Letter to Erin Burnett "Outfront": A synthesis and articulation of the Middle Class from the examination of a bifurcated society.

  Re: A synthesis and articulation of the Middle Class from the examination of a bifurcated society. For the purposes of this article, the term “Middle Class” will be left as an abstraction to be defined by the body of the commentary. To this end, the poor and working poor will be defined as a family of 4 earning less than $24,000 a year, or less, and the wealthy earning $250,000 per year, or more. These are generally accepted parameters used by the US government in statistical analysis and quibbling about these definitions should not greatly affect the course of the discussion as it proceeds as a logical exploration, not a statistical one.
What has brought these thoughts forward is the ongoing, separate discussions of inflated valuations in healthcare, educational expenses and energy. When I’ve had the rare opportunity to hear all three subjects raised at the same time, the argument is made that these are all areas in which there is direct governmental activity and the spiraling costs are a result of interference in the actions of the markets. The argument I will propose is a much simpler version of governmental oversight, currency manipulation.
As the growth of GDP, and hiring, slows and stock market values begin to teeter, there is already a welling call for additional quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. Fed intervention is always a blunt instrument, that damages as much as it helps, but the more precise actions of Keynesian counter-cyclical spending, by the government, can not pass through the legislative bodies. As a result, it falls to the Fed, as the instrument of last resort, to prop-up valuations with a devalued currency. The benefits of these actions are largely psychological and ceremonial: the markets stabilize but the valuations, while equivalent numerically, are, in fact, not equal because they are expressed in devalued dollars. This reality, of perceived value verses actual value, is never expressed, as it is a poison to the market.
As much as the failure of the Congress in the “Debt-ceiling” debate, continued quantitative easing signals a dysfunctional government without a comprehensive grasp on reality. Whether expressed or not, S&P must have seen this as well and factored it into their criteria on the downgrade.
Where the reaction to these actions become most glaringly apparent is the steady decline in buying power per $1US. While appearing to be subject to great inflation, healthcare, education and energy are merely constant valuations in a deflationary economy, deflated largely through the devaluation of dollars.
While certainly, at least, inconvenient to the wealthy, this is devastating to the poor-unless they have access to a governmental program for assistance. The middle-class have neither the access to help nor the ability to absorb these higher valuations. They, alone, are left without resource.
This is the shrinking middle-class: not just in the numbers falling into the category of working poor but those whose income has actually deflated while remaining equivalent. The actions taken to the benefit of either end of the economic spectrum always effect the center, not just in taxation but, more importantly, in the support of constant valuations in a depression.
A depression? But isn’t GDP growing? Factor in the effects of trillions of dollars in low-interest loans AND quantitative easing: removing those from the equation reveals the US economy has never stopped deflating-as most evident in housing valuations which effect, again, the middle-class most profoundly.
While I was in favor of the original round of quantitative easing, to stabilize the stock market, the second round was merely a re-inflating mechanism for them without any real market support. If a QE III is initiated, without a corresponding, and commensurate, fiscal stimulus the middle-class may cease to exist.
And they won’t even know it.

The Netanyahu Question

Re: The Netanyahu Question. Given that you were a geo-political economics major, I’m certain you will find a more elegant way to state this question. My question proceeds from three observations: that Islam is growing, and spreading, at a much faster rate than Judaism, that Islamic states control the price of oil, in large measure through the actions of OPEC, which is still fundamental to the stability of all developed countries and the vast majority of developed states are democratic. If you accept the apparent truth of these statements, why is Israel not seeing, and seizing, this moment as its, perhaps, last and best chance to sue for peace with its neighbors? Israel still has the support of the US and most Western States, all of which have growing Moslem populations which will eventually overtake the Jewish ones in the political dynamic, not to mention the deleterious effect provocative rhetoric has on the price of oil, which impacts each person in those developed countries. Does Israel not see this, or is this a hand and glove arrangement with those Islamic states benefiting both? The oil-producing states benefit from the rhetoric ratcheting up prices while Israel continues to benefit from billions in arms from the Israel-Egypt Treaty. The bottom-line is, whichever is the case, this arrangement must end, yet another reason from Israel to sue for peace now. Yet, they appear to want to continue this dynamic until the point they will have lost all of their leverage. Why? Erin, I look forward to your interview with Bibi and I know you’ll do a great job. You’re the best we’ve got. All the Best, TVA.

Mayonnaise 2

Re: the blowback from the “mayonnaise” letter. Well, the reaction to this transgression of mine was swift and furious. Given that it’s 4/20 and all, perhaps today was not the best day to post that letter. The first thing I want to address is that the sandwich ACTUALLY had Miracle Whip in it (not the apparently verboten and bordering on child abuse that mayonnaise has become, unbeknownst to me). Even when apprised of this, my critics (you know who you are) fired back that even Miracle Whip is a gateway condiment to ranch dressing, then dijonnaise, then real mayo ending, with a lifetime craving for Dijon, the hard stuff. I know that the excitement of their taste buds, and the pleasure centers of their brains associated with taste, puts them on that slippery slope but isn’t it better they are exposed at home where the portions can be controlled by an adult? Don’t tell me they aren’t going to experience it in the world (restaurants are rife with the stuff and every server pushes it on their customers) and shouldn’t they learn at home that the world is a slippery slope and that moderation is the key? And did any of my critics, all up on the high horses for all the world to see, notice that I served her a turkey sandwich which could have been full of nitrates and steroids? Just goes to show where their priorities are and where their hypocrisy lies! KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY SANDWICH! All the Best, TVA.

Mayonnaise

Re: (The or A) World of Mayonnaise (or TVA loses an argument to his nine-year-old daughter). The work of the book goes on, and the joy of it comes and goes, with the subject playing quietly in my subconscious. Last night, at dinner with my two girls, S. complained that her turkey sandwich oozed mayonnaise each time she took a bite. Being the prepackaged, preformed father that my parents created, I accepted that remark as an opportunity for the “be grateful for what you have” speech expressed by my parents as the “there are children starving in (country’s name, typically China, but not always).” My version started out as this, “That’s not such a bad problem to have: there are some children living in a world without mayonnaise…” at which point S. raised her hand up to me to stop me and interjected, “There’s only one world. The world has mayonnaise. It’s right here.” pointing to the hand holding her sandwich with her other hand. The matter-of-fact way she said it with absolute certainty almost made me laugh out loud but I just smiled very broadly, knowing that if I laughed it would have hurt her feelings. So, instead of an hour long conversation about literal and figurative speech, objective and subjective philosophical viewpoints and a dissection of the Empiricist’s experience framing knowledge, I opted for the equally true “That’s right honey, there’s only one world.” I thought that was just as important a point to reinforce. She is a wickedly smart little thing and I can’t wait until a couple of years from now when we can have that entire conversation. You know what, kids need that world of absolutes to rattle around in until they outgrow it. It gives them confidence and that’s more important for them than seeing the world as adults see it, all shadows, nuances and shades of gray. She’ll have plenty of time in that world. I guarantee we’ll have that conversation in the future because I also think it’s important for kids not to think their Dad’s an idiot who thinks the world doesn’t have mayonnaise…in the literal sense. All the Best, TVA.

Ps: Little known fact: if Wayne Gretsky hadn’t be such a great hockey player he might have been remembered as one of Canada’s greatest skiers. Really, that could still happen…Just trying to be supportive

The Dr. Richard Carmona thing.

Re: The Dr. Richard Carmona thing. The name might sound familiar, he was the Surgeon General for several years under George W. Bush. He’s currently running for Arizona Senator Kyl’s vacated seat in the Senate and he has quite the back-story: high school drop-out, became a field medic in Vietnam, got his doctorate on the GI Bill and for many years was very much the man about Tucson before becoming the USSG. As impressive as that is on a resume, I want to add this little, personal anecdote: when my wife was 15, she was involved, as a passenger, in a drunk driving accident where the car her mother was driving was struck, broadside, on the rear half of the vehicle where she was seated. Her mother and sister, in the front two seats, were basically fine but she was pinned to the distorted backseat by the seatbelt. In addition to significant spinal injuries, the most immediate concern was the internal bleeding caused by the seatbelt. Taken to the local trauma center, she was essentially considered dead on arrival, so extensive were her injuries. There was no surgeon willing to perform such a high-risk, low-reward, surgery-except Dr. Carmona. In an instance where I’m sure his battlefield training came in handy, he willingly accepted this virtually no-win situation and saved her life for no other reason then a sense of duty to this stranger. And there’s more. Not only did he save her life, while performing the surgery, he had the conscience left to save her damaged ovaries, thinking of her quality of life years down the road. I remember when she first became pregnant, we went in to the obstetrician who doubted that she could bring a baby to term because she had such a significant bowel reduction (80%) but she did, twice, because she’s a little bad-ass (the reason I married her). As a result of his actions, taken when no one would have blamed him for doing nothing, I have two beautiful, healthy daughters and they have a healthy mother. So, we kind of love the Doctor in my house and I’m suggesting you should, too. I wonder how many other stories there are like this about him because I doubt this was the only time he acted out of conscience. We have come to accept so much less than this in ourselves, in those around us and especially in our leaders. I’m writing this before I go down to his office to volunteer, so it doesn’t sound political, but that is my next stop when I’m done. So, Carmona for Arizona 2012 and, you know what, Clinton-Carmona 2016 has a nice ring to it…All the Best, TVA.

