13 November 2016


I'd say the unthinkable has happened - except as D-Force reminded me, I had actually thought a Trump win had been likely since the summer.  I wanted to take a few days to let the election results sink in and be able to reflect with some distance.

Now that we find ourselves here, I think it's useful to look forward, rather than back (you know, like back to when I and many others were rationally trying to explain why Bernie had a much better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election because it was such an overwhelmingly Change Election...).  Looking forward, I see the three most likely paths that a Trump presidency holds in store for us, and I rank these in the order that I think them likeliest to less likely (note not least likely - I won't even present that here...):
Trump assumes power in January, and by the time we get to Inauguration Day, we find that he has oddly stopped talking about "The Wall" and "Muslim Bans" and he is instead focused on "Border Security" and "Safe Zones for Refugees" (safely located in their own countries or regions, naturally).  Trump works closely with the Republicans to gut our national safety net and build a non-progressive tax system that waits for financial relief to "trickle down" to unprotected workers who have lost the right to unionize or earn a fair, living wage.  In other words, he behaves as any normal Republican would have in office - he's Mitt Romney, only richer and more orange.
The Result: The Establishment (K-Street, Republican & Democratic Parties, most Major Media outlets, Wall Street, Middle Management, Delaware and Connecticut) thinks they've won, and scary 2016 is behind us; Righteous Anger Comedy (John Oliver, Samantha Bee, The Daily Show, etc.) have a field day - it's like the heady days of mocking the George W Bush years on steroids on PCP; Flyover Country Working Class Rage (this has been mis-diagnosed pre- and post-election as "the last stand of the old white guy" or racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all of that was certainly a part of the Trump Coalition, but there are two major groups who overwhelmingly elected Trump: Working Class Labor and White Middle Management. 
This is not a natural partnership and can't stand.  If Trump proceeds on the most likely course (#1), as I see it, The Tea Party and Working Class Crossover vote (progressives bemoaning the outcome of the election as depressed voter turnout and voter suppression - both valid, but not the whole story - have to get comfortable with the fact that the Democratic Party also lost voters this cycle) will remain furious.  Trump's more extreme policies (both the racist and xenophobic ones and the more tenable radical positions on trade and mass military interventionism) would be tempered and mostly forgotten in this scenario.  In 2020, the Outrage for Radical Change electorate will still be out there.  It's key to remember this voting bloc is neither inherently conservative or liberal - if they calcify around a specific candidate, it need not be a Republican or Democrat (or left or right Third Party). 

The other likely (tho slightly less so, methinks) outcome of Trump's assumption of power in January is that he actually tries to do what he has said he would do.  The uncertain part here would be the order of things.  If Trump starts, as he seems to have hinted, with a Public Works program (Massive Infrastructure Investment), he would likely get cooperation from the Democrats.  That would be wise, as I'm not sure whether Democrats would go along with any proposed measures of Trump's after he starts down any racist or xenophobic policy paths.  Mass protests would follow.  It's difficult to say how long these first several evenings of protests will progress.  They are important, and need to be a part of the conversation, but if Trump actually starts enacting is catastrophic policies, the Foolhardy Wall, the Unconstitutional Muslim Ban, Alarmist Foreign Policy (possibly including either Russia-loving or going to proxy war with Russia in Syria), Protectionist Economics, and Extreme Blue Collar Job Creation (this is accomplished either through the Massive Infrastructure Investment mentioned above or via Soviet-Style Factory Takeover by the State {or better by local Municipalities}). 
The Result: What's strange is that the complete package of Trump's proposals are all over the map.  The question is whether we can parse the policy from the president.  Can the protests turn toward specific policies (Don't take away our Obama-Care! Enact Progressive Tax Reform!), and not just be against the figurehead.  I've already heard anecdotal stories of people helping strangers out against bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic attacks on an individual basis.  The question is whether protest can be used surgically to disagree with the deplorable policies, while welcoming the Public Works and creating trade policies that don't solely support the Financial Class.

Less likely (though not least likely - I won't even present my unlikely scenarios - some of which are quite hopeful and absurdly optimistic), but still a distinct possibility (maybe for example as likely as a Donald Trump presidency!) is that Something Happens.  Of course unforeseen things will occur in the course of the next four years.  Most of the way that I select a presidential candidate is based on how I think they will deal with the unforeseen.  That said, what I mean with #3 is that instead of Trump getting into a room with professional advisors, he acts out.  If North Korea launches an attack or China stretches further into the South China Sea - perhaps the Russia/Syria/Iran/ISIS hotbed becomes hotter - a question of a very sudden militaristic response that isn't thought out and can't be taken back. 

