Revolutionary Road -- Critical Culture's Review

Critical Culture: Revolutionary Road
Problem is the 60s-novel's satire of the 50s is stale in the 00s. Without a backbone of literary goodness (haven't read the novel, just assuming it had one), the film fails to be anything more than a dated, well-acted, badly-realized melodrama—rather: badly-realized bad melodrama: Mendes must be a Douglas Sirk literalist. More than that, it's a movie during which people keep yelling at each other that isn't the least-bit exciting or entertaining.



Share/Save/Bookmark

My Predictions for 2009

I predict not one, but two, neologisms will be invented when Climate Change proves woefully idiotic (following Global Warming). Both revisions will scurry to incorporate the striking stability discovered in overall climate, as "more incontrovertible proof" of man's disastrous effect on our environment. Al Gore will continue to personally rake in a percentage of all CO² taxes, and his PR firm will acquire Discovery Channel, claiming a mandate to "save it from corporate corruption."

al_gore_guitar
Image by openDemocracy via Flickr

Anti-WTO and Greenpeace protesters will ramp up their offensives globally, shrieking that the "fascist libertarian" Obama "isn't doing enough" to keep other cultures shielded from the economic development that corrupts the capitalist West. They will increasingly adopt the tactics of terrorism, until at the end of the year their plan to blow up a nuclear power plant in upstate NY is foiled by internal disputes over the fate of the surrounding flora and fauna.

A cure for AIDS will not be found, but cutting-edge evolutionary medicine will perfect a cure for allergies based, strangely enough, on homeopathic principles. Breast cancer will be curbed dramatically by innovative detection techniques, while the ensuing vacuum of a reason to walk/run will force obesity to rise among women aged 17-35. They will be forced into poverty by new, local obesity taxes.

The theory of evolution itself will enjoy a vastly resurgent acceptance, and "America's Fittest Family" will become the #1 prime-time reality game show. In academia, critical theorists and policy makers will hope that this is their chance to push through "Eugenics, Version 2.0"

Michael Jackson will make a bizarre and brief comeback with a hit song with cryptic lyrics about "belugas closing their stuffed hands around Sri Lanka." His sole televised performance will occur aboard Virgin Galactic, where he will appear in blackface with an audience of various toddler-sized dolls. As his zero-gravity encore, he will strap 400 lbs. of explosives to his crotch and sniffle something vaguely to the effect of "this planet wasn't meant for all my beauteous starry love."

The Russian military, facing the public relations nightmare of failing to annex an unfortified Crimea and Azerbaijan, will turn against Putin and install a temporary military regime until transitioning toward real democracy, led by its newly elected Siberian minority leader.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Kwanzaa: violent 60s radical invented fake holiday

Ron Karenga celebrating Kwanzaa at the Rochest...Image via Wikipedia

Link: examiner.com

Held each year from December 26 until January 2, Kwanzaa is increasingly seen as an appropriate multicultural alternative to Christmas, a holiday considered too religious and “Eurocentric” for public schools.

But there is one not-so-insignificant problem with Kwanzaa. While many teachers believe it is an ancient African harvest festival, it was not born in pre-colonial West Africa, but in 1960s southern California. It is the brainchild of African-American radical activist, academic and convicted felon Ron Karenga.

In 1969, two rival radical groups were battling for control of the UCLA black studies program: the Black Panthers and the lesser-known US, or United Slaves, led by Mr. Karenga. Both groups sauntered around campus carrying loaded guns. Perhaps inevitably, violence erupted. As
David Horowitz recalls in Radical Son, Black Panther John Higginswas “murdered—along with Al ‘Bunchy’ Carter—on the UCLA campus by members of Ron Karenga’s organization.” After the killing, the FBI infiltrated both groups, and the United Slaves turned to fighting “enemies within.”

The result:
two female members were tortured by their “comrades” in May, 1970. Both alledge Mr. Karenga ordered and participated in their assaults.

In 1999, writer
Paul Mulshine published his research into Karenga’s violent past onFrontPageMagazine. Mr. Mulshine found a May 14, 1971, Los Angeles Timesreport of the victims’ testimony, which read:

“The victims said they were living at Karenga’s home when Karenga accused them of trying to [poison] him. . . . When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in [one victim’s] mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of [the other victim’s] toes was placed in a small vise which was allegedly tightened by one of the defendants. The following day . . . Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them.”

Convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment, Mr. Karenga was sentenced in 1971 to up to 10 years in prison. “A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day,” Mr. Mulshine writes. “That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga’s unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa.”

Shortly after his release from prison in 1975, Mr. Karenga (now armed, not with a pistol, but a doctorate)
took over the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach, which he runs to this day.

And what about Kwanzaa?

The festival’s seven days commemorate allegedly “traditional African” principles, such as “collective work” and “cooperative economics,” each referred to by a Swahili name.

“Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast?” asks Mr. Mulshine. “American Blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania—where Swahili is spoken—are thousands of miles away.
This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day by speaking Polish.”

And why would Mr. Karenga schedule a harvest festival near the winter solstice, “a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere?”

The religious satire magazine
The Door likewise questioned Kwanzaa’s authenticity. “Karenga cobbled together a mishmash of different traditions and languages and blended them with Marxist ideas to reflect a unified African culture that doesn’t exist anywhere,” it reported. Ujamaa, or “cooperative economics”—one of the seven principles of Kwanzaa—is the term the socialist leader of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, used for his disastrous policy of putting tens of thousands of Tanzanians on collective farms.

People think it’s African, but it’s not,” admitted Karenga in a 1978 Washington Post interview. “I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of ‘bloods’ [Blacks] would be partying.”


Share/Save/Bookmark

Are we correct that all cultural values are being destroyed?

Are we correct that all cultural values are being destroyed? Or are they once again changing, under the press of circumstance and from their own internal dynamics, while we, the anthropologists, disapprove of the changes or at least do not comprehend them?

“To argue globally against cultural change is a startling position; to accept all change as good is mindless and cruel. The challenge, as yet unmet, is to conceptualize communities as a complex process of stability and change, and then to factor in the changes tourism brings. To this end, the evaluation of tourism cannot be accomplished by measuring the impact of tourism against a static background. Some of what we see as destruction is construction. Some is the result of a lack of any other viable option; and some the result of choices that could be made differently.

“Which is which is by no means an easy matter to decide, but is clear that anthropologists have not yet met these problems head on.”

–Davyd J. Greenwood
from Valene Smith’s
Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (1977)


Share/Save/Bookmark

Vertigo - The Divine Tragi-Comedic Fall of Lacanian Gaze


The opening scenes of Vertigo provide the viewer with several keys with which to unlock the film's codes and modes of operation. At the outset, the eye over which the credits roll hovers, cinematically amputated, in prototypical likeness to the film apparatus -- the movie camera --mirroring the gaze of the spectator. It becomes apparent, in the camera's closing in from face to eye to spiraling abstraction, the viewer's gaze will be guided, and none too gently. The eye sparkles in an intense zoom, filling the screen and suggesting its infinitely seductive depth (window to the soul, as is said; or, to whatever preverbal entity of Lacan). Its purpose seems to be to expose the oblique vulgarity of the intent eye, that optical thief which cannot but help its wandering fixations and quest for completion -- in a word, voyeurism. After all, in what other natural context can that solitary, overblown eye be seen staring, besides when peering into a room through the keyhole? Perhaps like a child, spying on the private & sacrosanct Scottie, the able-bodied San Francisco detective, who has been traumatized by his partner's fatal plunge and rendered in his mind, useless by his acquired acrophobia.

He is in the study of his friend and former fiancée, Midge, a commercial[ized] artist.

Bespectacled, her image hotted up, in the Mcluhan sense -- she is all eyes. Here, he collapses onto the leather couch (not unlike that which a psychoanalyst typically employs, to place the analysand into the vulnerable alpha-state, inducing, so it would seem, a regression in order to access his/her unconsciousness). Scottie has collapsed inward, toward his inner child. Throughout the scene, he plays the buoyant role of the playful, self-absorbed toddler -- even referring to Midge as motherly -- innocently occupying himself (twirling his cane) while Midge goes about the very adult business of rendering brassieres, those masks of the bosom. He is putting on a play, acting for her, game-set-matching her magnified eyes by giving them an eye-full. On display, secure within the confines of her gaze, Scottie can even play with his own under-developed sexuality: in a vaguely queer expression, he muses "Midge, do you suppose many men wear corsets?"
She responds, humoring him coyly, "More than you think."