Tranny-Panties

Re: I.Q. Test. (a) Is this thing on? The President’s recent “hot mic” incident is similar to the expression, “the truest things are said in jest.” The difference between telling the truth and telling a joke is the set-up prior to the punch line. Given that we don’t know what Medvedev and Obama were taking about, the set-up, the punch line relies on established circumstances-like Henny Youngman’s famous “Take my wife…please!” which cleverly plays on the expectation of a set-up, take this or that (as an example), and follows it with the established circumstances that all married men wish they were still single (and all allied countries wish they weren‘t). (That’s just an example, don’t read too much into it.) Since we don’t know the set-up, all we are left with is the circumstances, and the punch line, and around this we each construct our own joke. We become Henny Youngman’s wife trying to figure out if he was serious or just joking-or just trying to get paid. In a world were everyone lies to your face, do you really think Medvedev and Obama didn’t know the mic was hot? Maybe they decided to get into Iran’s and Syria’s heads with just the suggestion of collusion: you know, have them making up their own joke, make them a little more negotiable by making them a little nervous. It appears the truest things are not supposed to be heard-or were they supposed to be heard? (b) Pull!!! The untethered, free-floating abstraction that is the Cain Train continues to linger in the subconscious of the American populous- at least by the Cain campaign’s reckoning. As non-Playboy bunnies rarely appear in the news, I want to take this opportunity to repeat one of my favorite Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. stories: The Smart Bunny. One upon a time, in the meadow, a bunny was born that had an unusually large head. The parents shunned the infant because it didn’t look like their other off-spring but the bunny was unusually smart and found a way to endear himself to the parents, who always remained skeptical and suspicious of him (or her, gender was not specified in KV’s story). The other bunnies were skeptical and suspicious of him as well: the bunny began to think that there was something wrong with him, that he was diseased, somehow, and began to think they were right. He decided that he would hop across the field to the big city where, perhaps, he would meet other smart bunnies and fit-in better. As he approached the mid-point of the field, he was shot-dead by a hunter-who refused to then eat the bunny because of the unusually large head. So it goes. The point of the story is that intelligence is not all that it’s cracked-up to be, that a large portion of isolation and desperation comes with that particular territory and that may cause the intelligent to do something ill-advised just to feel more accepted. So goes the life of the Smart Bunny. Or you could just be a dumb bunny and get ejected by a politician… © Tranny-panties. I have to admit I have an admiration for trans-gendered males: it takes a lot of balls to cut those off, particularly at first, but less as time goes on, one supposes. You just don’t see that kind of commitment that often in the general population. I think those of us whose sexual inclination matches our equipment take that for granted and I have to admire the courage it takes to make that drastic a life-style change. I can’t even cut my hair. I’m putting around in the same car I’ve had for 30 years… So a trans-gendered person is kicked out of a beauty pageant? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the point of a beauty pageant to objectify beauty: to personify, visually, the concept? She is visually a woman, an attractive one (looks like Lisa Kudrow, right?), and perfectly suits the objectification of beauty-but it does rather mess with the masturbatorial fantasy inherent in the concept. I guess that’s the real problem here. There was an episode of “House” where a supermodel became sick because she was actually born a male, with testicles that never descended. In explaining her condition to her father (who was appalled), the Doctor opined, “The ultimate woman is actually a man…”-at least in appearance. Perhaps that’s medically true but I remain skeptical and suspicious (sounds familiar, doesn‘t it?). This whole thing does fit in with my ongoing internal narrative of Canada passively-aggressively messing with the American psyche. Thanks for the new slippery-slope! (d) Thanks Rick!! When I told my 13 year-old that 10 o’clock was bed-time she looked me square in the eye and said, “That’s bullshit-and you know it!” (Okay, that’s not true) Only six more dirty words to go-and it’s only March, there’s no way a couple more aren’t said…and when a politician says something you just know everyone’s going to be repeating it. (You may not know this about me but I’m hilarious when I work blue. I just can’t wait for the convention.) All the Best, TVA. Ps. Did you know what Obama said to Medvedev was just repeating what the Chinese leader Xi said-but Obama didn’t reverse the r’s and l’s as happens with some Asian languages…Aside from Angela Merkel, and a few others, most world leaders have more flexibility, afterwards… think about it. 
(To refresh your memories, Obama was overheard saying, "I'll have more flexability after the election."        

Ennui

Re: The despair of 25%. Every so often you say something that so perfectly mirrors my feelings it resonates in my mind and resolves a problem for me. Yesterday, after the Matt Bai interview, you mentioned that you feel the glass is not half-full but, perhaps, 25% full and that was a step in the right direction. There was still a sense of ennui in the statement that made it resonate with me. First, my problem: I’m writing a book that is approximately 25% completed, in the actual writing of the book, with the remaining subjects and chapters outlined. Even as excited as I am about the work remaining to be done, I have had, for the last week or so, the most difficult time turning my attention to the book and have spent a larger portion of that time writing letters to you. This has led to a level of dissatisfaction with myself for my lack of focus.
After you made the despairing statement last night, I looked again at my book to see if I was perceiving it correctly. What I realized is, while the new content is still (only) 25% completed, I’d been forgetting about the work I’d already completed, for the “Artifice and Anecdote” appendix which will be roughly equal in size to the entire new content, so I’m really, physically, 75% completed. I had also, in the last week settled on a title, “The Stoic”, as well as the underlying focus of the entire work. Realizing that so much was already in place cheered me up a great deal. I’m really almost done and I fully expect to hit my “artificially” imposed deadline.
As to your concerns, I thought a lot about those as well and I hope you find these helpful. The likelihood of a united presidency and Congress is high, though the party is uncertain, so we’ll have at least 6 months of good, solid legislation before they start running again. As you are fond of observing, with economic recovery, a full one-third to two-fifths of the deficit disappears with increasing tax revenues. Couple that with a disappearance of the Keynesian counter-cyclical spending currently in the government’s modus operandi (just admit extended unemployment and increased food-stamp participation is Keynesian: just admit it and get on with your lives, Republicans) and we are suddenly near parity with the budget and revenues. After the SCOTUS blows up the intrinsically flawed healthcare bill, the Congress WILL have to create another one (reality will not be ignored) and this one might have cost-containment in the form of a single-payer format which should resolve many of the concerns about Medicare going forward. That should resolve virtually all our yearly budget shortfalls, which just leaves the accumulated debt to pay-off, the vast majority of which will be inflated away by the Fed when the economy is more tolerant, and the balance by government downsizing, again, when the economy can tolerate the dislocated workers. We haven’t even talked about military cuts, yet. So we’re not really in that bad a shape we just have to let things play-out. And, worst-case scenario, even if it can’t be resolved, the eventual collapse of the monetary system can be put-off for decades, decades, to the point at which we will all be dead anyway, making the sweet release of death all the more welcome and poignant.
So there’s always that to look forward to…
Cheer up (I guess), you still get prettier every day, so that bodes well.
One of the topics of my book is that what we perceive in the world stems largely from our spiritual balance, in the relationship of our subjective selves with the objective world around us, and the importance of the strengthening of the spirit to withstand the daily assault on our selves by the circumstances we find ourselves in, which I refer to with Hegel’s term, stoicism. I, now, realize that if my book was completed perhaps this letter would have been unnecessary…
But things happen the way they’re supposed to happen, I’ve found.
All the Best, TVA.

Ps. I read the majority of Matt Bai’s article from the link you provided and it seemed all too familiar, which I suppose good modern history should. Thanks for the information to both of you.
Pps. My goodness, you’re high-maintenance: everything’s got to be just so or you’re sad, so sad, so very sad. (Hey, me too!) Okay, I gots work to do now…
Ppps. If you hit the lottery tonight, you’re gonna hook me up, right?
Pppps. It’s been my experience that walking up to a strange woman and saying “I couldn’t help noticing your ennui from across the room. I just wanted you to know we can all see it.” will get me slapped about 99% of the time but a lot of that’s in how I say it.

Nag-flogging

Re: Just showing I stayed awake in class. (a) Paul Ryan. Without having availed myself of the complete budget posted on your CNN page, my immediate reaction to PR’s proposal is, with fealty to the Norquist Pledge, any tax-based solution necessitates large cuts to entitlements OR the military. Good luck soft-selling either of those. Without fealty to the Pledge it‘s DOA. (b) The real reason Plato banned poets from his “Republic”. The most often reason cited is Plato believed all poet to be liars, either by inclusion or omission, but a more subtle suggestion is that poets operated by inspiration, inherently without a reliable process. Plato rejected them because they were inefficient producers and the product they produced was rejected because it was not systematic. Fortunately, he has been ignored for centuries and still Congresspeople wax poetic…© Your staff. In tonight’s show, you said you have the best staff in TV, and given the consistent quality of your show, I think you just might be on to something there. I remember you had a great staff at CNBC as well. It seems bright people are to be drawn to you, almost a pattern emerging. (d) Amelia Earhart. I love your editorials, in general, but especially when you are talking about people you admire. There is a palpable sense of your excitement: it’s almost as if you’re expressing “I’m so lucky to be standing here saying what I want to say.” You just don’t see that much, anymore, and that’s a shame, really. (e) Nothing is worth changing-in the short-term. You know, I almost feel sorry for Pres. Obama, out there, trying to get people excited about alternative energy when even he knows, no matter how much you flog that nag, it’s never going to run. Photo-voltaic solar stinks-as currently considered. I recently ran into a man who was having Solar City put leased panels on his roof. Living in Arizona, I often wondered why there aren’t more solar units on houses and what I learned from him explained a lot of it. He and his wife had recently purchased his “Mc-mansion” (a separate issue for another day) and I said that solar would certainly help with his peak electrical consumption. He said,” You know, that’s what I thought, too, at first, but I found out that because of the heat in the summer, panels are more efficient in any other season.” When I asked him why he bothered at all, he replied, sheepishly, “We’re getting a tax break…” and I felt like I had come full circle on this issue. It’s not worth it now but, theoretically, advances will come in this tech if it is supported. Looking at it historically, I’m sure there was a time when coalminers went to people and said, “Look what we found! We can burn this-all we have to do is dig it up!” and the people replied, “Yeah, we could do that-or I could just burn that log laying on the ground over there, moron.” I don’t really know how to get people excited about flawed alternative energies other than to make this point: given that, at some point in the future, we will be able to capture energy directly from the field that supports it, in real time, without intermediary steps or storage, may make these fledgling steps into this arena, quaint. The idea is to stick with it and not let the existing structures perpetuate until there is a crisis. As we are in an expansionary cycle of the Universe, there is far more energy available than can be mitigated by entropy. All we have to do I figure out the nexus of all forms of energy, which I suggest is wave energy, and we’re golden. The whole idea of the Unified Field Theory is all energy is perpetual-it just changes form. Energy surrounds us, flows through us, is created not only by the sun but by the planet itself and once we learn how to access it as it exists, the job is done once and for all. In the mean time, we have these imperfect, inefficient systems that are just the means to that ultimate end. I think we’ll make it: we just have to stay with the wave and we’ll reach the shore… (f) Etch-a Sketch. I just hope I can shake this campaign from my memory… All the Best, TVA Ps. Sorry about the flogging the nag metaphor I just couldn’t come up with a more accurate depiction. Not a pretty image but that happens sometimes. I’ll try to watch that in the future. I know I go too far, too often-but I’m otherwise perfect in every other regard so perhaps this minor flaw can be overlooked? Right? What do you say?