The Result: Goddess knows, but if anything outrageous were to occur, it may well spark mass protest, from people across the political spectrum.  If we have a person with control of the most powerful military in the history of the world who decides to wield it, and in particular who wields it toward un-humanistic outcomes, it will be scary - and a frightening opportunity to unify a seemingly un-unifiable populace.

14 October 2016

Setting the Stage

... remember when we thought Donald Trump was unqualified and unelectable for the Presidency because he wanted to deport 11 million people and have a religious test as part of entry into the United States?

Oh that we could go back to that simpler time...

Linda Tirado wrote an article about Trump's speech yesterday, and it rightly identifies some of the fascist elements of Trump's campaign, and in particular the appeals to the sovereign-citizen set.  What Tirado only implicitly points to, is the fact that it doesn't actually matter all that much that Donald Trump will now most likely lose this election in November. 

Way back when, in the Summer and Fall of 2015, I was opining to anyone who would listen that Bernie was going to surprise everyone and come out of the Democratic primaries as the nominee and the Trump phenomenon would fade and we'd have a nice boring candidate like Jeb or Kasich on the Republican side.  At first glance, it seems I was wrong twice - but I think the actual case is that I was right, just in the wrong way. 

I've long thought that America was ripe for a fascist uprising.  And that said fascist movement could be either a leftist or rightist one (or both/neither, as this one seems to be).  It has always been the great danger of the right and left media as cottage industries, that intelligent, critical, political thought would be a casualty of our time.  Fascism, in whatever form, was always going to be a possible result.

The Right may well have started this media war with the explosion of talk radio in the 1980s, but it has been a boon to Democrats, because it's sated their base, while fundamentally undermining all that they hold dear.  It feels/felt so good to sit watching Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, and knowing that we were laughing with them from the right side of history or learn from John Oliver what some of the most egregious and offensive offenses are of our time - but all the watching and the reading can stagnate a drive to action. 

My favorite podcaster, Dan Carlin, dropped a new episode of his politics and current events show, Common Sense, yesterday.  And he reiterated an idea that he said months and months ago, before we knew how the primaries were going to turn out, which was, essentially: "you think 2016 is interesting/terrifying... just wait for 2020."

American Fascism isn't going away any time soon.  Because the wealth inequality (which is so much more important an issue than income inequality) isn't going away.  Nor is a culture of ressentiment, nor the anger and the know-nothing-ness, nor any of a cadre of issues that culminate in present-day America being a great place to fulminate fascism.

We're going to be very good at this, and that's not a little bit scary.  Hillary Clinton, it now seems, will win in November - and hopefully by a surprising margin and with a new Senate majority (and dream of dreams a newly-democratic House as well!).  If all that happens, we may even have some progress - baby steps, but progress - toward starting to fix some of the edge problems (adding a public option to a massive insurance-company-backed health care program, finding a way to make Medicare and Social Security not go broke in the immediate future, starting to think about actually taking a few steps toward beginning to slow our contribution to global warning, etc.).

However, the ready-to-be fascist angry folks out there will still be out there.  And they're not all right-wing nuts (some of them are left wing nuts like me!).  The Anger Election of 2016 will not have gotten what it really wanted (an outsider who doesn't care about how we've done things up until now) - it will still want to be fed.

So, America, let's talk... before it's too late.

09 October 2016

F(r)ight Night!

I'm clearly not the first person to have this thought, but as I sit and watch the early minutes of bad that is the Bears Colts game (I always think of a Bears Colts game as a Super Bowl rematch!) at beautiful Lucas Oil Stadium, I am awaiting a day of competitive, combat sport competition - first this epoch battle to see which defense is absurd and which is merely amateurish. 


This will be followed by the second presidential debate, featuring Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, which, worst case scenario, may well end in an actual brawl (not quite joking).  I think best case, it will be wildly offensive, spite-filled, and misogynistic. 

I don't usually do timely here, but the reason these two items conjoin in my mind, is because I often think about what these massive stadiums will look like after our civilization is faded. 

This presidential cycle has looked a lot like the beginning of the end - either a continuation of tap-the-brakes policies, occasionally modestly holding off ecological and economic catastrophe; or a fool and compulsive liar who will do goddess knows what if he is elected. 

