professors, he was appointed Johns Hopkins University’s' first Homewood Professor of the Arts in 2014. Since then, he's taught classes about sound in film and generally worked to make the university's film program more focused on the practical aspects of film-making. To his credit, he's also pushed for more outreach to local schools in Baltimore whose students often don't have access to arts instruction due to funding constraints. 

For anyone wondering - yes, he played both “She Blinded Me with Science” and “Hyperactive”. If Dolby has any ambivalence about the likelihood that he'll be remembered for these pleasingly off-beat favorites, it didn't show in his performance. Self-deprecating at times and incisive at others, though never lacking for wry observations, Professor Thomas Dolby is a forward-looking artist who doesn't mind a bit of looking back. 

I Didn't Leave Doublethink - Doublethink Left Me

I love a good conspiracy theory. JFK assassination ones are my favorite, but I'm not picky, as long as they're good theories. The previous comment might make you think I'm inclined to buy into one of the (many) of the theories involving the "Clinton body count". You would be wrong.

It's not because I plan to vote for Clinton but rather because the conspiracy theories aren't particularly good. Simply put, the theories I hear about Clinton from the farther-left-than-myself remind me of nothing so much as the many I hear from the far-right about President Obama. 

Certainly, the specifics are different. Where they intersect, though, is that both sets require you to hold thoroughly contradictory views of the individuals in question to be equally valid. President Obama is both a feckless weakling and a Machiavellian tyrant. Similarly, if you believe extremists on both the left and the right, Hilary Clinton is equal parts unaccomplished liar with no record to run on or a master manipulator who'd make both Lady Macbeth and Rasputin supplicants themselves before her. 

Obviously, after eight years or so of disrespect for President Obama, I expect this sort of nonsense from the far-right. Hearing it from the far left, however, is disconcerting. You like to think that people on the same general end of the political spectrum share a similar capacity for critical thought, so it's disappointing to hear the same kind affronts to good sense from fellow liberals.

Of course, as I've learned the past several months, those "fellow liberals" probably don't consider me particularly liberal. "Traitor to democracy" is a term I can imagine one person I know quite well using to describe me. In the book 1984, the main character observes that freedom is the freedom to believe that 2+2=4 even if the Party dictates that he should believe it adds up to 5. Seeing so many people who I feel I should be agreeing with embrace this kind of "doublethink" is both sad and frightening.

Like a Boss?

One of the great things about election season is all the high-minded rhetoric that gets injected into the veins of our daily lives. Sometimes it even comes from non-politicians - case in point, Bruce Springsteen. Springsteen's admonition that "some things are more important than a rock show" when announcing the cancellation of a concert in North Carolina to protest a discriminatory law is a wonderful, headline-worthy example of this.

Which is why I wish I was a bit more impressed by his actions. Springsteen is right to use his celebrity to draw attention to what he feels in an injustice and right that some things are more important than a rock show. Has he considered, though, that there are people for whom this wasn't just a rock show, who would have been gainfully employed working at the concert and aren't getting paid as a result of the concert being cancelled - whether they oppose the law or not?

Springsteen's intentions are clearly noble, but his actions highlight a troubling fact about economic boycotts - they often yield collateral damage for those who can least absorb it. I can't help but think that a more constructive approach would have been to go ahead with the concert and take time out to voice his views on the issue (as he's been doing for issues that concern him for decades) and donating his proceeds from the concert to groups working to oppose the law. Both actions would have secured positive media coverage without messing with the livelihoods of those caught in the middle.

Find the Cost of Freedom (A$$hole)

I'm reminded on this "Good Friday" -when Christians honor the concept of sacrifice - that our freedoms as Americans are paid for through the blood not just of our soldiers but also many innocent lives who never auditioned for roles in this particular blockbuster. We owe it to all of them not to be assholes. God bless us, everyone.

Everything's Bigger in Texas - Except Human Decency

It's getting very hard to decide what the biggest affront to human decency within public discourse is these days. That said, I feel confident that the comment from Texas state representative Jason Isaac embedded in this transcript from an NPR story about the US Supreme Court's consideration of a very restrictive bill affecting abortion rights in Texas, in which Isaac offered some words of wisdom for women who live far away from any clinics as a result of these laws.

"Hopefully," Isaac said, "they'll be more preventative and not get pregnant." Women who live far from a clinic should realize, he said, that "Hey, that might still be an option legally — but now I live 300 miles away from the nearest place, I should probably be more careful."