Things too funny...

Re: Things too funny/ironic not to be, at least, partially true. (1) Suppressing the Vote. Much has been made, over the last four years, of Republican efforts to “strengthen” voting laws and given the turnout in the primaries, it appears to have taken effect. Romney gets 50% of the vote in Nevada and the media calls it a resounding victory. Expecting 100,000 votes (the Dems got 120,000 in 2008 caucus) the total was less than 33,000. They better start hoping for that voter fraud… (2) When Newt’s Delorean hits 88.7 mph, you’re going to see some serious s***. Given that the unemployment rate trend neatly echoes that of the early Reagan years, the “Morning in America” comparisons have started to appear, increasingly. Interestingly, Madonna’s at the Superbowl, Ferris Beuler’s selling cars and suddenly Newt’s ideas seem fresh and as relevant as ever. And IRAN IS BACK, baby! (I knew I should have kept my Flock of Seagull’s haircut.)  (3) Ford’s version of Chevy’s Superbowl ad. Instead of the hellscape being caused by the Mayan apocalypse, the headlines would have said, “Romney blocks Auto Bailout”. Of course, they would all have had to been driving Fords. (4) It’s a wonderful life. Watching the government wrestle with paygo reminds me of the “run on the savings and loan” scene in “It’s a Wonderful Life”: Obama as Harry Bailey, trying to talk panicked citizens into taking only what they need to get by while Old Man Potter is just waiting in the wings to foreclose when the S and L fails. Will Congress lose the deposit and force a call? Will the townspeople step in and take up a collection? Where’s a war-profiteer when we need one? Stay tuned…(5) Like Fonzie said, “You really get a good look at the shark as you pass over it!” I can only assume NBC’s coverage of the Superbowl was as glossy and vivid as a streetwalker because I didn’t watch it. That’s NBC’s style, long on looks but short on substance, but even knowing that, I expected to tune in the game-mainly because I always have. Instead I spent the 10.5 HOURS playing with my kids and helping my youngest build a diorama. (That’s time I’ll never get back, btw, but I’m okay with that.) I used to be such a sports nut: then I quit watching MLB after the first strike in the 80’s, NBA after the “Kobe” incident and, now, the NFL out of sheer boredom. What I’ve been shocked to learn is, as I quit watching these pro sports, the overall fan base of these sports also declined. I am a microcosm. Can’t wait for the Formula One season at the end of February, however. And I have a cousin in Austin… Hope you had a great weekend, Doll. Missed you on Saturday. All the Best, TVA

Ps. Yes, the diorama kicked ass.

Three Letters to Erin Burnett "Outfront" so long they made Facebook freeze up.

(1) Re: Bringing it (the “Long-Writers” and demographics). Erin, you’ve probably already noticed this but I just wanted to point out that I see it, too: the increasing number of long letters sent to this Facebook page. As I prefer the long form of correspondence, I’m going to speak, somewhat, out-of-hand for all of us. I’ve watched your various shows for about three years now and written letters to you, and articles about you, for about that same timeframe. I’ve never actually told you why I started doing this and that seems an appropriate place to start. After a few months of watching SOTS and SS (and enjoying them), I Googled you to find out something that was on one of your shows. What I found shocked me: every article portrayed you in a negative light and most were absolutely vile in content and characterization. I realize the internet is the bastion of hate speech, and lack of repercussions, but I just could not reconcile these articles to the person I was seeing on the TV. So, having the fair amount of downtime that I have referred to so often, I decided that I would try to put some balance into that equation. A random act of kindness, if you will: it’s just that simple. It’s impossible for me to know how effective this has been but you do seen to have cheered-up since then.
And that was the point.
I’ve noticed people respond more often to criticism than to praise, maybe it’s just that simple, but the vast, vast majority of communication in social media is negative in some fashion and constructive dialogue is almost anecdotal. But I don’t mind sticking-out. Somewhere along the line, whether deserved or not, being a public figure came to mean being victimized, came to mean being treated inhumanly, and it became fashionable to belittle, bully and bash on anyone within reach. It could be just as simple as jealousy…
While there are certainly who engender and deserve such derision (dealt with in the second letter I’m sending today), you seem about as decent and real of a person as is in the media and I hope you can find a way to maintain that as you become more and more successful. As I read through the posts here, it always amazes me that people call you a RINO or a DINO or a Wall Street spokesperson or a left-winger, yada, yada, yada, and they’re all referring to the same segment! Even after watching you compulsively for the last 3 years, I still have no idea what your political leanings are-and you know what, you’re a journalist, it shouldn’t be relevant to your job! I admire the fact you don’t go hide behind a label of any kind, and the security that comes with that, and continue to be yourself, relentlessly.
What I really see as I read through the posts here (Facebook) is how involved your fans are with you. I say that because the letters you’re receiving are increasingly long, articulate, well thought-out pieces that, believe me when I tell you, don’t just pop-out as fast as you can key them. This may be hard for you to hear but, obviously, you inspire.
The reason I mention this, other than taking the opportunity to compliment and support you, is, sooner or later, you’ll be pulled into a “demographics” meeting where they’ll criticize one thing or another, say you’re not “connecting” enough with this or that group and the statistics will come out. I hope you bring some of these letters posted on this page with you. When they look at you and say, “You should…”, you look back at them and say, “I’ll tell you who’s growing-my fans, as people. You read these letters and consider the thought and time it takes to compose them: they’re obviously very involved in my program, it’s meaningful to them and stays with them long after it’s over. I have the fans everyone wants to have: smart, dedicated and involved. My fans bring it. They’re out there talking up my show and CNN. There is nothing in this world more powerful than passionate advocacy and I have that…and they like me just the way I am.”
If that doesn’t work, they don’t deserve you. Or us.
All the Best, TVA.

(2) Re: International Women’s Day (the “Short-Writers” and Misogyny).

When you’re in that “demographics” meeting, Erin, I hope you take a moment to educate on the nature of critique as it exists today. It goes something like this: “You are a(n) (insert insulting, personal remark). I can’t believe CNN has you on the air! I will take my eyes elsewhere if you don’t start agreeing with me!” Unlike most of them, I’ve spelled all the words correctly but, well, I’m sober. You see, that phrase I just used implying drunken Facebooking is an example of an “ad hominem” argument where the thrust of the statement is an attack against the person. This is an example of a logical fallacy, or an non-argument, and is an attempt to avoid the question by changing the subject to the person. When directed against women, the ad hominem is always sexual in nature because women are culturally conditioned to believe that their sexuality is an intimate, private matter and the mere suggestion of impropriety carries a social stigma that is damn near impossible to overcome. The men, and some women, who engage in this behavior know this and use this technique cynically. Now, if you want to start kowtowing to that faction, that’s your business, but, if you do, you better get used to it because you’re going to see a lot more of that critique.
This kind of bullying is not happening in a vacuum: there are plenty of public figures engaged in this type of behavior, in one form or another, plenty of “heroes” and “role models” for the public to emulate. It is the consequence of a democracy, that numbers create “truth”, and the rule of the mob is wisdom. It’s not what you say but how loud, and long, it is said that matters.
And you are allowed to say anything, about anybody, and it’s all lumped into the same pile, sorted without discretion, popped-out on a statistical sheet where it’s treated as fact because, “Numbers don’t lie.” If you’ve ever wondered about the state of the public discourse and the shocking loss of civility in our country, it is this mentality that enables it. When numbers matter more than intelligence the society reverts to the statistical (and literal) mean. Slander and gossip, once referred to, derogatorily, as “yellow” journalism, is now mainstream media but, hey, everybody just plays along to get along. It’s so institutionalized that the majority of Americans can no longer tell gossip from news or slander from fact. This is not lost on those who use their position for their own benefit or to promote their agenda.
Being well established on that slippery slope of slanderous behavior, is it surprising that people who are not public figures are now fair game (Ms. Fluke)? Imus, Maher, and Limbaugh have the one trait in common, misogyny, but that betrays a larger concept of people as objects to be manipulated. It’s not just that they hate women, they hate everyone, but it’s unifying for men to belittle women because we’re, frankly, scared of you.
Several years ago, I wrote an aesthetics article, one of the chapters entitled “Order as a Paranoid Structure” based on a technique used by Salvadore Dali, the “Paranoid Critical”. While Dali’s work appears, at first glance, to be deconstructive and chaotic (in that way, similar to mine), the underlining theory I that all logic structures are inherently artificial and are imposed by humanity to bring order to the confusion of reality. The more rigid and intricate (paranoid) the structure, the more fear is expressed toward the subject. An example of this would be the military where extremely rigid discipline is enforced so that people will behave reliably under the most adverse conditions imaginable. It is the fear of chaos on the battlefield that makes this necessary.
Getting back to the point I’ve strayed from, when you see people acting out in the media, or acting out in general, it betrays a fear or a loss of confidence in the control of the subject. The more I see men trying to control women, the more I see women winning. So cheer-up, continue kicking ass and for God’s sake, don’t backslide.
As for Imus, Maher and Limbaugh, I hope you see now it’s fear that makes them act-out, fear that they won’t be able to control women if they don’t keep you down. It’s the patriarchal structure of society that gives the illusion that they have control in the first place. Looking around at our world, I welcome a more diverse structure.
I realize that all that is just rationalization on behalf of the misogynists out there and, if you wanted to get all Freudian on them, it could just be small penises or ones that don’t function predictably. Perhaps rigidity in social expression belies flaccid personal expression and vice versa. It’s probably something simple like that because, believe me, men aren’t that complicated or evolved. And, surprise, I have a theory about that as well but it’s in such bad taste I won’t post it here. Maybe on my blog…
This is all just my way of reconciling what I saw those years ago when I Googled you, Erin.
Maybe it’s just my personal bias showing but there is almost nothing worth saying that can be properly expressed in 140 characters or one sentence followed by lol. Ignore the short writers: I’m sure they’re used to it. Give them the same consideration they show you. All the Best, TVA.
Ps. March 8 is “International Women’s Day” for the rest of the world but it’s the 3^rd anniversary of the Haines Bottom for us, right? Remember, next time you crack open a 40, the first taste is for your homies no longer with us…

