I haven't been writing about my reading challenge, but I have been pursuing it. The lengthy delay means my reflections aren't going to be what I want them to be. But because I'm neurotic, I won't be able to just move on if I don't write something here.

For February (yes, February), I picked up another William Gibson novel, <i>Pattern Recognition</i> which was published in 2002. According to Wikipedia, Gibson was immersed in the work in September 2001. Then came 9/11, which for him, changed everything. And that is one theme of this book...that we have entered a new era.

I loved this book, by the way. Like, really loved it. Even though Neuromancer was a little over my head, I'm really impressed at Gibson's deftness in communicating poignant human insights.

The book is about Cayce Pollard, (pronounced "Case"...as in, Case the hacker from Neuromancer, even though the character's parents presumably named her after Edgar Cayce), who is a "coolhunter"...employed by marketing firms to identify the next cool thing. Cayce's particular expertise isn't a talent or a learned skill; she has an allergic reaction to successful branding. So this guy, Hubertus Bigend, hires her first to analyze a new logo for his company, and second, to hunt down the origin of a series of video clips that are being posted anonymously online. Cayce is a fanatic of the videos and is part of a subculture that has built up around them. She goes from London to Tokyo to Moscow and has a series of dangerous adventures.

- There is no science fiction here. ONly strange technological and political and commercial realities.
- I'm a Lost fan, and Pattern Recognition, through video subculture thread, captures what I think is its genius, which is to create a sense of participation among fans. Lost does this by hiding "clues" in the show and in various places online. It was social media before social media was cool.
- Speaking of social media, I caught a snippet of Ashton Kutcher on Oprah yesterday, where he was talking about the way social media has heightened the opportunity for everyday people to exercise a certain amount of power. With Twitter and Facebook and the blogosphere, we're all a little closer to our 15 minutes of fame. I think a lot of us find a lot to fear in this new reality, and maybe those fears have legitimacy, but it also offers at least a perception of increased control over our lives as well as a renewed opportunity for genuine collaboration and empathy.
- Which is interesting in the context of Cayce's friendship with another footage fanatic, Parkaboy. She knows him only virtually, but he's the truest friend she has.
- It was strange reading about our immediate past while it was still present and Gibson's projections of where a paradigm shifting even might take us.
- And I haven't even said anything about patterns.

Favorite quotes:

A conversation between Bigend and Cayce.

Of course, we have no idea, now, of who or what the inhabitants of our future might be," he said, " In that sense, we have no future. Not in the sense that our grandparents has a future, or thought they did. Fully imagined cultural futures were the luxury of another day, on in which 'now' was of some greater duration. For us, of course, things can change to abruptly, so violently, so profoundly, that futures like our grandparents' have insufficient 'now' to stand on. We have no future because our present is too volatile."

The future is there, Cayce hear herself say, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. And from where they are, the past behind us wil look nothing at all ike the past we imagine behind us now...I know tha the one constant in history is change; the past changes. Our version of the past will interest the future to about the extent we're interested in whatever past the Victorians believed in. It simply won't seem very relevant.

Although I've already finished the next book, thought it would be interesting to capture my initial thoughts about direction:

- Another Gibson, specifically Spook Country, which apparently is a bit of a sequel to Pattern Language.
- Something about Electronic Voice Phenomena. Cayce's mother was flaked out on it, thinking she could get messages from Cayce's father, who was apparently killed on 9/11, by listening to the white noise on a radio.
- Russian organized crime

But what I decided was to bring it back to my life, and read about branding. So, I read <i>The Brand Gap</i>, which I'll review here sooner or later.

I've just been basically uninspired since about the beginning of March, but Susan Miller thinks I'll perk up again soon. How's that for flakey.

I've had a 900 and currently drive a bright red 2000 9-3 hatchback. The article mentions that GM bought 50% of Saab in the late 90s, but it wasn't until 2005 or so that they took over the design. That year, I saw their Saab 9-3 and thought it was a Buick. I was heartbroken. I hope they find a way to save themselves.

www.salon.com/news/brand_graveyard/feature/2009/03/26/saab/index.html

 

( Full article behind the cut )

 

I finished the book a month ago and wrote this a month ago. Editing and posting just seemed beside the point after that…

OK. Here's the truth. I couldn't stand it. I mean, I'm not saying it's a horrible book. It's not. But there is a reason this genre has fallen outside my reading list. We are not made for each other.