Has anyone else noticed how the party that's supposed to be all about keeping government out of people's private lives has no hesitation about getting involved in any aspect of private life that involves sex? I'm not saying that all Republican politicians are slimy little perverts (too many of them are limp-dicks too manage that). I'm merely wondering if that unpleasant odor is fecal matter or stale spunk from the involuntary ejaculations that presumably accompany the orgasms they attain from proposing such offensive legislation. Then again, since assessing affronts to human decency is often a multiple -choice activity, it may well be both.

Hell Bent for Legs

I imagine some people found themselves wondering what the point was of last night's Doctor Who finale. Near as I can figure it out, it's a story about a guy who had a friend so dear to him that he would put himself through hell over and over for her sake. We should all be so lucky to have such a friend and, though it's pure coincidence that this episode comes so close to my best friend's birthday, the association is unavoidable for me. I would also be dishonest if I didn't mention that I was glad that Steven Moffat came up with a narratively supported rationale to show off Jenna Coleman's legs, which are every bit as swell as her performance last night.

Putin on the Ritz

The love affair a lot of self-proclaimed "conservatives" have with Russian President Vladimir Putin may have finally provided the answer to their long-standing question, "do liberals think we're stupid?" Doubtless they won't like the answer, but what else can you say about a group people who use words like "dictator" and "tyrant" to describe President Obama and then fawn over an honest-to-god dictator like Putin without a hint of self-awareness? Seriously, are they taking numbers to see who gets to suck him off first? I wouldn't want to speculate too deeply about this crowd's paraphilias, but I suspect they'd be in for a big surprise when the object of their infatuation decides to perform an impromptu colonoscopy on them with his KGBoner. 

Counting Down to 1/20/17

I wonder how all the people who've been complaining about President Obama so venomously are going to feel when he leaves office in January 2017. As much as I'd like to think that most will realize that they've spent the better part of a decade being taken in by the Hannity/Levin/Limbaugh-industrial-complex's brand of scare-mongering, I'm skeptical it will unfold that way. More likely, a large number will proudly assert that their commitment to freedom is the only thing that stopped the weak-willed Muslim socialist tyrant in the White House from taking all their guns and declaring "marshal law" (yes, usually spelled that way) so that he could make himself President for Life. 

There are very valid reasons to criticize any President, because - as any responsible citizen understands - politics is easy but governing is hard. The criticism of President Obama is something different - and fouler. It's fouler not just because of its racial/xenophobic undercurrents but rather because it stems from a substantial portion of Americans taking leave of their senses. 

In some ways, it's reminiscent of George Orwell's concept of "doublethink" from 1984, where being a good party member requires one to believe multiple contradictory ideas. Instead of "2 + 2 = 5", it's believing that a bacon-eating, beer-drinking, gay-marriage supporting smoker is actually a Muslim despite evidence to the contrary (and the irrelevance of their faith to being President). The sad part is that those ignoring all evidence to the contrary in an effort to believe that President Obama somehow isn't "one of us" aren't doing so to survive a totalitarian regime but rather by choice. The fact that they have this choice is, of course, empirical evidence that they do not live in a totalitarian society - evidence all too many of them will doubtless ignore.

"War" for Idiots

I can't imagine that any sensible person would see this year's (superficially less festive) Starbucks holiday cups as a sign of some sort of "war on Christmas". On the off-chance that someone who holds such a view is reading this, allow me to make a modest proposal. If you honesty feel compelled to boycott Starbucks over this issue, please put your Christian values to work by donating the money you would have spent there to your local food bank. That way there will be more people able to experience some sort of Christmas while you steel yourself for the battle to save it. Of course, that presumes that the holiday needs saving from anyone other than self-proclaimed Christians who seemingly care more about the cups in which overpriced coffee is served than putting Jesus' teachings about compassion to work here on earth.

Doctor Wow

I was somewhat amazed by tonight's episode of Doctor Who. Before today, I'd always rated Patrick Troughton and Christopher Eccleston as the best actors among the traditional Doctors (i.e. John Hurt is a special case) with incumbent Capaldi and predecessors David Tennant and Paul McGann not too far behind. After tonight, it's clear to me that Capaldi is second to none. Kudos to Steven Moffat and the whole team making the show. There was a time when the idea of a sequel to an earlier story was something to be dreaded - or, at least, approached with major trepidation. So far this season, they've taken on two (arguably three) of the show's most beloved classics and found ways to build on them while telling unique stories in their own right. The only question I have is how this season's finale can possibly top what's come so far.