I've seen this all before - but mainly on TV or in game play.  See you at the stadium (or maybe the thunderdome?)

18 September 2016

Parallel (time) Lines

I have had an evening (early morning, really) of sci-fi, but in looking back I found that on this date in history, I was thinking apocalyptically as well.  Just a short while ago, I was writing about how future progress (toward a Star Trekkian world) required a historical or apocalyptic break.

Now watching in the Star Wars Universe (The Force Awakens is on Starz! of all places), and it seems that TIM! (Domhnall Gleeson, it turns out, is this fellow's name - but to me he's always a Tim) is an actor portraying a First Order leader.

It's odd hours - so thoughts are hard to coordinate - but 8 years ago today, we were heading into what was a historic election.  We're on the precipice again today.  And whatever happens, this election will be historic as well.  Assuming one of the two major party candidates wins 270+ in electoral votes: either 1) we'll elect the first woman to the presidency, or 2) America will elect a fascist regime - and a historical moment will be upon us.

"We can't keep"... is the theme here.  It seems that Hillary will most likely be elected, and though I don't expect I will vote for her (Green Party currently holds my vote unless Hil starts changing her tune), I will be happy when she wins.  And that win will continue the path of incremental, mildly left-leaning progress.  And I think that means a slowed-down, incremental move toward economic and ecologic disaster. 

It's hard to think historically and think well about the present - that is, I know intellectually, that Western humans need a breach in order to regulate.  Changing tactics (re-instituting a progressive tax system, joining the rest of the world with a single payer health care plan, cap & trade {or any number of ecological half measures}) won't fix the world.  There needs to be a shift in strategy.

04 July 2016

Celebrating American Hope

In anticipation of the upcoming release of Star Trek Beyond, and in celebration of America's birthday, I'm going to start another stroll between now and July 22nd (or so) through the dozen films of the Star Trek universe.  Star Trek: TOS will be 50 years old this September, and in that half a century, the world has changed.  Has moved on, one might go so far as to say.  The American outlook has shifted to one of cynicism.  The Reagan-era brought with it a seemingly ingrained mistrust of government - and the Great Recession, Anonymous, Edward Snowden & WikiLeaks & Occupy & Bernie movements have engendered a new parallel mistrust of institutions of all kinds, governments & multi-national corporations and massive NGOs.  These two mistrusts appear on the surface as countervailing forces - one liberal and the other conservative; the one side clearly hails from well outside the establishment, while the other feels ensconced in the corporate, media and government elite establishments.  In fact, these 'sides' are the same force, but they've been harnessed and messaged toward separate ends.  But that is a story for another day...

Source: Twitter (@starTrek)
In these 50 years, Star Trek's enduring hopeful vision of a future, where individuals are free to explore and enact their own chosen lives and livelihoods, partnered with institutions that work to improve and expand on those individuals' interests, has changed and grown up, but remained steadfast.  It's easy to sit in our cynical seats to the world's history and read Star Trek as a naïve vision of the future, particularly in the wake of dystopian science fiction and horror.  How can a world that can imagine The Walking Dead also see Star Trek as an equally viable (which is to say fantastical, but usefully so) future vision?

So, our walk begins in 1979, with:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) - dir. by Robert Wise (7/4/16)

The first movie is, admittedly, a bit of clunker.  It's not to say that there's nothing redeeming about it, it is, in the end, a good story and a product of its time.  Much of the film stands as a late-70s, hi-tech art piece: reveling in the special effects technology of the time, an exposition of time and narrative in film (long 2001-style sweeping scenes which amounts to five minutes of parking a goddamn shuttle craft).  At one point, during the closing confrontation scene on the bridge, Bones walks in, a few lines of dialogue are said (none to him or by him) and plot points furthered and he walks back out.  Overall, it's a classic part of the franchise, with a few themes and questions, in particular V'Ger's ultimate (and eternal) question about the nature of existence.  After completing a centuries-long voyage to complete her prime directive (learn and report back), V'ger has amassed vast power and intellect and become sentient.  That sentience has the burden that (sometimes at least) goes with it of questioning of its own purpose.  Are we here, knowing that we're here, only in order to complete our directives (be they biological, tribalistic, or capitalist, etc.).