(3) Re: Another Example of the Chaos at the Base of the System (a recap of CNN’s primary coverage 3/13/12). (A) Hillary Rosen (sorry if I misspelled your name). It seems the Democrats on the panel got in the best lines of the night. When HR remarked that Mitt needed to get rid of “those” jeans, I have to admit I yelled, unconsciously, back at the screen, “Hell yeah, he does!”: but it’s not just Mitt and not just the jeans. Lookee here now, there are rules surrounding proper jean usage: (1) You must pick out your own jeans. You can not delegate it to a subordinate or, God forbid, your spouse. You must take a few precious moments from your life and try on several styles until you find a pair that makes you look sexy, that’s right, SEXY. That’s what jeans are all about, sex. I don’t want you to get the idea that I spend a lot of time looking at guys but, correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t think of a beefcake photo where the guy isn’t shirtless wearing, what, suit pants? No, jeans. What’s James Dean wearing? Jeans. What’s Jim Morrison wearing? Jeans. I think you get the picture. Jeans are the male uniform for sex which is why they have NO PLACE in the political process. None of them should be wearing jeans for that reason alone-not to mention they just shouldn’t be wearing jeans, period. (2) You can’t wear boxer shorts with jeans, ever, ever, ever. Ever. You may as well wear grandma’s pantaloons but, you know what, not even Grandma wears pantaloons, anymore. Either wear boxer briefs or rock out with your…(if you don’t know how that expression ends, you shouldn’t be wearing jeans). (3) You can’t wear a button down shirt with jeans. I can, you can’t. (4) Jeans can not be worn with dress shoes. Jeans can not be worn with a dress belt. JEANS CAN NOT BE WORN WITH WHITE SOCKS: Sweet baby Jesus, I can’t believe I have to tell you this Mitt, but it’s not 1960 and this isn’t a sock-hop. (5) Take off your watch. The ladies don’t want to think you’re a slave to your schedule. You’ve got all the time they require, right? (6) You must give the same attention to the selection of your jeans as you would to the selection of a suit for the day. The same for shirt and accessories. (7) Jeans can not be the only part of the male uniform worn unless they are the only part of the uniform worn (see 1, above). (8) Know the difference between Levi’s and Wrangler’s, know which one is correct for you: no other brands are suitable for the general public. No A&F or other high priced jeans and, do I even have to tell you, no department store jeans? You got that by now, right? (9) If you roll up your jeans, you better be ankle deep in horsecrap (which we all know is much deeper than that every 4 years). (10) And most importantly, jeans are the male version of the little black dress and a similar commitment is required to pull either off successfully. If you’re not willing to commit, for God’s sake, don’t try to fake it (you don’t want to be that guy). With proper commitment, there is no age limit to jeans (I’m 52 in the picture above, about a year ago) and is there any question that, of the five candidates remaining, Ron Paul would look the best in jeans? Remember, the rules exist for a reason and, without rules, there’s chaos. You guys are making me miss Dockers-and that is INEXCUSABLE! (B) Mitt’s Tummy Trouble. As you correctly perceived, Erin, there is something unseemly about a full-grown man referring to his rock-hard, washboard, ripped, cut, shredded, etc, abs as a tummy. It’s just such an infantilizing term to be used on adult-especially in reference to himself. As troubling as that is, the larger concern for the electorate is the question he was asked was a form of the “3am phone call “ question, “What keeps you up at night?” Iran? Afghanistan? China? National Debt? Mayan Calendar? Rick Santorum? President Obama? Ann Romney? The Liberal Media? The fracturing of the Republican electorate? Rience Preibus? (my spell-check just exploded) Obamneycare? American competitiveness? Healthcare costs? Viagra? The Norquist Pledge? European sovereign debt issues? The collapse of the EU? Israel? Pakistan? Sharks off the East Coast? Somali pirates? Loose nukes? Camels? What about the camels, the poor baby camels with their long eyelashes? Anything? Anything keeping you up? Nope, just give him his Honey-nut Cheerios and he’s all good. He could have at least looked into the camera, winked and said, “Honey-nut Cheerios, if you know what I’m saying…’Sup?” Even lechery plays better with me-though I may not be typical. © It’s Wednesday; is that Paul Begala I see? Given the epic hump-busting I gave PB a few weeks ago, I’m almost ashamed to start in on him again-but I seem to have lost the capacity for shame some time ago. In reference to Mississippi, he stated the majority of Republican voters believed that Obama was a Muslim, making them either “ignorant or bigots!” It’s really a false choice, Paul: the beauty of being a Mississippi Republican is you can be either, or both. It’s the GOP’s version of the “Big Tent”. Let me see here, did I insult just about everyone? Yup, I’m all good…sweet dreams tonight! All the Best, TVA. Ps. Loved the double-dose of Outfront! Hope that continues through the rest of the primaries… Pps. Avalon’s “No Labels”: Let me offer my modification of the “No play, no pay” concept. Bills should be assigned a number of hours to complete, say 100 in the case of a budget (based on a 40 hour week, 2.5 weeks pay): this avoids the disincentive of a straight hourly pay rate, i.e., working just hard enough to keep your job, and actually rewards ability. Might also want to consider a “sweetner”, say letting Congresspeople keep a wee percentage of whatever waste the carve from the budget but that does raise the question of defining waste. The Dems will say close tax loopholes, the GOP will say cut entitlements but the sweetner does mitigate lobbying. I’ll tell you why I like the “No Labels” concept: when you look at the Debt Ceiling debacle of Aug 2011, the resolution to the issue lay in the center of the two parties, the rational center, that actually saw the necessity of the situation and felt the impending doom which neither extreme acknowledged. Only when Boehner abandoned the Tea Party wing and moved to the CENTER for support did the deal get done, flawed though it was. It was a first effort so perhaps that can be forgiven. The problem is in the leaders in the House and Senate, Boehner and Reid, that have no fire and will readily stay, warm and cozy, in their coalition instead of doing the business of the country. The most depressing thing I’ve seen in recent years in Washington (and it is quite a long list at this point) was 5 days after the debt ceiling mess, Boehner shows up at a press conference with his arm around Cantor, talking about what a great guy he is. Cantor is obviously after his job and was the protagonist of the Tea Party. Apparently, I have a longer attention span than John Boehner. It’s time to call the Tea Party what it is: an anarchist movement that doesn’t believe in the federal government, a bunch of belly-aching white guys who don’t like, well, anything really, a motley collection of disenfranchised malcontents who only agree to disagree: reactionaries who don’t even have will to camp-out like MY group. Of course, I’m referring to the Boy and Girl Scouts and their broad-based homosexual agendas. What the hell is going on in this country… tribal warfare, chaos. Late Pppps. Field Shrinkage. As it appears Ron Paul is not long for this election cycle, one must stand in awe of his continued plunges into the icy waters of the American electorate. Dangling before the fevered masses the tantalizing allure of libertarianism he embodies, every four years the chill of divided nation sends his principles retreating like a frightened turtle, knowing as he does, in his wisdom, they will return, they will descend and he will rise again. He is not unlike the mighty polar bear in this regard, who, despite the continuing destruction of his habitat, endures, struggles, fights to find his place on this gigantic blue ball we call Earth. Still the hope lingers that Romney will warm to Ron Paul’s concerns, nurture them, and though they may at first be difficult to grasp, Mitt will, in time, come to a fuller embrace of them. Let me leave you with that beautiful image: I have my book to work on, so I may not post for a time, but I’ll be watching “Outfront” everyday. Btw, when I’m working on my book, my internal monologue goes something like this, “… this young, Cinderella-boy, from out of nowhere…”

Surreal Document (in which a series of wheels is forced through a sieve formed by the sum of human knowledge, emerging greatly improved).

(In order to understand this, the reader will need to be familiar with the pixilated drawings of the 1990’s that presented a indistinct primary impression under which lay a distinct representation created by the psychological concept of closure, from which the mind reinterpreted chaos as a cartographic image of its inner workings; differing from a Rorschach Test only in the objective viewpoint of the creation of the images, neither of which are there simultaneously, or at all.)