One of these brassieres is unrecognized, strange to him. He points toward it, poking and prodding inquisitively, tracing its feminine curves with his walking stick (a phallic extension of his body, which props him up and is the artificial source of his power):
Scottie: What's this doohickey?
Midge: It's a brassiere. You know about those things; you're a big boy now.
Scottie: Never run across one like that.
Midge: It's brand new -- revolutionary uplift. No shoulder straps, no backstraps. But does everything a brassiere should do.
Indeed, this new technical invention still masks the breasts, makes them inaccessible. Can we also not extend this metaphor to the inaccessible eye, that of the audience? The optical apparatus has been amputated irreparably from the beholder, given a new, free-roaming life as the movie camera, without nerves or straps to fasten it -- a "revolutionary uplift." Yet magically, the filmic apparatus "does everything [an eye] should do," and more, since it has been unleashed from the neocortex. Its gaze is mindless. Yet Scottie still has his cane to guide him:
Scottie: I'm a man of independent means as the saying goes. Fairly independent.
Midge: Hmm, mmm. Well, why don't you go away for a while? [She dares him]
Scottie: You mean to forget? Oh now, Midge, don't be so motherly; I'm not gonna crack up.
To prove it, he takes his first baby step up the ladder: "First step... I look up, I look down." Up toward mother, searching for her reassurance, studying her face for signs she is pleased. They are comingled in that secure, transcendental partnership, two becoming one, as in a spiritual dance. Then looking down, toward self, toward his separation, actualizing his independence. He is urged onward by his newfound self-possession and emboldened by Midge's approving supervision. Like a mother, she must tirelessly encourage him, must never show any signs of her confidence waning (but imperfect as any human, she inevitably will). A mother is expected to preserve the illusion of the womb, that she is not a separate person with separate needs and desires.

But of course, that terrible rupture must occur, and does. On the verge of reaching the apex of the ladder (confronted gradually, unignorably, by the devastating perspective of separation from her), he suffers a violent relapse, and no sooner than when Midge slices into the symbolic womb with her cautioning. Her human imperfection may be one cause of this, but another perhaps is her jealousy -- the gentle maternal sadism, conflicted & inflamed by the loss of her child. This implants doubt by calling attention to his insecurity, for he is without his cane. She sparks his separation anxiety -- he has strayed too far from mother, from security, and castrated, availed of his phallic cane. Upon his failure to spread his wings and leave the proverbial nest, he collapses into Midge's accepting bosom, terrified by his glimpse of the imminent loss of the sacred mother/son fusion.