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982) - dir. by Nicholas Meyer (7/6/16)

The best of the movies with the original cast, and may be the best of the bunch.  A classic villain returned, Shakespearean-worthy revenge plot.  Wrath of Kahn sets up the Trilogy, which stands at the heart of the first six movies.  Each of the second, third, and fourth movies are distinct stories, but serve the dual purpose of returning Kirk, in a round about way, from admiralty back to captaining the Enterprise and also to begin the tradition of destroying Enterprises, and starting a line of Enterprise A, B, C, etc. 

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) - dir. by Leonard Nimoy (7/10/16)

This film explores the quiet space that religion and mysticism hold in the Star Trek universe.  In the later series, there were episodes focused on Bajoran and Klingon (and occasionally Vulcan) rituals, but other than as a plot device (e.g. so Kirk has to fight Spock!), the original cast didn't have much time or interest for old-time Federation religions.  The plot brings Spock back from death, reborn thanks to the technological marvel of the Genesis device.  After Kahn, though, the battle against some Klingons - even led by one so charismatic as Christopher Lloyd - is something of a letdown. 

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) - dir. by Leonard Nimoy (7/11/16)

This was hands down the most popular of the Star Trek movies to date.  I say this with no statistical or research backing whatsoever, but a firm confidence that comes from it just making sense.  It was an attempt to make the Star Trek characters and universe relatable by bringing them into our own time.  An ecological fairy tale (or folk tale or fable), we get to see our beloved characters stumble around naïvely, clearly not understanding the complexities of modern times.  Really, it's an indictment of capitalism - the silliness of our everyday lives in comparison of work of real importance.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) - dir. by William Shatner (7/15/16)

Such a strange mess of a movie... It pleases me to know that at 50, I'm not the only one whose working on this project and as I've come to expect, EW has written the apt re-review of the fifth installment.  I started the re-watch of number five assuming that I hated it... Because I remember being told that it was awful, and disliking it on the first go round.  Now, when I watch it, I can't quite tell if I love it or hate it or both...  It's a classic adventure - and the religiosity that may once have offended me, has more of a new age feel (epallan pronounces it newage to rhyme with sewage)... The concluding scene with a conversation with god is at first presumptuous (writing dialogue for god, that is), but at second glance, it's just about exactly right and how that conversation will eventually go.  A throw-back to the TV series episodes where the crew encountered other human gods (e.g. Apollo) and demystified them.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) - dir. by Nicholas Meyer (7/16/16)

This is a great conclusion for the original cast (with a coda in the first next generation film).  It's a story about the place of old people in politics.  Set against the end of the Cold War in our century, the big picture story is almost a direct historical mirror - the dismantling of the Klingon Empire while the Iron Curtain was coming down.  What's more interesting, I think, is looking at the inner Federation political conversations throughout the film.  It's really more a film that reflects our current political moment (not so much Trump/Clinton or Sanders/Clinton, more the aging Republican Party and finding its place in the new world).  Again, Star Trek is an overly-optimistic rendering, but there is an acknowledgement that old folks and an old political way of thinking is on its way out.  Michael Moore posted a recent letter about why Trump will win, and a key piece is what he calls "The Last Stand of the Endangered White Male" - overcoming 240 years of American history... I think the future - both Star Trek's and America's - is an undiscovered country, but the frontier is shrinking and we're starting to traverse it.

Star Trek: Generations (Star Trek VII) (1994) - dir. by David Carson (7/18/16)

It's a bit of a fun romp.  It's not a great movie.  It's good, sorta.  If I'm not much mistook, it's our only trip aboard the Enterprise B, with Kirk's apparent death saving the ship on its pre-maiden voyage.  The plot centers on access to a wish-granting natural phenomenon called the Nexus.  However, the plot of this one isn't terribly captivating.  It's more of a pageant opportunity for our Next Gen friends to traipse in to a new adventure.  Really a glorified episode (maybe a two-parter).