I don't think I've ever ready any real sci-fi before. Does Wrinkle In Time count?

I chose Neuromancer as the first installment in my "Reading Matrix," heh. One goal of this little experiment was to inspire me to get beyond my normal reading boundaries. This book kept coming to mind as I was developing this idea, then when I posted about my plans, Neuromancer was the first recommendation I got, from ffantastik. So, it was either a sign from God or Wintermute stepping in to manipulate the situation.

For the few of you who don't know, Neuromancer is a sci-fi novel written by William Gibson. It tells the story of a down-on-his-luck hacker being drawn into a global scam to hack an Artificial Intelligence, the details of which I'm still a little fuzzy about. What's amazing about it is the novel was published in 1984 and introduces concepts most people I know couldn't begin to fathom back then (well, I was 9, but still). Gibson coined the term cyberspace* and perpetuated it in Neuromancer and the book talks about the matrix long before Keanu Reeves swallowed the red pill.

Here’s another prescient and timely quote:

Power, in Case’s world, meant corporate power. The zaibatsus, the multinationals that shaped the course of human history, had transcended old barriers. Viewed as organisms, they had attained a kind of immortality. You couldn’t kill a zaibatsu by assassinating a dozen key executives; there were others waiting to step up the ladder, assume the vacated position, access the vast banks of corporate memory.

Kind of the problem with the banking crisis, right? Businesses can’t be prosecute, and the individuals running them are really just following the rules of the no-rules game. Most of the time, they haven’t actually acted criminally. But that’s obviously a whole different post.

I'm not going to attempt some kind of review of this book. I'm not qualified. But because I work around technology, I decided it was sort of perverse** that I haven't read this book. (Maybe I tried, a long time ago? It was either this or Johnny Mnemonic...I didn't get very far.)

At the same time, all day long I'm permeated with memories of the book. I'm glad it's assimilating; maybe it will gradually make more sense. And I like having the context and the vocabulary. So, in the spirit of *my* matrix, I’m going to give Gibson another shot, with Pattern Recognition. Based on what I read in Wikipedia, I guess Gibson has always been writing about the era we’re living in, and his most recent novels are set in present day. So we’ll see where this one takes us.

*Cyberspace is wonderfully defined as "a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions."
**perversions are behaviors AIs can't predict.

1. Unless you have days of work planned in advance, take your computer home.
2. Do not come into the office without prearranged, etched in concrete promises of actual work.
3. Conference calls do not count as actual work worth going in the office for.
4. Have a 72-hour schedule for your life. If the office can't work with that, then too bad for them.

Reading Lenore Thomson's Personality Type: An Owner's Manual produced an insight that now seems so flipping obvious/

In Jungian types, the final designation (either P or J) doesn't really have attributes, but it has implications that kind of look like attributes. The common assumption is that J types are more scheduled and organized, while P types are more creative and spontaneous. More specifically, J implies the ability and tendency to be decisive, whereas P more implies the ability and tendency to keep options open. The drawbacks being, of course, that J's can be judgmental and P's can be flaky.

This works for extraverted types, because for an extraverted type, the function that the P or J modifies is that individual's primary function. So, an ENTJ's primary function is extraverted Thinking, which is the Judging function.

But for introverts, the opposite is true. The P or J modifies the secondary function, which means that the introvert's primary function is opposite the one modified by P or J. So, an ISTP's primary function is not extraverted Sensation, which is the function modified by the P, but it is the J function, introverted Thinking.

So, if it really does follow that J functions are more conclusion-oriented, then iPs are more likely to make judgments than iJs. The difference, I think, between an eJ and an iP would be then that the eJ would apply that judgement to extraverted activities, like being somewhere on time, while an iP would apply that judgment to interior activities, like personal taste (including opinions about people).

I'm leaving out a lot of type mechanics here, so I may lose most people. I'd be more than happy to explain to anyone who's interested. But I just wanted to capture this, because it was such a Doh!

Tried searching in Google just now, both from my Firefox widget and from google.com. Also tried from Safari. Every result came up with "This site may harm your computer" in the listing, and if I click a link, there is "This site may harm your computer" interstitial.