Midge, for her part, re-incorporates him quite readily. Yet the Lacanian mirror cannot possibly be glued back together -- such a proposal is absurd, for the damage is tragically irreparable. He is compelled by Gavin Elster to follow his wife Madeleine, to "dig up what he can." In effect, Scottie further regresses, from the cognitively mature law student, through detective, into the private[s] investigator, that of the child, the penetrating "private eye" on the end of the keyhole. Gavin foreshadows:
Gavin Elster: The things that spell San Francisco to me are disappearing fast. I should have liked to have lived here then - color, excitement, power, freedom.
Later, investigating the story of Carlotta in Argosy Bookshop, the owner revives this idea:
Pop Leibel (pop-ular, or pop-ulist, libel -- a reference to the wild & oftentimes libelous claims of psychoanalysis in its day?): Oh yes, I remember. Carlotta, beautiful Carlotta... Sad ... It is not an unusual story. I cannot tell you exactly how much time passed or how much happiness there was... but then he threw her away. He had no other children. His wife had no children. So, he kept the child and threw her away. You know, a man could do that in those days. They had the power and the freedom. ~[Note: emph. mine]
Madeleine for her part, is nothing if not a stark caricature, a lone mirage that Scottie (and the camera, and by extension, the viewer) looks through in that gorgeous museum perspective, resembling the real but projecting that singular surreal feature -- her cartoon-like, overarching eyebrows consume her, summarize her, elevate her into sublimity and she is thus able to transfix his inner eye. And he, the fragmented voyeur, is hooked on her painted totality. She is perfect for him; he needs to become Gavin, to feel what the husband feels when a wife recedes, what the child feels when the love of his young life, the mother, is distanced or lost.
Gavin: Now when she's alone, she takes them [Carlotta's jewels] out, looks at them. Handles them gently, curiously. Puts them on and stares into the mirror, and goes into that other world... someone else again.
Whenever Scottie drives, following her, the camera is set high onto his face, a close up. He is driven, consumed, small- and single-minded. Her image is everything. She, congruently, is the larger-than-life icon of totalitarianism. Detecting Scottie's breaking away, Midge desperately re-formulates herself into a faux Carlotta, in a tortured, impotent scribble -- a significant reversal of the adage that in romance, men look for their mother's traits. When this last-ditch (and again, intentional) effort to re-inject herself into his psyche backfires (it was doomed to fail, especially on his rebirth-day), she is admonished: "That's not funny, Midge," which is to say, the light-hearted role-play is over. He is grown up, truly "a big boy now," with big-boy concerns, and never would they regain that blissful & blind union, not in any case nearly as it used to be.
She fails to preserve the dreamlike quality of Carlotta, not grasping the real point that it is rather a blank canvas which intoxicates him so. She weeps at the loss of her son's exclusive favor, punishing herself for her desperate (and disparate) emotional nudity (her own Freudian slip).
Scottie [to Midge]: I always said you were wasting your time in the underwear department.
Is this code? Is Scottie channeling the auteur himself, Hitchcock, making the director's statement about sexual fixation? Could it actually be Mulvey, Baudry, & Lacan who are wasting their time in the underwear department? In her desire to please him, Judy overzealously completes the look, trying to seal (sell) the ideology once and for all by donning that heirloom ruby necklace. It is this transgression, the first act of her own initiative rather than by Scottie's insistent, corrective gaze, that shatters their illusory oneness by training his eye onto the jewel, the unifying apparatus that connects her with Madeleine and with Carlotta, and distances her from the blank canvas she had held in front of her own face for him (in the same way that Midge was banished for her assumption of control). As in Baudry, "the spectator is brought abruptly back... to the body, to the technical apparatus which he had forgotten" [Ideological Effects, 359].
She is no longer the suspended, floating icon, but has rather fallen down to banal reality, the overheated mirage reconstituted. Channeling her others, she has now become all too real. The mirrors always around, surround her, refract her body, make her physicality unignorable, since its shards lay everywhere, totalitarian.
Madeleine: It's as though I... I were walking down a long corridor that once was mirrored. And fragments of that mirror still hang there. And when I come to the end of the corridor, there's nothing but darkness. And I know that when I walk into the darkness, that I'll die. I've never come to the end. I've always come back before then, except once.
Scottie: Yesterday? [She nods.] And you didn't know. You didn't know what happened till you found yourself in the...you didn't know where you were. But the small scenes, the fragments of the mirror, do you remember those?
Madeleine: Vaguely.
It is no accident that the monastery and its pious denizens are involved in the most important scenes, including the final one, in which Scottie, on the cathartic precipice, instead watches his beloved fall, in perverse symmetry with the opening trauma of his other 'partner' plunging to his death.
The entire film thus coils back in on itself -- the tree of wisdom's serpent consuming its own 'tale' -- as Scottie's initial, pathetic innocence is lost (his ideological fixation shattered by the
transgressive shock of grasping the murderous truth), and Judy is fatally petrified by the expectant confusion her various mirror fragments have incised. She has been stripped of her being, and even her right to it; used and abused as a pawn, beaten down into hollow caricature by dueling male gazes, and finally giving her self completely over to his ideal-ogy. "No one possesses you," as Scottie neuro-linguistically programs into her, not even she herself, until she exposes herself, and he finally grips her -- physically & forcefully. Therein lies the real transmogrification between the first and final scenes, the surreal, transcendent twist which the audience perceives only sub-consciously:
Scottie would be cured neither by revisiting his trauma, nor by exposing himself incrementally to heights; this is all child's play. He would never, as the viewer is led to believe early on, be cured even by a comparably jolting event. The only way for him to transcend his unconscious dæmons, would be to do real -- to repeat the ordeal, only this time while exerting his own total(itarian) control over the event. His at first innocent, optical seizure of Madeleine's (rotted) image has now followed through its brutal logic, has now materialized into the physical grip of his hand on her arm, pulling her toward fate.
Judy [about climbing the tower]: You can't... you're afraid.
Scottie: Now, we'll see... we'll see. This is my second chance...
But you knew that day that I wouldn't be able to follow you, didn't you?
Utterly æthereal now (transcendent, per Baudry), she is seized in the end by this terrifying hollowness, and ultimately it matters not if she perceives that shadowy figure as a nun or as
Death itself. They are one and the same in the most important way, in their effect and purpose: for just as the hooded wraith would lay claim to her tortured, tattered soul, the Catholic nun would in like manner summon a divine wrath unto her guilty conscience. Thus, by her necessary atonement (at-one-ment) the disembodied angel Judy/Madeleine/Carlotta (altar-egos) reenacts the sublime 'fall from grace'... and the viewer is left breathless.
Madeleine: Only one is a wanderer, two together are always going somewhere.