Star Trek: First Contact (Star Trek VIII) (1996) - dir. by Jonathan Frakes (around 7/20/16 & again on 9/20/16)

This is sorta the best Star Trek movie ever.  Fundamentally, the most amazing bit is the last moments of the film when the Vulcans, having landed on earth to meet a newly warp-capable species, are frakking mortified to find themselves hanging out with the dregs of the earth... of all earths really.  I feel like there's more to say in my chronology post of Star Trek

Star Trek: Insurrection (Star Trek IX) (1998) - dir. by Jonathan Frakes (on or around 7/23/16)

As a follow-up to First Contact, this movie is a bit of a let-down.  That said, it's an odd-numbered movie, so expectations were muted.  At the core of the story, though, is a pretty profound point about Star Trek - and too often ignored - namely that despite the fact that Star Trek takes place in a post-awful era, when humans have come to realize that the acquisition of wealth is a pretty silly system by which to define one's (an individual's or a society's) existence, there are still going to be smaller people.  There will always be people of any number of species and races and belief systems who work toward the detriment of all.  Those people, says this movie (and Star Trek in general), ought to be outed and stopped.  Truth will out, and so will good, again, says the central argument of Star Trek - and Insurrection, for all its failings and scope (a mid-sized episode story, not much more).

Star Trek: Nemesis (Star Trek X) (2002) - dir. by Stuart Baird (on or around 7/24/16)

The first movie to buck the trend of even-numbered films being the quality ones.  The premise of the film is actually promising, but it's all a bit disappointing.  Not terrible, but falls short of its potential.  Den of Geek actually seems to have diagnosed pretty specifically what went wrong with regard to the lead-up and decision making about the film.  Tom Hardy's villain feels to me a bit interchangeable with Eric Bana's in the 2009 reboot - I think they both may actually be Remans, which strikes me as an oddity that doesn't get noticed much (I suppose because Nemesis itself rarely gets noticed).

DoG gets right that the film feels off, the characters behave uncharacteristically, and the director didn't like (and even refused to watch) the series.  There are also obnoxious plot points and painful scenes (the cloning thing, Data singing at the wedding, Picard gleefully driving his fancy-new golf cart {which is underwhelming}).

That said, there are some redeeming qualities, mostly to do with the overall premise (and probably the original writing).

Star Trek (Star Trek XI) (2009) - dir. by J. J. Abrams (7/29/16)

Such a fun return for the franchise that had started to lose its way.  The new movie offered a clean break by creating a new timeline, allowing the franchise to go its own way while occupying the same space and time of the original series and films. 

What's missing is the humanist optimism that is central to the Star Trek Universe.  Throughout the series and films, Star Trek fearlessly posits scynical optimism as a central premise.  The Americanist tropes of TOS remains (humans can do everything that Vulcans can better...!) as the same central joke, but that cynical joke lacks the tenacious hope that always accompanied it in all of the shows and movies.  The cynicism sharpened in the later movies and especially in the Enterprise series, but optimism remained a central tenet. 

The movie is fun, fast-paced, smart and nostalgic. 

Star Trek Into Darkness (Star Trek XII) (2013) - dir. by J. J. Abrams (7/30/16)

A reintroduction of Khan, and an intro worthy of making Kirk Kirk.  The "cowboy diplomacy" of earlier generations of the Federation is on display in the opening escape sequence of the film.  Kirk subsequently gets momentarily demoted, until a terrorist attack carried out by Khan.

The plot is a bit blah - enemies and then frenemies Kirk and Khan work with and against each other in an effort to unveil darker tendencies within the Federation.  Another fast-paced film version of the franchise that loses a lot of the original value of the series.  While these new films are fun, they definitely show why we need another Star Trek series on TV.

Star Trek Beyond (Star Trek XIII) (2016) - dir. by Justin Lin (8/2/16)

This third step through the alternate timeline starts out with Kirk casting about a bit for the what it all means and what he's supposed to do with his life (so say we all).  The film is action-packed (I don't mean that as a good quality), but the villain, Krall, is interesting in the fact that he is deranged lost Star Fleet captain whose crew are intent on revenging themselves upon pretty much everybody.  Of note is the reconnecting of the two timelines - as Krall's ship is from the era of the Enterprise TV series (which also appears to be the era of the upcoming Star Trek: Discovery series.  I'm still a little ways away from catching up to this series on my chronological run-thru (tho this project has helped!), but I think now (as it turns out!), my plan is to be able to watch Discovery in "real time".  Overall, the latest movie was fun, but not too important.

Sometime recently, with all the 50th Anniversary look-backs and the new movie look-backs for Star Trek, I read someone comment that Star Trek is first and foremost about the series.  The movies were fun events, and reaching a (slightly) wider audience, but the shows did the real work of Star Trek.


04 June 2016

Re-Reading Epic

I'm less (not fewer) than 200 pages from the end of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, and have come to the point where I find alternative activities (like blogging!) to curtail my progress. To savor and let it last a while longer.