Tried searching from yahoo.com and it works fine.


I'm towards the end of Neuromancer and feel strangely responsible for this problem.

Is it OK if I use the word “hate” for my feelings about the Republicans? Or maybe “despise” is better? Ok…I’ll revise. I hate AND despise the approach Republicans are taking toward the stimulus bill, toward Guantanamo, toward ethics investigations. The problem is, these actions call into question so completely the character of these perpetrators, that to hate their sins really means to hate the sinners. It makes me ill.

 

I try very hard to be a fair-minded person. At the very least, when I criticize one side, I always ask myself whether I would have the same criticism if the action were coming from the other side. While a negative answer does not always nullify my original criticism, I have more than once caught myself in ideological or partisan arguments. This is not that difficult.

 

Even for the last eight years I’ve tried hard to find good intentions among evil actions, and largely managed to delude myself or understate (and therefore misunderstand) tragic consequences. But having the light shined on them so brightly…

 

Also, I’m not going to apologize anymore for my enthusiasm for Obama. It is just that…enthusiasm, not adoration or worship or reification.  I'm maintaining a skeptical eye, but maybe showing enthusiasm for the good will give me strength to confront bad when I see it.

 

I really thought my interest in politics would pass away after the inauguration, but it appears to be only increasing.

From Glen Greenwald, via throwingstardna 

It's not really "complex" to understand this: the fact that the U.S. Government accuses someone of X does not mean that they are actually guilty of X. That's true even where "X = Terrorist." That's why, in America, we have these things called "trials" and "due process." Sometimes the Government is wrong. Sometimes it is inept. Sometimes it is corrupt and tyrannical. Therefore, these things we call "checks" are necessary before we assume that Government accusations are true and before we allow the Government to put people into cages for life. We don't actually know that someone is a "Terrorist" until a trial, with due process, establishes that the Government's accusations are true

I would also add that even if a person's terrorist standing is proven, that does not exempt them from due process. Our constitution says that "all men are created equal." We've already expanded that to women and non-whites. Why do we not realize that if we are going to maintain our standing in the world--screw the world...our own integrity--then we cannot assume the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness apply only to American citizens by American citizens.

Reading the conversations about Obama's order re: Guantanamo and torture literally brings tears to my eyes. How is it that good, law-abiding, self-proclaimed Christians don't recognize that the actions and approach of the Bush administration were 1) anti-Christian; 2) anti-democracy; 3) un-American; 4) self-defeating?

And we want our military to capture these "terrorists" but we don't want to take responsibility for holding them in "our own backyards?" It's hypocritical and ignorant.
.

RE: leadership

What encourages me in a leader is less the plans and direction he or she articulates than the mere acknowledgement that a condition exists and the ability to describe the condition clearly. That is more than most people are willing or able to do, and allows me to trust that wherever he takes us will be an improvement.

RE: “rightward drift”

This morning, NPR mentioned Obama’s rightward drift. I have my doubts about whether Obama ever “drifts” anywhere. It takes one kind of person to stand on the left and turn his attention to the left…to “preach to the choir.” It takes another kind of person to stand on the left and project his voice out to the right, to acknowledge the humanity of his opposition, to make himself understood by those who resist understanding. Whether he is succeeding, I don’t know, but the effort is necessary.

RE: speech

There’s been a lot of criticism about the lack of “soaring rhetoric” in Obama’s inauguration speech. Really, though. He has at least four* historic speeches on his resume as it is. What is there left to say at this point? It’s time to do something.

 

 

*2004 DNC speech, race speech,  2008 DNC speech, acceptance speech. Any others?

I love looking at my library. Although its elements may seem disparate, its whole demonstrates a connection between parts like personality type theories, biographies of founding fathers, and theological commentaries.

So, I had this idea. For a year (at least!) I will read one book a month that follows a thread, starting with a random book of my (or your?) choosing. In January, I will read the founding book*. My February book must be a book that is related to the first book, whether by author, main subject, influence, or clear subtheme. The March book will relate to the February book in the same way.

That's where you come in. Recommend a book. Your favorite book, a book you haven't read but that interests you, something that you think would be "good for me." I'll start in January with one of your suggestions (probably). Challenge me!