Scottie: No, I don't think that's necessarily true.

Madeleine: You left your door open.


Share/Save/Bookmark

McLuhan & The Ephemeral Intra-Global Village


Dears限定盤 - 'GHOST' - GacktImage by kozika via Flickr

In many ways, Marshall McLuhan is a spectre of post-modernity: his concepts, ostensibly formulated with the media around him in mind, seem to hover always in the not too distant future, ghostly outlines awaiting new media to actualize and fill them in. His effervescent adages like "the medium is the message" and "the global village" bubble up today as freshly as in decades past, to describe both contemporary and futuristic media, key ideas that in this light appear timeless and omnipresent. We speak of the global village today quite naturally, a substantial ratio of us with no idea of its origin in McLuhan, and use the term to describe international interconnectedness and the internet. In this example and countless other concepts, it would be useful to determine which qualities and effects of media, mapped by McLuhan, apply to the computer and to its use as a "mover of information" over and amongst the vast networks we call the internet. To that end, we may begin at the access point, media as extensions of man.

Just as naturally as eyeglasses extended the eye, the electric medium -- electricity itself -- according to McLuhan, extends our central nervous system. The amputated, externalized spinal cord becomes embodied anew in those ubiquitous power lines that reach farther than any eye can see, aided or not. These cords unfurl into dizzying international arrays and transmit electric pulses globally, much as our own nerves transport their microcosm of electrochemical signals throughout the body at imperceptible speeds. Like the railway and the airplane, which revolutionized not only transportation, but also entire universes of economics, politics and arts, electricity revolutionized the ways people communicate, govern and survive. It also reformed and enhanced fundamentally our self-conception. As was McLuhan's habit of saying: we shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us. All of a sudden, entire societies were instantaneously and irrevocably plugged in, and as electricity reverberated through every aspect of humanity, it reconfigured our senses in its own image, propelling particular types of thought, sensation and invention. This, all originating from the harnessing of the electric signal, at least as much as the printing press harnessed the printed word before transfiguring all typographic culture.

I bring up electricity because our current tool, the networked computer, to a large extent resembles it; indeed, it must, as it is an electronically dependent medium. Among other properties it shares, which will be uncovered later in the essay, its primary use is as a transporter and processor of raw information or data. (The very software I am using to type this essay is called a "word processor," two nearly opposite words clumsily patched together for want of a descriptor, like our "Automated Teller" machines, reliably spitting out fast cash in the middle of the Sahara, with familiar hellos and thank yous.)
‘When IBM discovered that it was not in the business of making office equipment or business machines, but that it was in the business of processing information, then it began to navigate with clear vision.’

Computerized communication was produced not for the public sphere, but for governmental use as a way to aggregate databases and feed the centralized information to satellite computers (by satellite, I mean neither the trampolines of cellular data nor the orbital mega-eyes that act as surveillance cameras, but the older term, denoting a thing that revolve around a center, drawing energy and influence from it, such as in satellite countries). The United States government employed this technology in its surveillance and espionage activities during the Cold War; at the time there was only intranet. Outcroppings of intranets shortly began to appear in the academic and financial sectors, where they were exposed to private scrutiny and refining, until limited dial-up networks were constructed, allowing a specialized sort of people to transfer data to and from home computers. These networks were peculiarly called bulletin boards, a term that conjures up the mediæval archetype of a typographic Martin Luther nailing his treatise onto the public doorway or, in more contemporary (browser-friendly) terms, "posting" an announcement onto the "community portal." But the virtual bulletin board was fittingly named: for, as McLuhan would remind us, we drive forward using our rear-view mirrors, only able to perceive any innovative medium by looking back. Furthermore, if the content of any medium is simply another medium, as McLuhan states, then within the computerized framework lay the fiery medium of the printed circulation, the Gutenberg bulletin, activated by the printing press.