It is a comfort to me that genetically altered grain can still be ground by the stones of the New England mills and produce a flour that is virtually indistinguishable from that which fed the Founding Fathers. There is a constancy, consistency of force at work in this, which, in times of great change and upheaval, people cling to as an absolute vindication of not just the past but progress as well. The actual product of that current milling would be, of course, abhorrent to our progenitors, devoid as it is in the sustenance that made the endeavor necessary, and would make them reconsider the execution, as well as the intent, of the process. The current argument is “that can not be known to a certainty” and we only have the words they wrote down by which to move forward, none of which speak specifically about wheat.
Little else has changed since their times, fortunately, so we can still take all their words to heart as the literal foundations of life and we are forever thankful that they did all our thinking for us. They are, in some ways, a proof of Einstein’s non-linear time in that they seem to have traveled back in time with all the answers we will ever need or, perhaps so divinely inspired were they, that reality itself kneels before them awaiting direction? In either case, they are our shield through which no harm may pass and we have only to wait until the battles are won for us.
Still the pillory awaits subversives. It was good enough for them, we should be thankful it was perpetuated to guide us as it guided them. They knew that, with suffering, wisdom comes, so the more repressive they were, the faster the society would progress. They knew that might made right and that the hand that cocks the hammer rules the world. It is humbling to consider when taken en masse. Hang on a second let me find that passage for you…well, I know it’s in there, it has to be…
Really, what does human suffering matter when the words of these men live on in our minds as absolute, immortal, inviolate? They are as alive there as their words and stand beside us in our calamities. Well, not literally, that would be absurd and I just can’t imagine Thomas Jefferson just standing there watching this…and yet I can…and yet I can’t…and yet I can…and yet I can’t.
Now they’re both gone, the man and the words and it’s like it never was.
Surreal.

The Paul Begala Letter

Re: Paul Begala (and quibbling in general). Before I start this rather long article, I am compelled to address some intellectual housekeeping. A few weeks ago, Erin Burnett interviewed Eric Schmidt of Google. During their tour of the New York HQ of Google, she at one point mentioned the variety of activities that his company engaged in (search, alternative energy, etc.-I think there was even mention of a puppy farm upstate, but I’d have to check the transcript to be sure) and opined the variety could be viewed either as a sign of strength or a lack of focus. ES responded to the thrust of the question but ignored the philosophical underpinning: all things are interconnected at some level; the more one is involved in a particular endeavor, the easier it is to see those interrelationships and the points at which they connect.
I realize this is a quibble, the first of many, but I’ve noticed as I’ve watched her that while she’s asking a question, the person she’s interviewing is busy formulating the answer but the answer typically comes out as a variation of gushing and/or chest-thumping. I’d be willing to bet, in a post-interview, there would be a lot of, “What I really wanted to say was…”
And I get that.
(Note: I’ve taken the first quibble out because the subject of the paragraph made Erin laugh and rendered the statement empty. That’s just how it worked out.)
Quibbling with Paul Begala (btw, a great name for a show): These are based on the post-State of the Union speech show on CNN. The statement was, “Physics IS Math and Politics IS Government…” which I wish to quibble with independently, last thing first. Accepting Feuerbach’s inversion of Hegel, that the state necessarily reflects the electorate’s relationship with the material world (whether in a spiritual [Hegelian] sense or a material [Feuerbachian] sense) I would agree with PB that our current, static and ineffectual, Congress (as the voice of the people) reflects the current, static and ineffectual, state of our political discourse HOWEVER this is the result of the failure of the current discourse to reflect the voice of the people and certainly not the desired state of affairs, philosophically or practically. In practice, politics should be governance but not as either are currently being expressed. If we don’t begin to define these terms as they now differ in practice, the philosophies they purport to represent are meaningless.
Of course, Hegel and Feuerbach are reactionary in response to dysfunction in the state, solely from their principles of the absolute primacy of the government in the expression of the common will, and if you really want to delve into a dialectical dissection of the ever widening chasm between the sentiment and content of our political speech, well…I first want to repeat for the any-numberth time that I am, and plan to remain, a capitalist (just for the sake of the pure, progressive nature of the concept)… go down to your local used bookstore and pick up a copy of “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital”-and remember to pay cash so you don’t end up on any “watch lists” (not that I have anything against the “watch list” folks, they’re just doing their jobs. I just suddenly had a random flash on Nuremberg, isn’t that odd?) And if you ever are looking for a thorough critique of yourself, don’t ask your friend, don’t ask a shrink, ask someone who really, truly, deeply hates your guts. If they’re that passionate about you, you’re going to get some good information.
Not everybody likes that much honesty, though. I get that, too.
(I’m not implying I hate PB, not even some. Just feel like busting his hump. It’s Wednesday, after all.)
Part 2.
Look, I know we’re all busy people here so my suggestion of reading Marx is most likely to fall on deaf ears but the good thing about having read Hegel and Feuerbach is knowing that capitalism is self-correcting, ultimately. The whole call to action and violent revolution inherent in Marx tells me he missed the point of Feuerbach, in the realization that the self-interest of the individuals in the society will call-out inequities in the system on a continuous basis, and he missed the point of Hegel, that the society will ultimately reflect that. Maybe he missed it or, more probably, it stemmed from the circumstances of Marx’s own life, spent in retched poverty, never realizing that not everybody likes that much honesty.
If you do take the time to read Marx, however, you will come to comprehensive understanding of the mechanizations of capitalism and where the particular circumstances unique to each stage will ultimately lead. In this, he extremely illuminating, with his simple, dialectical analysis leading to logical, and predicable, concerns relevant to their times. However, his conclusions, based on those analyses, are more driven by his personal psychology than any of the arguments. Or you can sit-back and wait for Hegel’s “Owl of Minerva” (wisdom) to arrive, which, even Hegel admits, is too late. The quote, “The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings and takes flight only when the shades of night are falling,” is quite poetic and, if you are so inclined, can be dismissed on that basis.
Sorry, that’s my personal psychology at work.
The sharp-eyed among you may have noticed I jumped from politics to economics. I want you to know that I understand the difference and see a point of intersection between the two not often expressed. Several years ago, while watching Erin on one of her CNBC
Later in that same day, I heard the characterization of Washington as “the marketplace of ideas” at which time my mind began, subconsciously, to link those seeming disparate concepts together. Given that it falls neatly into the definition of a duopoly (Republican/Democratic), there is no incentive for the two parties to innovate ideas so long as there are outside entities willing to subsidize any shortfall of innovation. In other words, there is no incentive for Washington to change anything, ever, when they can just sit there, do nothing and get paid by lobbyists on both sides to do so. So long as bills are presented in either partisan fashion, or constructed in such a way that no plurality can be reached, the balance is maintained by the influence of lobbying, Congress-people continue to be paid to do nothing and the country struggles on with the burden of unaddressed issues. While there is a philosophical basis to the idea of corporations being people and money equaling speech, this is the end result of its practice: a government that functions on the margin.
If one were to look at the Tea party movement or the eventual political arm of the Occupy movement, it’s becoming clear that these market-controlling entities, the Republican and Democratic parties, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to challenge from the outside, just as Feuerbach or Hegel would have predicted. As time passes, what will become evident is whether the rising power of the American oligopoly will render those philosophers moot and if the dialectical criticism of Marx and Occupy will take their place.
Either way, it’s the Owl of Minerva and the poetry of that expression, my psychology.
Part 3.
As much fun as “Politics IS Government” was for me, it’s really the “Physics IS Math” part of Paul Begala’s statement that set my teeth on edge, and that isn’t really a quibble for me, it’s more of a pet peeve. Interestingly, it is very similar to the “Politics IS Government” statement in that it is very much in the practice of the individual pursuits and the definition of the terms that the difficulties of their tautological conjoining appears.
More years ago than I wish to admit, I was invited to take a high-placement math course designed by the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell. On the very first day, the teacher led a discussion of the logical concept of Modus Ponens. At the end of the lecture, he turned to the class and asked if we were all in agreement on the idea, to which we, somewhat stunned by the significance and intensity of his question, mumbled our acquiescence. At which point, he stopped, removed his glasses, stared back at us and asked, “Are you sure?…”, which only made us suspect we had answered incorrectly the first time, so our mumbling response fell to a barely audible murmur.
And then he smiled.
Modus Ponens states, “If A, then B: A, therefore B.” Modus Ponens is a logical summation of cause and effect, when cause A creates effect B, whenever A exists, B exists. Modus Ponens is the embodiment of the philosophical concept of object and subject. Modus Ponens is the basis of Newton’s action and reaction equivalency. Modus Ponens is the glue that holds every rational consideration in sway with its consequence. Accept that premise and you embrace the philosophical, logical, mathematical, scientific, rational universe of Russell’s “Principia Mathematica” and its deceptively powerful construction of all sciences as a consequence of that premise. It almost seems odd, looking back at the world before Russell, that there was any science before this realization, as it would all have be based on a supposition of a logical tenet. Unfortunately, or not, this warm, fuzzy moment between math and science wouldn’t last very long.
Wittgenstein pointed out that Modus Ponens only functioned with the supposition of A, in other words, cause and effect presupposed the existence of cause BUT mathematics could function perfectly well without existence as the abstract concept it was before Russell. As quibbling goes, perhaps the ultimate one, but it creates a separation between logical constructs and mathematics large enough for God to dwell in or, as Einstein cleverly observed, “It is impossible to remove God from any equation.” Russell had boxed God into a corner of a rational universe and Wittgenstein let Him back out.
As powerful a tool as mathematics is, it is still only a tool, not reality, because it doesn’t need to be real and, as a consequence, neither do its conclusions. As powerful as logic is, it can not function, in practice, without the abstractions of arithmetic. Math remains an objective, synthetic abstraction incapable of subjective analysis and logic remains a subjective, organic process limited in objective expression. It seems never the twain shall meet, less some concrete proof of existence, which, ironically, would seem like an act of God.
This is my point: physics, and all the sciences, can only function with the application of mathematics in practice BUT mathematics are not specifically logical, may or may not be, and trying to construct logical theories from mathematical models based on mathematical observations, such as the discrete phenomena created in an accelerator, will never progress without a logical framework to make this discrimination.
So, physics IS math, in practice, but be very careful about math in physical theory because physical theory is the pursuit of the perfect balance, the intimate and the ultimate, the workings of the mind of the God it seeks to replace, the God of the objective and the subjective realms.
As I observed after a long meditation one day, everything you think ultimately stems from something you believe if you just question yourself, “Why” enough times and are honest with yourself. From this dichotomy, spirit and substance, the fullness of our lives arrives and the neglect of either is ignorance.
At the end of it all, you are back at that simple question, ”Are you sure?…”
And hopefully the smile.
Part 4.
And it gets worse.
The other logical basis of mathematics is the idea of substitution, that if something is equivalent to A it can take the place of A in an equation. In arithmetic, 5 can be used in the place of 3+2, and vice-versa. Where the difficulties arise is in irrational mathematical concepts that, because of their nature as logical abstractions within the occasionally illogical construct of mathematics, can not be substituted for except as an approximation. The logical, subjective concept of pi is perfect, the mathematical, objective use of it is imperfect and approximate. Far, far more damning is the implication of the Uncertainty Principle, one of its corollaries being, that because no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time, all things are inherently unique, making the basic concept of counting, and arithmetic, irrelevant and approximate on their face. Taking things out to fine point, there really is only one of each thing. I’m guessing one is the exact number of each thing the universe must require though, so no worries there.
But not everybody likes that much honesty. We couldn’t live in a world that fully embraced the chaos that the universe really is, so we put everything on Procrustes Bed until it’s manageable. It’s not a character flaw-it simply has to be done, and the basis of this is often referred to as “hubris”, a self-directed cataloging of experience, the sophistication of which I interpret as intelligence, or intellectual honesty, or individual success. Simply, the more open you are about what you don’t know largely displays what you do know and the more rigid and intractable your thoughts are, not only shows your limits but, inhibits more nuanced integration of new experiences.
So be careful about equivalencies because there really aren’t any. Just busting your hump, Paul Begala.
In my defense, it is a principled busting, I’m not just “taking you out for a ride” and I’m doing this to a particular end. The hubris necessary to enable the individual to function is unique to each of us, as is the cataloging that springs from it. The exploitation of this necessary separation between spirit and senses, theory and practice, object and subject, God and People, by the processes of the state necessitates the state’s critique and the lack of that critique is either stupidity or sin.
Or both.
Part 5.
As our conscious minds awake, we spring forward from the certainty of our childish mind, from the certainty of the shore to the warm, welcoming lake and set off to the distant shore. Looking back, after only a few strokes, we find the shore we sprang from has receded and is no longer any more accessible than the distant one, all shores become equidistant, but, no matter, we are resolute to journey and see what awaits. We notice about us, every other person and call out to them, though, no matter how close, they remain at a distance and only partially hear what we say. We may choose to swim with another that shares our vision of the common shore and, at times, carry each other so one may rest as the other labors, as a group to break through the waves or follow a powerful leader, confident of the way, though nothing seems to draw the shore closer. Noticing this, we may stop and question our decisions, curse the lake and all around us who are of no use and not accept we each made the decision to journey for we had outgrown our certainty and wished for knowledge.
But we swim well, are born for this task and the more we struggle the stronger and more expert we become until, as our strength fails us, our courage leaves us or that desire for that distant shore is replaced by the dull ache of the journey, we sink-only to find again the certainty of the shore we sprang from beneath us on the distant shore…
From which we set off again.