I've been here before, but everything I read is more, "oh, yeah, that's right…" rather than deeply familiar. Many of the narrative turns and wrinkles have been complete surprises to me this time around.
Source: newsroom.unl.edu

I've also been here before regarding this line of thinking. In early 2015, I finished Roger Zelzny's The Chronicles of Amber (http://bit.ly/rnJ-reRead) and while it was the first time I finished* that particular epic, I was reminded then of the time I finished re-reading Lord of the Rings, and even wrote a poem about the experience for a college creative writing course. 

(If ever I am able to locate said poem, I'll post it here. Not because it is necessarily worthy of consideration {I am a piss poor poet, and I know it}, rather perhaps procuring this particular piece has the potential to portend a perpetual path of pontification - probing which probably produces pitiful results - but perhaps it's possible to produce a pattern of thought on my pontifical path.)

Re-reading beloved epic works has a certain melancholy joy to it, because it harkens back to the first time, but also forebodes - I may well never tread here again.  You tend to savor, and if you do come back to these parts again, know that you'll be looking back to now - so make it something worth looking back on. 

*Zelazny wrote a series of short stories, companion pieces to his Amber series, which I have, but have yet to read.  Allowing an epic to linger (or languish) by not quite finishing is a great pleasure, always having a little more ahead of you.  Personally, I currently haven't finished The Chronicles of Castle Brass (on of Moorcock's Eternal Champions Saga), The Chronicles of Narnia, Marvel's The Dark Tower comics (ongoing), The Walking Dead comics (ongoing), Token's Middle Earth writings (these are just the ones that I came up with off the top of my head - i'm sure there are many more).

06 May 2016

On Travel and Tourism

I am on vacation.

I am traveling. I’m taking a trip. Playing tourist. I will be out of the office starting on Monday… I am staying at… Going away. Touring. Doing a little sight-seeing. Going abroad. Taking some time (off). Visiting.

It seems to me that there is some important weight, some cache, for how we describe (or are described) ourselves when away. “I love to travel” has to be an almost ubiquitous response to any conversation that arises on the subject (unless you’re a happy contrarian, like Woody Allen, who proudly never leaves the island of Manhattan*). To not proclaim to be interested in travel is to risk being perceived as provincial or uncultured. Of course, there are a lot of socio-economic assumptions wrapped into this line of thinking – and others have done much of this thinking already, most notably, Dean MacCannel's work: The Tourist.

In the course of my week away, it occurred to me that a large part of the attraction of traveling for me (whether abroad or an hour out of the city) is to help strengthen the muscle that has to do with imaginary thinking. We took a day sail (a day motoring, really), and passed by a massive freighter in the port that was being loaded with shipping containers. As we passed, I looked up at the bridge of the ship, 100 or more feet up from the deck (I am a bad estimator, but it seemed quite far), and I wondered about the life of someone captaining or serving on that vessel. I thought about what sequence of choices in my life might I have made to land myself in Aruba, working on a boat, and waiting for it to be loaded and weigh anchor (way anchor? whey anchor? not a boat guy, clearly), and be off to Fort Lauderdale, or wherever our next port of call would be. I also thought about the arbitrariness of our station in the world – the blind luck (not saying whether good or ill) of being born in Wisconsin in the year 1978. And the ease with which the former sequence of choices might have been lightened – made more probable – were I born in Aruba or Fort Lauderdale or Monrovia…

In classic RPG-ing, a player chooses a class or profession for her or his character – a bit like we do in life – based on strengths and weaknesses, and preference. Almost invariably, a player also goes on to select his or her race (human, elf, dwarf, etc.). This has always struck me as a bit out of place (though fine, of course, for a good bit of fun – convention gaming and what not). Gary Gygax’ Dangerous Journeys is one of the only games I know where players roll to determine their birth (if I remember correctly, even their birth order – that game has a lot of tables). Now, for some, developing a character back story is half the fun of gaming (for non-gamers, imagine the amateur thespian who created the four-page back story for his or her one-line character in the high-school musical… for non-gamers who’ve also never been a part of an amateur theater production, you have missed much in your life…), but playing the arbitrariness – experiencing the thrown-ness^ of your life (real or gamed) – is a gran part of the payoff of traveling (and of gaming, I would argue).