*My initial idea was to read a biography of Benjamin Franklin, because I adore him, but that almost seems like cheating because his determined curiosity and influence on a seminal historical moment leaves me with an almost infinite selection for the following book.

I guess this has already made the rounds. And if you agree that Proposition 8 is a farce of democracy, then you probably don't need to watch. But if you supported Proposition 8, if you honestly believe that love between any two consenting adults can affect your marriage, if you honestly believe that our democracy or your religion gives you the right or responsibility to enact sanctions that prevent one segment of the population from living out the privileges that you have, then please watch. Please.

The night after the election, I had two dreams.

1. I was swimming in a canyon, with polar bears. I was awed, but not afraid.

2. From above, I was watching a stylized Barack Obama build a footbridge between the land and a home that was floating on the ocean. He was carrying the pieces on his back. It was as if he were building the bridge with two pieces: He put one down, then the other, then had to turn around to pick up the first one to make the next step.

Dream moods:

Bears symbolize the cycle of life and death and renewal. It may signal of period of introspection and thinking.

To see a polar bear in your dream, signifies a reawakening.

To dream that you are swimming, suggests that you are exploring aspects of your unconscious mind and emotions. The dream may be a sign that you are seeking some sort of emotional support. To dream that you are swimming underwater, suggests that you are completely submerged in your own feelings. You are forcing yourself to deal with your emotional difficulties.

To see a canyon in your dream, represents your unconscious mind and hidden feelings. It may point to emotions and relationships that you did not recognize.

To see an ocean in your dream is indicative of some spiritual refreshment, tranquility and renewal. To dream that you are traveling across the ocean, signifies new found freedom and independence. You are showing great courage.

To dream that you are crossing a bridge, signifies an important decision or a critical junction in your life. This decision will prove to be a positive change with prosperity and wealth in the horizon. Bridges represent a transitional period in your life where you will be moving on to a new stage.

I finally joined Facebook.

What a bizarre place.

I am so proud.

I read a report from Iraq on CNN. Apparently, many Iraqis figured the American elections were rigged and there was no way Obama would ever win. What a statement we made for democracy.


A republic, friends, if you can keep it. Maybe we have.


Voting yesterday was a surreal experience, one I'll never forget.

Others may never forget my attire:


Those say "We The People" (PhotoBooth shows everything backwards...I didn't wear my socks that way.) Don't you think the buckled loafers are a nice touch?

I'm a little disappointed about Georgia. I really thought it was going to be closer, but that's the distorted view I get from living in Dekalb County. But that would have been a real "post-racial" coup.

And the Props. All appear to have succeeded, although 8 is still apparently too close to call. This makes me ill.

One more....

Shine a light
from slacktivist by Fred Clark

( The beef )

Racism, bigotry and xenophobia are immoral, of course, but they are also, just as fundamentally, untrue. They are unreal. They provide a theory and a framework for living in the world that cannot be reconciled with the reality of this world. The person who chooses to accept that unreal framework is thus constantly forced to choose between unreality and reality, between the theory and the facts. To hold onto the unreal framework, they must continuously reject reality. And every time they do that, they get a little bit dumber.**

I don't mean for this to be an entirely abstract discussion. I'm interested in the relationship between stupidity and racism because I want to know which is the root cause. This is a matter of both diagnosis and prescription. And I believe there is a prescription. The Mittens may be stupid, but they do not have to remain so. I believe there is hope for them.

The truth is that unreality is simply unsustainable. Maintaining one's belief in an unreal and untrue theory takes too much work. The vigilant rejection of reality has to be, on some level, exhausting. Even the elaborate support structures provided by Fox News and AM radio cannot wholly shield one from the constant intrusions of the world that is. Denying the existence of that world requires more help than even the voluminous right-wing echo chamber can provide.

This, I think, is part of why we're seeing such desperate vehemence at the Palin rallies. The crowd realizes that the unreality it has chosen cannot long survive if the majority of their fellow citizens and neighbors refuse to play along. As long as the entire crowd is choosing to "see" the emperor's splendid new clothes, then it's relatively easy to go along with that choice. But once the crowd reaches a tipping point, once the majority are choosing reality and the truth, then the emperor's nakedness become impossible to deny. For those who have chosen bigotry, racism and xenophobia, this election represents just such a tipping point. They're watching unreality slip through their fingers and they're trying, desperately, to grasp it even tighter.