Ron Paul

Re: (A) Ron Paul and the price of gas. When Dana Carvey was on SNL he did a character called “The Grumpy Old Man” and the set-up was always the same: the old man would start-off complaining about some modern thing and end-up saying how much better things used to be. It would go something like this: “Can you believe the price of gas? When I was a young man, gas was 15 cents a gallon, now gas goes up 15 cents overnight! Used to be we had a gold standard and we liked it! We loved it! Oh, happy day! Now, we have an capital economy and kids run around with their pants around their knees with their butt cracks showing-we wore our pants just below our armpits, cinched up tight with a piece of rope, because we were skinny from the Great Depression and if we didn’t wear them up high, they’d slide right off! Because we were starving-and we liked it! We loved it, oh, skiddle-de-de, those were the days!” It was, of course, remorselessly ageist and referencing it, even as abstractly as I am, carries a certain taint which I am willing to bear for the good of the whole. What made it work is the revisionist history inherent in all history: the way an individual remembers his life is very similar to the way that history records actual events but the bias of the historian is less obvious than the Grumpy Old Man. The lessons of history become meaningless when bias is used to alter the flow of events so that decisions made in the moment to address the issues of that point in time become seen as scheme, as a manipulation and not the most appropriate means. Nixon didn’t just wake up one day and decide to float our currency, it was the best thing to do at that time, it was the appropriate thing for that time and you’re not going to be able to put that Genie back in that bottle-no matter what Ron Paul tells you. Without control of our energy needs, we can not compete with other nations without leveraging our capital (as every other nation does, btw) and the floating of our currency is beneficial to industry by mitigating the impact of fluctuations in energy prices, the reason Nixon made the change. Unfortunately, all commodity standards are subject to speculation and market control by cartels. We are on a de facto oil standard and the price is increasing because the dollar is worth less, we have forced inflation abroad with Quantitative Easing, nations abroad have become less stable as a result of that QE and the governments are either in turmoil (which is bad for oil volatility) or appeasing their electorates with subsidies (Saudi Arabia and Iran) that cause them to raise the price of their oil. Just saying, Saudi Arabia HAS to sell their oil for $100 a barrel to pay the subsidies to keep peace. Get used to these prices-or perhaps it’s time for a regime change in SA? As always, be careful what you wish for… (B)Twitter, Brooke Baldwin and size. I almost feel sorry for people whose worth is measured by the number of Twitter followers they have. Many years ago, when bumper stickers started appearing en masse, I realized that nothing I could say, without later regretting, would fit on a bumper sticker (or in 140 characters) and like a bumper sticker, a tweet is very hard to remove when outgrown. It’s something that is done impulsively and typically leads to regret. Sure, everybody is talking on Twitter-but are they saying anything? I don’t go drive around in my car to read the bumper stickers instead of reading so why should I care about Twitter? Why do you? Doesn’t what you’re talking about matter anymore-or is it just the fact that you’re talking? Like BB said (about the number of Twitter hits), “Size DOES matter” so, Erin, next time you see her, tell her the Tomcat says “’Sup?” and that I remember when I was a boy we didn’t post pictures of our junk on Twitter, we put on an overcoat and stood out by the bus stop! Oh, I still remember the feeling of the wind on my stuff: I liked it, I loved it! I couldn’t get enough! Those were the days! All the Best, TVA. PS. Thanks to your “Cash for Clunkers” idea, Erin, I’m driving around in a newish car that gets 40 mpg. So, gas prices, eh, who cares? Good thing I didn’t opt for that Suburban, though… Pps. Still hard at work on that book, so this is just blowing off some steam. Did you know David Hume’s empiricist philosophy stems largely from a nervous breakdown? Can’t make that kind of stuff up…

Rick Santorum

Re: Rick Santorum. I’ve mentioned that I’m working on a book about reductionism, a philosophical construction that reduces ideas to the sum of their parts-hence the name, which, I’m sure, seems like a very distant idea to most people, and perhaps not relevant to their daily concerns, making such an exploration absurd on its face. Let me use Rick Santorum’s recent comments as an illustrator towards the relevancy critique: a focus of his candidacy has been, if I can be allowed to summarize this campaign (being aware of the generalizations inherent in the method), his “social” concerns and the effect that ideas that differ from his damage the country. This, of course, is very polarizing. I think people know, almost instinctively, whether they agree or disagree with him. It is this instinct I find fascinating. In Romney and Santorum, I find the expression of the two basic theses, viewpoints, on the world: the objective in Romney and the subjective in Santorum. Romney is very Hegelian in his way: he looks at the broad populace, ties the trends of society to the spirit of the individual and adjusts his political viewpoint to that perception. Romney seems to believe, as Hegel did, that society will reflect the values of the individuals in the society; an objective expression of the subjective world. Romney finds fault in the expression, in that the objective world damages the individual. Santorum finds fault in the subjective world, that society is flawed because people don’t believe the “right” things so the society is damaged by the thoughts of individuals. While I’m sure these are carefully constructed platforms designed to be antithetical, they are, in fact, expressions of viewpoints on the world, expressions of perception, and are, in fact, complementary. The antithesis to perception is reality. The too fervid embrace of either the subjective or objective viewpoints prevents the synthesis of the two, which is the point. By denying this synthesis, whether willfully or ignorantly, they both stand as equally irrelevant to reality in being unable to access and reconcile these disparities. Romney appears artificial, a construction made entirely from his circumstances, and lacks spirit, while Santorum appears irrational, a construction made from his psyche, and lacks substance. Obama, whether willfully or ignorantly, is a synthetic thinker and sees himself, and the people around him, as both spirit and substance, simultaneously, which doesn’t satisfy zealots of either stripe. This also makes him the most philosophically consistent both with himself and reality because, wait for it, both he and reality are syntheses of spirit and substance. The most interesting part of this idea is how the mind integrates information and sensation to support the ongoing concept of the spirit of the individual, creating unique life experiences from shared events. We all see the world in our unique ways and those ways largely shape what we see: Romney sees it as logical, objective, Santorum sees it as spiritual, subjective and Obama sees it as philosophical, both, but to neither extreme. (FYI: I see it as poetry, metaphorical, and interconnected. ) As always, elections prove Hegel to be correct, elections carry the spirit of the individuals in the society, and, as always, elections are a referendum on the individual’s relationship with the objective world, as Feuerbach said. This election, to me, will tell whether our society has accepted the reduction of individuals, to spirit OR substance, or whether the synthesis of the two is the proper course for the state. The dynamic between the subjective and the objective, that synthesis, reveals our passion for the full embrace of reality, for the full embrace of our lives, and the acceptance of reduction leads to apathy and despair. But that’s how I see it, I guess, that’s just my instinct. All the Best, TVA

Ps. Please note, at no time did I use the term religion when speaking about spirituality. I realize the general characterizations of the campaigns are broad but the thrust of each of them is evident.