TP for Our National Bunghole

It puzzles me a bit when I see political groups, especially those with "tea party" leanings, advocating that we "take back America" (or some emphatic variation thereof). It's easy to understand the appeal of this message when the alternative is having to consider nuanced positions on serious policy matters, but a key question remains - who exactly are they taking America back from? In this context, the call to take back America is either hysterical hyperbole or a sincere cry for armed insurrection. If it's the former, it represents an empty slogan intended to help elect the candidates who are likely to be least capable of accomplishing anything productive after the election. If it's the latter, letting the corrupt agents of a tyrannical government know what they're planning represents a serious tactical mistake on their part. Either way, sensible people who care about the fate of our great country would be well-advised to steer clear.

Meet the Propro

No one who's fascinated by American politics would have wanted to miss this week's interview with Donald Trump on Meet the Press. Fitting that description, I even watched it on live TV. It's a testament to our fragmented media environment that a program being compelling enough to watch as it broadcasts is something of a status symbol just as Trump's candidacy is a testament to how dysfunctional politics have become since the last time a Clinton, a Bush and a billionaire were all presidential candidates.

As you might imagine, Trump's responses were perversely fascinating, particularly on questions about the Iran nuclear weapons deal. On the one hand, he was far more realistic than other candidates, acknowledging that a new President can't simply "rip up" the agreement on day one of their administration. On the other, he compensated with a different sort of bluster, insisting that he could have a far better job than the "incompetent" people who negotiated the agreement and vowing that he would go through every part of the agreement - as he claimed to have done with many other bad deals he took over - presumably to find loopholes to be used to his advantage. 

What fascinates me about this approach is that it calls to mind two of the only groups it's socially acceptable to mock, lawyers and federal employees. By my reckoning, the only group (of non felons, at least) that's more acceptable to mock is prostitutes. As an aside, this strikes me as even more perverse because prostitutes provide an unambiguous benefit to society in the form of blow-jobs. If we're all being honest, this in itself is sufficient reason why they shouldn't be mocked.

If The Clash Released An Album Today, It Might Be Called Sandernista

It seems increasingly fashionable in liberal circles to lament the treatment of Bernie Sanders by the media. The general script is that the "mainstream media" (where have I heard that pejorative before?) ignores both the large crowds he draws and the serious issues he talks about in favor of Donald Trump and - especially- Hilary Clinton. Even if you agree with his views and share the (equally laudable) desire to have serious issues widely discussed, there's a worrisome streak of naïveté within the crusade for Sanders. 

It has nothing to do with whether he's "electable" and everything to do with misunderstanding how mass media works just as thoroughly as the most ardent FoxNews zealot does. The "mainstream media" in America, of which FoxNews is as much a part as NBC or the New York Times, isn't liberal or conservative - it's commercial the same way a Marvel comics movie is commercial. 

Like most commercially-minded movies, the media isn't particularly well-suited to handle serious issues and deep thoughts. Where it excels is plot and external conflict. Consequently, politics is inevitably packaged in terms of conflict - winners and losers or protagonists and antagonists. Even when reporters and pundits purport to talk about serious issues, it's in reductive terms and typically in hindsight - as we saw eight years ago with the sparring between Clinton and Obama about whether going to war in Iraq was a mistake and as we see this year with Jeb Bush about whether the Iraq war was a mistake. 

Those who believe that Senator Sanders' campaign should get more coverage are probably right, but in the effort to spread that view it's essential to keep in mind that the reasons why he isn't getting it are far less about his stance on issues (or even his chances of winning an election) than they are about Clinton and Trump being far more entertaining and thus easier to package for the nightly news. Failure to understand that risks sounding an awful lot like the people on "the other side" that we tell ourselves we're smarter than, and we wouldn't want that.

Doctor Who and the Terror of Success

Perhaps it's a function of the social media era, but in many ways the ten years of Doctor Who since its 2005 return have been perhaps the most contentious of the show's entire history. For all the discussion the show generates, though, the return itself is often seems consigned to the periphery. While fans have noted various ten year anniversaries in recent months, such as the premiere of Rose or the debut of John Barrowman as Captain Jack, overall the first "new" season with Christopher Eccleston doesn't seem to get quite the same fan appreciation as more recent ones.

This tendency has always struck me as odd, because a decade after its premiere the 2005 season remains a high-point - arguably THE high-point - of the show's 21st century revival. This feeling crystallized for me a few years back when I tuned into a repeat showing of Eccleston's final episode on BBC America. Though I'd seen it numerous times and don't even think it's that season's best story, it symbolizes the excitement of the show's return for me like almost nothing that's come since.