After this election, part of our task -- yours, mine and our new president's -- will be to find a way to gently invite and welcome these folks back into the real world. My suspicion, or at least my hope, is that eventually, once they are unburdened by the need to constantly choose unreality and therefore stupidity, they will find this a great relief.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* I'm not here discussing more structural or institutional forms of racism, nor am I talking here about the more general self-justifying mythologies that every privileged people repeats to itself as an apologetic. Set aside here the question of whether or not bigotry is a pervasive, endemic reality in American culture. For the sake of this discussion, let us recalibrate our tools to discount for whatever pre-existing base level of bigotry there may be so that we can here focus on the exceptional bigot -- the sort of person who stands out as more bigoted than the surrounding/underlying culture as a whole.

** At this point you may be suspecting that this post is little more than an elaborate attempt to repackage the argument of the book of 1 John in non-sectarian terms. Well, yeah. Did it work?

It's a little slow at the mall today...


Hilary Rosen
AC360° Contributor

There is a controversial but important initiative on the ballot for California voters to consider tomorrow. It is called Proposition 8. Prop 8’s purpose is to overturn a recent California State Supreme Court decision that determined that gays and lesbians deserved equal protection and rights under the state constitution and that includes the right to avail them of state sanctioned marriage. Prop 8 would amend the state constitution and eliminate the right to marry for these citizens.

This is an extremely important issue and it has gotten a lot of attention in California. Almost anything that happens in California can be important given the fact that the state represents more than 10% of the US population, but important principles are also at stake for all Americans.

In my view, the most important reason to oppose this initiative is the concern about fairness. When voters are given the opportunity to take away another citizen’s constitutional rights, aren’t we all at risk? Why should the government be empowered to interfere in the privacy of someone’s relationship?

Let’s look at a few more of the arguments those urging support for Prop 8 are making.

1. “We must protect traditional marriage” – with all due respect, traditional marriage is in a lot more trouble than a few gays and lesbians getting married threatens. More than one in three heterosexual marriages in this country end in divorce. The leader of the Republican Party is on his second marriage – and we know about that messy divorce! So which traditional marriage needs protecting? Someone’s first? Their second? Their third? It makes no sense to conclude that same sex couple seeking the commitment that the institution of marriage offers, could possibly do any worse with it than heterosexuals have done.

2. “It’s against my religion to support same sex marriage” – Your church doesn’t have to perform any marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. The law allows all religions to continue to have their own rules. But legal marriage is not a religious marriage. It is essentially a license by the state that has nothing to do with religion. Same sex couples are happy to get married in the courthouse and not the church – though there are clearly some religious denominations that welcome the chance to celebrate such unions.

3. “I don’t want my kids to hear about same sex marriage schools” – Nothing in the Constitution provides for education in the schools about same sex couples. Local school boards would still make education curriculum decisions and schools would still be able to have any curriculum they choose. Even the fact that many children of gays and lesbian couples are already in school doesn’t change the need for much of the education about ALL relationships to remain the responsibility of parents.

4. “Why do you need the word Marriage?” – Unfortunately that is the word that defines in both state and federal law all of the benefits and legal responsibilities that a legal union require. “Separate but equal” is a failed concept of justice in this country. We tried it with race only to determine that integration served the nation’s goals much better. . It is impossible to confer access and equality with a new category of relationships. And based on constitutional reasoning, we shouldn’t have to try to change each and every separate law when the whole point of a constitution is to afford sweeping protection for all of its citizens under all laws.

It seems odd that this issue should even be on the ballot for a vote Tuesday. After all, how many of us would really want our relationships put up for a vote? It is hard enough to get the approval of your family and friends of the person you want to marry, imagine if you had to get the approval of 15 or so million voters in your state.

In the midst of this most important Presidential election, the nation will also be watching California Tuesday to see whether reason and compassion prevails and Proposition 8 is defeated.

Hate's last stand
It's racism and homophobia, neck and neck, down to the wire. Can they hang on?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Let's not get carried away.