We went to a bar called Charlie’s in San Nicolas, Aruba. It’s a great bar, and an average tourist trap. Famous for having been family-owned for over 70 years, it used to service (along with the rest of the red light district where it finds itself {stattfinden is amongst my favorite German verbs, because it embodies Heideggerian German, and German itself strikes me as a language that was constructed by great thinkers more so than it is a derivative of the Indo-European languages that linguists would have you believe}) the refinery workers – first for the American company that ran it (and built the ghost town Sero Colorado for its workers), and now for Valero (a company whose origins is just a google away, I’m sure).  We had a couple of drinks, and looked at the museum of left memorabilia for a short time, and then headed down to Baby Beach for the afternoon.

It seems to me, though, that the way to experience Charlie's is as it was intended.  You should go to Charlie's, a little after lunch, with the full intention of spending the whole afternoon there, getting drunk, talking with tourists, bartenders, and locals alike.  There was a man sitting at the bar, holding fort (holding forth?), occasionally singing and riling up the crowd.  We called this man Sam, because we'd read a book, An Island Away,^^ in which he'd seemed to appear.  It seems to me that to really experience Charlie's - to travel there, as opposed to be a tourist there (although I am disinclined toward this distinction) - is to while a way the afternoon, make friends (because what else are bars for?), and be a part of the collection, at least for a time.  Now, most likely, you've got a week - maybe two - in Aruba, and spending a whole day getting drunk and chatting folks up seems bit of a waste of your vacation...

But I would say that perhaps this is in fact the purpose for your trip.  The reason to travel.  It is the hardest and the easiest thing to do - to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and methinks our time on earth is better spent trying to inhabit those shoes - in your mind if you can't in actuality - for a moment, an hour, two weeks, or the rest of your life... whatever it takes... to better understand and appreciate our present condition.

I had thought to write about Recalibration Travel Narratives - travelogue stories where someone commits to walking away from their life for a time - in this entry, but I've rambled further than I thought I might. I thought these RTN would, perhaps, a way to distinguish the traveler from the tourist... again, not something I'm actively engaged in, but something worth reflecting on I think.

Another time for the RTN...  Now, hit the road.

*Note: Non-New Yorkers will be quick to celebrate this mentality, because – it’s New York, and where else would you need to go? – but that logic only holds if you’re not from a place, and are celebrating a distant locale, a ‘travel destination’.
^Note: For those of you playing along with Roman Numeral J Bingo, you can mark Heidegger off on your boards, if he appears there… “that’s Heidegger, Heidegger, the sunshine vitamin…”
^^Note: Finally, I think I've found a use for my goodreads account.  To track all of the books (not many, but a good sum over time) that I don't ever finish, but may eventually decide to do.

17 April 2016

Walkabout (and sneeze-about)

Just in the midst of a rare sneeze-fest (8 or so in the last 90 seconds)…

Enjoying some sunshine in the backyard. Alongside an almost depleted rum and coke (Cruzan, because #AvenueLiquor wasn't stocking Barbancourt - I always prefer rhum to rum) 

So nice and warm today. And going to be hothot in Aruba in early May. 

A nice book and a friendly walk-y day. (Walked to McDonalds for hangover breakfast, and walked to Brig's to deliver Boots [aka Dog Terrorist] home). 

Not eating, but feeling peckish. 

20 February 2016

On Eco

This morning I learned that we lost a great literary and philosophical mind with the passing of Umberto Eco at 84. 

I have long been a fan from afar of Eco's, never someone I would list as my favorite author, but formative in my early academic thinking, particularly his beautiful book On Ugliness, which is an embarrassment of richness of images and ideas on our relationship with ugly things (death, bodily functions, horror, etc.)

His loss is sad, but go forth and embrace all of his work and thinking...

I'm revisiting my favorite work this morning:

The work is a curation of passages from literary and social theory works alongside beautiful images from classical and modern art, architecture, and ephemera centered on a specific theme.  Eco adds editorial remarks in each section.

Of particular interest is the chapter on the Uncanny.  The thinking on that concept and in that chapter was fundamental in my academic thinking on Gunther von Hagens' BodyWorlds exhibition.  The artistic presentation of death is an exquisite example of Freud's and Eco's discussion of the concept of the Uncanny (unheimlich).  Presenting a thing that is, inherently, familiar (our own bodies) in a way that causes discomfort, uncertainty questioning what we know we know.

I highly recommend picking up a copy.  Go borrow it from your local library!