Pps. Welcome back Erin, I missed you.

Valentines 2012

Re: (A). The thing stuck to the bottom of your shoe (that you aren’t aware of). You may have noticed I haven’t written you as often of late but I am working on a book, a critique of existentialism and reductionism, that leaves me less time for indulgences. In the deep background phase of my research, I came upon the conflict between the two primary pre-Socratic philosophers, Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides argued that permanence was the fundamental characteristic of reality: that it was one, single, permanent, unchanging thing. Whatever is, must be as it is, identical with itself and unchanging. Heraclitus took the view more in keeping with what is, now, the Western scientific thought: everything around us, and ourselves as well, is in a constant state of flux and permanence is an illusion. The irony here is rich: in the 2600 years that have elapsed since their tete-a-tete, the only conclusion that has been arrived at is that the argument continues. Parmenides permanence has been damaged by the obvious changes in thought and life but Heraclitus is still unable to overcome the persistence of his thought itself: the longer his change viewpoint remains, the weaker the impermanence becomes. Though I’m sure these ideas seem distant to you, let me draw them closer: this is the central argument in all governance, “Is it more appropriate, to these times, to change or to embrace the status quo?” The answer to the question is, at all times, unknowable but it is the argument, the process of the dialectic that forever surrounds it, that is vital. The more Congress argues ideology, from either viewpoint, the less they argue reality and that is the argument they need to embrace: that nothing ever changes and nothing is permanent. The important thing is action relevant to the times. What does this have to do with existentialism and reductionism? On a hot summer’s day, as you approach the entrance to a building, you happen to spy a piece of chewed gum glistening in the sun just in time to avoid stepping in it. Do you congratulate yourself on your perception or stop, take out your handkerchief (embroidered with your initials, hearts and flowers surrounding same [or perhaps the curious kittens tapestry one you keep on the weekends]), and pick up the gum, knowing that, sooner or later, someone WILL step in it, track it into the building where you will be, increasing, exponentially, the odds of it becoming stuck to you? I have chosen to pick-up reductionism and existentialism, knowing the despair that permeates these philosophies will eventually become stuck to me through the unknowing transmission of it from others.
It’s going to be okay, I’ve got a plan…
(B). Erin: I’m assuming we’re still good. Perhaps you recall (though, more likely, you have thought of little else since) last year I asked you to be my Valentine, asking only that you not reply in the negative for us to have a deal (and you didn’t), so thanks again for that. Through no fault of my own, I, again, find myself at loose ends on this “holiday”, so I’m putting myself out there again for you, though sometimes I think I give too much. I know you’re engaged to this, this…dude, I guess, but you know what, nobody ever reads all of these long posts anyway so it’ll be our little secret. Be my Valentine, okay? All the Best, TVA.
Ps. I’m assuming we’re now good until 2013. Thanks again.
Pss. He gave you a pretty ring but, you know, the sad thing about rings is that they’re hollow except for the love you put in them-and, even then, they don’t always stay full. Remember, what fills it is YOU, you are the love and the ring is just a trap. And you are too clever to be trapped, right?
Psss. I have no expectation that the preceding canard will actually work…
Pssss. I’m writing the book as Albert Camus meets Henry Miller, introduced to each other by Hunter Thompson. Should be epic: I’ll be sure to send you a copy.

Magic Beans

Re: Magic Beans. I heard President Obama state, yesterday, that “…There aren’t any ‘magic beans’ or I would have used them already…” which shows, to me, a lack of understanding of magic and, more importantly, a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of beans. Magic, in the most basic terms, is an unexpected result from routine task like, for example, money pumped into the neediest segments of society returning a 60% multiplier just from the immediate spending of the money and the bubbling up of those monies through the other segments of society. Even if we borrowed that money at 3%, we would still net a 57% increase in economic activity, magically. More distressing, for me, is his non-comprehension of beans as both a food source, obviously, and for the propagation of beans, writ large. The choice is so basic the President seems to have missed it: is he pro-peace and prosperity or is he a war president? Given that 50% of our budget goes to defense spending (with nothing to show for it as profiting from war is unseemly [but war itself is acceptable? Huh?]) it would seem to be the obvious place to start cutting but, not so fast, they spend a lot on lobbying and losses in that segment would be bad for the local economy of Washington, D.C.. I get that. I also get that our military power is an expression of our economic self-interest. I also get that we sell a lot of our hardware around the world which is why one of the primary concepts in the European bailouts is that existing contracts for the military take precedence over social programs. Here’s the thing: the more people we kill or enable other people to kill with our technology, the more people are missing from the world, people that could be out working and taking care of their families, inventing or just laboring to make the world a better place for themselves and their children. Is it a co-incidence that the most backward countries continue to send people in the prime of their lives out to be killed and are then burdened with their survivors? We’ve gotten very good at the whole killing thing, we get many of “them” for every one of ours but what you are left with at the end is an angry country that is really just repairing itself so it can seek revenge, an endless cycle of war. The first commandment really should have been written, “Thou really SHOULDN’T kill; it’s bad business, all in all.” Maybe someone would have paid attention if it was linked to profits and expenses… I realize in writing this many people are going to reply that “Bad people should die” (paraphrased) and I’m not saying that might not be true. It’s just expensive, no matter how you slice it, and you could buy a lot of beans with that money. When you’re starving, beans are delicious, magically, like Lucky Charms and if you’re not starving, you could plant them, grow more beans and profit from beans! While ultimately there is no such thing as “magic beans” there is no need for them because all beans are inherently magical.

Unfortunately, we are less magical the more war-like we are.

Ironic.

South Carolina Primary

While this article will be constructed like my typical emails to “Outfront”, I’ve chosen to publish it here, on one of my blogs, due to its offensiveness to individuals and good taste. If you are easily offended, can’t take a joke or are a republican, you have been forewarned…

I just don‘t want to hear any crying, later.)

(1) Paulie says “Relax”. Paul Steinhauser’s slow-motion reveal of the SC primary showed his knowledge that the call is the climax of the evening and best put-off until all parties are satisfied with the result. Even after Fox and MSNBC had gone out for a smoke and begun telling jokes while dialing up “Sportscenter”, CNN, due to Paul’s forbearance, held it, held it, held it until the proper tension was achieved and the sweet revelation of the moment realized. He knew you can’t unring that bell, only apologize for it. Nicely done. You’d think he’d be more popular. (2) The panel. Starting from left to right, as viewed and politically: James Carville is just the best in the business, deftly blending humor, insight and sarcasm at a level above the rest of the group and, as much as I love Donna Brazile, having to follow JC is pretty tough. Maybe a DRDR seating pattern would help. Ari Fleisher and Alex Costallanos were the republicans on the panel. (3) Ari Fleisher. While displaying his reliable “man-in-a-suit” demeanor that has made him the talking head du jour this political season, he did manage to perform a traditional Bush Whitehouse hari-kari by interrupting David Gergin with an “ I totally disagree…” (which actually sounded like “You’re not just wrong, you’re stupid.”) over some minor point. Given that David Gergin is the political director at CNN, I’m assuming Ari’s shoveling David’s sidewalks and driveway this morning. It’s the only way he’s going to learn, sir. As stop everything, screeching tires and fingernails on the blackboard as that was, the fax pas of the night went to… (4) Alex Costallanos. About the enthusiasm of the electorate towards Obama’s reelection, he opined, “…it’s never as exciting, losing your virginity for the second time…” which was the most revealing moment of the campaign since the Bachmanns danced that mincing waltz after the Iowa straw poll. I only wonder in what order he lost them both. Maybe he’s right, I really can’t speak to that only losing mine just the once, but I guess I’d rather not be rely on the republicans being gentle because it sounds like they like the rough stuff, if you believe their rhetoric. As I’m sure the RNC would say to the SC voters, thanks for coming out on such a dark and stormy night, Alex. (5) John King. You can stop telling us JK did nothing wrong asking Newt about the open marriage thing. We already knew that. (He needs to give Erin back her wall, however.) (6) Dangerous when aroused. James Carville incorrectly guessed that the vote in SC would be, at best, similar to Iowa and NH: in other words, at, or near, the level of 2008. He did not count on their full-throated endorsement of the concept of open marriages, however. If I’d been Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, the first sentence of my post-election speech would have been, “Honey, as soon as I’m done with this, we need to talk.” Given that the turn-out was up 30%, the only logical conclusion to reach is that, when confronted with the choice between a field of tragically flawed candidates and a black president, SC will rush to the aid of any son of the South held up to scrutiny by the commie press. “How dare they remind us of what we already know,” they must have thought, “It’s time to stop the think’n and get to vote’n!” and it appears they did that in just that order. It was really a vindication of the Ron Paul stratagem of, when ignored or marginalized by the press, putting the press on trial, both as a tool of large corporations, in cahoots with the rich, and the cudgel of the socialists, kowtowing to the welfare state. Maybe it’s just me but that seems dichotomous. If the SC republicans want to know about the candidates, well, they’ll just have to trust what they’re told. Politicians are honest, right?