Let's not go so far as to suggest we're about to enter into some sort of fluffy utopian tofu puppy happyland where nipples fly free and consciousness expands and the fetid rivers of racism and homophobia that course through the American heartland like acidic sewage somehow magically vanish, somehow become dramatically curtailed, should the twin forces of progress known as President Obama and a vanquished California Proposition 8 somehow come to pass.
Mark Morford

Let's not be naive. Just because it looks like the Western world is about to get its first black intellectual president, just because the nation's most influential and populous state could very possibly decide, finally and forevermore, that two adults of the same gender can get married without the cruel hammer of religious ignorance crashing down upon their heads, well, this can't possibly be a sign that racism and homophobia, two of our three most revered national pastimes (don't forget the sexism!) are going away anytime soon.

Unless it can. Unless some of our darkest cultural demons could finally be up for a major exorcism. Could it be true? Could this vote, at the very least, be one hell of a giant step forward in the fight against two toxic beliefs that have poisoned the American mindset for ages? Let me suggest: You're damn right it could.

( Read more )

So then, I am not here to suggest the impossible. I am not declaring that President Obama and a DOA Prop. 8 will somehow instantly put a cap on the fire hoses of discrimination and intolerance that regularly spit their bile across the land. This is not really the point.

The point is, once again, all about energy. About tonal shift. A deeply intelligent black American president changes the racism game forever, at a very deep level indeed. And a resounding defeat of intolerance in California sends perhaps the most powerful message yet to the conservative screamers across the land.

The message is this: You do not have to change your beliefs. You do not have to budge an inch on your views. You are still free to hate black people, still free to fear gay people (or demean women) all you like. It's simply that we as an Obama-led, gender-inclusive nation no longer have any real use for your brand of poison. We are done with you.

And if that's not a magnificent jolt of progress, I don't know what is.

So, my mom forwarded to me this email, from my aunt to my dad, which took place after a conversation in which Dad told my aunt that he didn't know who Daniel and I were voting for, but that he had raised two smart, informed free-thinkers and he didn't tell us how to vote.

Note: My aunt sent this email to my dad, other members of our extended family including my cousin's mother-in-law, and people outside the family. She did not, however, bother copying me or my brother.

Dearest Brother,

How is it that you produced two cute little communists, and I produced two cute little American capitalists? We both gave them great educations.

This makes me so sad that we both produced free thinkers and that Leanne and Daniel have chosen the left, while my girls have chosen the far, far right!! Praise the Lord!!!

My love for Daniel and Leanne will always be with them. I will also pray for them because I believe that one cannot be a Christian and also vote for a democrat (communist). I will pray that they “see the light”.

I love you brother,

AJ
( My response )

She's not replied. I copied my email only to other members of our family, and have gotten really sweet notes from both her daughter and her step-son.

My mother was livid. I was mad, but less about the content of my aunt's email (which is not so much new rhetoric as it is escalated) than about the fact that she felt the need to broadcast it to so many other people and then didn't copy me. Mostly I was kind of thrilled, but I wasn't sure why. I think, really, it's 1) she sort of brings out the best in me and 2) she gives me a forum to speak indirectly to my parents.

And that brings me to the true upside. I pointed out to both my parents, but especially my mother, that this attack from my aunt is exactly the consequence of having people like Sarah Palin influential in our political system. After that, she read ( my brother's email )
and responded:

You are my children!!! Yea!!! Even though you two may disagree with me on a lot of things and I with you, I am so proud of you both. You two may have made my decision** for me as to who I will vote for.

Love you both very much,
Mom

* This is hilarious on so many levels, and yes, we are from Alabama, why do you ask? The whole thing is so who he is: smart, well-informed in the costume of an Alabama redneck. Notice, too, that he took it not at all personally. Also, my dad hadn't read my brother's email when he lamented having put us in this position, especially Daniel, who (because he's in Ukraine) couldn't defend himself.

**I don't know if she means Obama or Bob Barr. I suggested that if she couldn't bring herself to vote for Obama, to consider Barr as an alternative.

( Can't leave out my dad!! )

The Man Who Helped Drive Powell Away From His Party
by Max Blumenthal

( Why I despise Bush, via Why I despise James Dobson )