As much as I've enjoyed Eccleston's successors, there's still something about that single season with him as the Doctor that continues to strike a deeper chord for me. Some of it is certainly Eccleston's portrayal - the way he perfectly conveyed the sense of an alien whose sense of human values was as deeply felt as it was slightly off from ours, but ultimately it's about the attitude driving it, especially that of head-writer Russell T. Davies. Though Davies continued to write (and foster the writing of) some excellent episodes, there was a sense of urgency to this season that they never quite recaptured.

In those first 13 episodes, the production team, especially Davies and his group of fans-turned-professional writers, seemed eager to prove that the television icon of their youth could still appeal to a wide audience in the 21st century. As Davies observed in the liner notes for the DVD release, "it was really the thought of creating something new, and getting new viewers, young viewers, which drove on that team."

The good news, as the BBC's decision to commission additional seasons almost immediately after the premiere indicated, was that they succeeded well beyond expectations. On the flip-side, as Davies' team had to make the transition from a go-for-broke exercise in defying expectations to an ongoing franchise, some of that initial verve seemed to dissipate. While they still delivered some great stories, there was also a sense of the flexible format turning into formula, a feeling compounded by the overuse of the Daleks and a string of un-involving stories pairing the Doctor with characters from history books.

It was a great paradox, far more mind-bending than anything in a Steven Moffat script. The team who fearlessly reinvented Doctor Who in a valiant effort to prove that mainstream TV drama could be bold as well as entertaining now seemed to be motivated by fear of alienating the mass audience that had embraced their initial approach so readily. It was as if they had been prepared to face any outcome except massive success, and by the end of David Tennant's and Russell T. Davies' run the show's production team seemed to trust their audience less and less to accept more challenging storylines. The practical result was an increasing number of stories came across as if all they felt they needed to do was come up with an earthshaking premise, usually involving the return of old friends and/or enemies, and didn't have to worry about the story all that much. Despite some renewed spark and a desire to push the bounds of serialized storytelling on Doctor Who, the Moffat/Smith era often fell into that same trap, even as the show's popularity spiked.

Not wishing to be a complete curmudgeon, I'll be the first to admit that, even during subpar stories, there were great compelling character moments to be had. Scenes like the Doctor's heartbreaking goodbye to Donna in Journey's End and virtually every onscreen moment shared by the Doctor and Bernard Cribbins as Wilfred in The End of Time were beautifully written and performed, but they seemed increasingly at odds with increasingly more frustrating plot-lines. Here again, this pattern was often repeated during Smith's tenure, and - despite being optimistic on balance - the jury is still out on the tandem of Moffat and Capaldi. 

Of course, none of that matters watching The Parting of the Ways. Whenever I see it, I remember how exciting it was to have the show I'd loved for so many back after so many years and in many ways better than ever, with Christopher Eccleston's Doctor being exactly the one I wanted even if I never could have imagined him in the role before I read about the casting. And if Doctor Who has failed to be quite so revolutionary in subsequent seasons, it diminishes neither the quality nor the value of the special set of episodes that guaranteed its future.

Santorum's Donut

I've been trying for some time to envision how a Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage would affect my "traditional marriage". I finally found the answer via a donut. Contrary to what former Senator Rick Santorum might imagine - or actually believe - I did not presume that "gay marriage" would somehow pave the way to a bigamous union with this or any other  form of fried dough. Superficial as it may sound, the answer was a matter of appearances. Looking down at that sinfully delicious item on my plate, it was obvious. Zero - the answer was zero. A legal decision allowing consenting adults who love each other - or, at least, believe they do in that moment - doesn't diminish my marriage one bit. At times I wonder how much of the opposition stems not from misguided yet sincere religious conviction but rather the fear that the thousands and thousands of gay couples who've stayed together - sometimes for decades - despite decades of discrimination will make them look bad. Of course, people couldn't be that shallow, could they?

Tasty

I think it's high time for an honest conversation on the topic of taste. Just as the reception of artistic expression is thoroughly subjective, all such expression is thoroughly manipulative. Consequently, the fact that someone finds something that's hugely popular to be hugely terrible as well does not necessarily mean that this person has better artistic judgment. It merely means that they're not susceptible to that particular form of manipulation. We confuse our personal tastes with quantifiable quality at our own risk, especially when we seek to make those tastes fundamental parts of our identity. With that said, should I listen to David Bowie's album Never Let Me Down or watch The Phantom Menace again?