Probably best not to wake them up at all…

Unwatchable

Re: Unwatchable. In the three or so years I’ve watched your various shows, Erin, this is the first time I’ve actually complained. Sure I’ve teased, provoked, and randomly generated odd ideas, more for my amusement but occasionally for yours as well, but I think you need to know this about me (and perhaps other viewers might feel the same way). There are some people that appear on television and, the moment I see them, I change the channel. My experience with these individuals has taught me that, if I watch them, I won’t be happy about it later. This is not always about the individual: sometimes it’s just how my mind interacts with these people. (1) Sarah Palin. Every time I watch her, I wonder why I haven’t already moved to France (and those thoughts linger after the viewing). (2) Jim Cramer. I want to be careful here: I have the utmost respect for Jim, obviously a brilliant man who makes me feel guilty that I can’t watch him, but the frenetic pace of his delivery makes my mind absolutely frantic after the fact. As much as I would like the luxury of spending my day reconnecting the ideas he presents, I just don’t have the time, hence the aforementioned guilt. (3) The newest member of this group, Alec Costallanos (probably misspelled, I just don’t care enough to Google it.) The problem with this guy is his thoughts are so random, so tangentially linked to this world, that I can’t help thinking “ WTF is this guy thinking?” On last night’s “Outfront”, he was talking about bed-wetting and some thing about the nocturnal habits of firemen, this on the heels of his second virginity thing he said on the SC primary show, and in my mind I’m thinking, ”Okay, this guy’s just nuts,” but I swear to God I heard these same ideas on “Morning Joe” about a year ago. This is this guy’s spiel and I don’t understand how he keeps getting on television and that makes me crazy, just thinking about it. At the end of his segment, you asked him, “This is what you want to talk about, bedwetting and firemen?” (paraphrased) and the guy just smiles and nods! I could tell by looking at your face you were thinking, “Is this guy crazy or is it me?”, just like I was, and I want to say you’re not crazy (but I withhold judgment on myself because, well, I know myself better.) I watched the debate and the after show right up to the point Alex came on, thought “I’ve really had enough of him,” and switched over to “Seinfeld” (the “Mulva” one, I know you’re a fan). Turned on Soledad O’Brien and there he was, so I switched over to the on-going struggle for dominance that is “Morning Joe”. Turned on “Newsroom” (can’t get enough of Kyra’s green-hazel eyes) and there he was, AGAIN! At that point I sat down and started composing this letter. Sorry I went on like this but I’m really trying this to get this guy out of my head. I don’t know where you dug this guy up but do the Tomcat a solid and keep digging. This isn’t a casual complaint, look at how long it is… All the Best, TVA.

Superpowers

Re: The Two Superpowers Editorial. First of all, I love these glimpses into the workings of your mind and the connections you make in diverse ideas. I agree with your premise, that America should be more accepting of China’s rise, and I’ve often felt that we are too combative with other nations to the detriment of our competitiveness with other nations, which I blame on the “Highlander” movies and the whole “There can be only one” motif. We have the advantage of being, already, what other nations aspire to be: a fully realized capitalist system with the reserve currency of the world and, instead of living in the perpetual fear of the rise of other states, should look at how their policies and practices benefit them, are better adapted to the times and move toward a more competitive stance in those areas. We should look at them as the laboratories of capitalism doing the fresh research for us. As I see it, China’s lesson to us is the rapidity of a government’s decision-making greatly benefits the business climate-so long as it is done in a pro-business way. Our lesson to China is, without a reserve currency, they will forever have to marginalize their currency (in a growth economy) to keep inflation tolerable. But I think they realize that, don’t you? It does neatly tie all their actions together. Competition always bring out the best, and exposes the weakness, in the opponents and as long as the game is fair, both parties benefit. Healthy rivalry should be embraced at the personal and societal levels to make the fastest progress. Which is really the point, after all. All the Best, TVA

Stephen Colbert

Re: Herman Cain. I understand you’re going to sit down with the Hermanator tonight and you have something in common with him that you may have not considered discussing: Stephen Colbert. After dispensing with the topics of the day, towards the close of the interview:
EB: “You know, Hermie, Stephen Colbert is trying to pass himself off as you on the SC ballot.”
HC: “Members of my staff have made me aware of this shocking, appalling breach of etiquette.”
EB: “Riding your coattails, right? I’ve recently had a similar experience with this, this, man. While disseminating information vital to the public discourse, I was viciously, scurrilously attacked for some imagined flaw in my “flicking” technique…
HC (interrupting): “And flushed down a toilet, if I recall. Disgusting. The man appears to have no internal censor and his staff obviously lives in fear of his irrational rage.”
EB: “All for what? A cheap laugh, the chance to promote himself without doing any of the actual work necessary to achieve a meaningful place in the hearts and minds of the public. It lowers me to even mention this besmerchment upon both our characters but I feel compelled, in the interest of REAL JOURNALISTS, to call out this person and identify him as the charlatan he so clearly is!”
HC: “The only flaw in that plan would be it relies on integrity he revealed himself to be deficient in…”
EB (interrupting): “…or lacking, entirely…”
HC: “Right. Obviously a coddled child of permissive parents who has never really grown-up.”
EB: “ True, but no matter how tragically reared, an adult must at some point be held accountable for his misdeeds. If it takes a village to raise this child, we are your village, Stephen.”
HC: “Feel the full pain of the Burnett wrath.”
EB (shaking HC’s hand): “Word.”

I double-dog dare you (which is the most dreaded of all the dares.) All the Best, TVA.
Ps. Like this (so she does it).
Pss. Amphibious camels didn’t play with the ladies, although they did find the song of the fully buoyant camel “Haunting” in a not good way. Obviously, as a woman, you knew it wouldn’t work. Are you C(amel)-blocking me?

Boxing and Sampling

Re: Some things I know a little about (a very little). (1) Boxing. Newt Gingrich says he “…wants to knock Obama out”. Well, if I were to handicap this match, using traditional metrics, I’d say they are in the same weight class, thus the fight could be sanctioned by the proper councils, but the most overlooked statistic in comparing two boxers is “reach“, the difference in the length of the opponents’ arms, a clear advantage to the President. Though not always exact (Ali had a distinct reach over Frasier, and Hearns over Leonard), of the physical traits, it is the most telling. If the shorter reach wins, it’s always a great fight. Of the abstract considerations, I’ve found the “lack of respect” factor to have a high correlation with victory. The fighter who feels most disrespected will typically fight harder. Possible nod to Newt on that one. Lastly, is the “finishing power”, or “killer instinct”, of the fighter. Ask bin Laden how that worked out for him-oh, that’s right, you can’t. I gotta put my money on the Pres., the Scholar from Harvard, the Hell-bent Incumbent, the Hawaiian Punch, the Maui Wowie, the Pineapple Express (I seem to be off on a tangent here), Barack’n his world, the Obamanator. I’d pay to see that fight, though…as long as I get the winner. (2) Sampling. On yesterday’s show, it appeared that either you or Wil Surrat were unaware of the laws that surround legal sampling. As settled in the landmark MC Hammer “Can’t touch this” vs. Rick James’ “Superfreak” lawsuit (for really reals, I’m not making this up) any sample exceeding 8 notes establishes plagiarism. So, because “Barbie Girl” is written in pentameter (five notes per bar), it’s not a good song to sample: the best you could do is “I’m a Barbie girl, in my Bar“(bie world exceeds the legal limit). Written in an 8 note bar, “My anaconda don’t want none” from “Baby got Back” by Sir Mixalot falls safely under these guidelines. I hope you find this instructive. (I have to say the “anaconda” riff made my day which, I suppose, makes me a very wrong, and deeply troubled, man. No one, anywhere, gets away with that reference but you. Nicely done.) (3) SOPA. The only clear winners in the piracy debate are the Washington lobbyists who how have the deep pockets of Silicon Valley to plumb. I’m sure that’s going to work out just great-it always does. I hope you stay with this story and don‘t dropa the SOPA. Good advice for the Costa disaster captain, as well. (4) Drones. Do the Iranians know they don’t have to settle for miniature drones? There are many pills and lotions available over the internet (and they all work great-trust me.) I’m just saying they seem to have a problem with their moral authority and when I say moral authority, well, I think you know what I mean…All the Best, TVA. Ps. I got my 9 year old a talking Ken doll last Christmas, one that repeats back anything in a man’s voice. The first phrase she used was “Hey there, Barbie: let’s go party!” You don’t see that kind of durability in a pop song very often…

Character Defects

Re: Midway down my list of character defects. (1) Avalon on SC. After ranting about Iowa, perhaps you were bracing yourselves for a similar article on SC but I’ve never been to the Palmetto State. Speaking out of hand about their nature would have been disingenuous. I did, however, live in Florida for a year… (2) SOPA. Last night I spontaneously posted the link to the PCCC anti-SOPA petition on this page. Upon reflection, as an artist, I am somewhat conflicted on this subject: the free-internet hippie in me hates the idea of paying for anything on the web but midway down the list of my character defects lies pride in my work-and the thought that I could, somehow, someday, profit from it. I feel compelled to recuse myself from this topic on the basis of this inner conflict. Oh, and I’ve been meaning to mention, hey, Time-Warner: Have you been working out? Tone it down and give some of the rest of us a chance, you big stud. (3) And speaking of chatting up the ladies, WHERE’S MY G-D “CAMEL REPORT”, Erin? Just when I adjusted my pick-up lines to include references to some cute camel-related anecdote you shared with us, you go and drop the whole segment! You’re killing my game! (I tried some tree-frog thing I heard on “Man vs. Wild” but that didn’t go anywhere-not even with pictures. All I got was “Eww, aren’t they, like, amphibious or something? Are you amphibious, too?” and no matter how much you assure them you’re not, you just can’t come back from that.) Help a brother-man out, would ya? Put the hump back in hump-day, for all of us! All the Best, TVA