This all falls quite in line with one property of every extension of man, outlined in Laws of Media -- that it retrieves (or revives) at least one other archaic medium, previously obsolesced or buried -- in this case the parchment posted in plain view of a main communal square. What other properties can we distinguish in early computer networks? In order to probe and understand it, we ought to ask the following questions, says McLuhan, of any medium:

A blank tetrad diagramImage via Wikipedia

  1. What does the artefact enhance or intensify or make possible or accelerate?
  2. What is pushed aside or obsolesced by the new 'organ'?
  3. What recurrence or retrieval of earlier actions and services is brought into play simultaneously by the new form?
  4. What is the reversal potential of the new form?
(Laws of Media, 98)



The obvious answer to (1) is that bulletin boards, like most media of the electronic age, enhance and speed up communication, over a multiplicity of distances and times. Since they were chiefly ASCII text-based, it might also be said that they accentuate the written word, down to the letter: emoticons (emotions signified by icons, in this case alphabet and punctuation) are just one outgrowth of this newly accented quality of playfulness in the typographic symbol. Obsolesced (2) are telephony and fixed meeting places, not to mention synchronic rhythms of communication and participation. As I discussed previously, (3) the earlier skeletal remains of the town crier/bulletin are exhumed, retrieved and revived by the new virtual bulletin board (powered, incidentally, by our externalized spinal cords). Further, the data-transmitting telegraph, which transmitted symbolic electric pulses until it was eclipsed by the telephone, is dusted off, "tidied up" and recommissioned, much as the fax did. As for question (4), as one might already guess, when pushed to its limits, the virtual bulletin board system of private computer networks utterly explodes into billions of fragments, which would comprise the inter-network we know today (or yesterday) as the ‘World-Wide-Web.’


Now that we are embedded firmly in the Internet's genetic heritage, we can go about the business of unraveling and delineating some of its particular, well formed features, and reconnect them with some of Mcluhan's key concepts. Firstly, we should ask what the content of the Internet is. If it must be, as McLuhan says, another medium (or other media), then we can build up from the basic media it encapsulates. At the core, behind all the bells and whistles and fancy link hover effects, computers -- both the receivers and the servers -- are based on binary code, unfathomably long strings of øs and 1s that represent sets of on and off, yes and no, one thing and not the other. At one time, when computing machines were still in their infancy, an elite group of some very dedicated hermits were fluent in this language. But this is no longer the case; all programmers nowadays use shorthand programming languages to simplify and accelerate the process of coding. Most of these have adapted natural-language cues that act as shortcuts for vast sets of binary code (in reality this oversimplifies the process, as programming languages are now actually shortcuts of shortcuts of shortcuts, ad infinitum). At least one feature can be thus culled: that already, computerized systems are based upon unintelligible layers of abstraction. Not only that, but the ratio of programmers who understand even these shortcuts, compared with the actual end-users of the medium, is tiny and dwindling. So we have a medium that at its most basic level can not be fully grasped by its consumers -- this is representative and extensive of most newer media, but intensified in computers by several orders of magnitude.

The Internet is also decentralized; it is situated precisely nowhere. Yet it is also manifested everywhere, at least potentially. There is nothing at all, save financial resources, preventing me from flying to western Egypt, plopping down (perhaps next to a friendly Automated Teller Machine) and accessing this network in its entirety with my Blackberry Personal Data Assistant (who can then go retrieve a cool bottle of Perrier for my parched throat). Similarly, I can transmit a picture of the sand dunes to my blog and receive immediate feedback from a subscriber in Antarctica, all without a single byte directly transferred between us. As a matter of fact, I probably have never met this Antarctic "pen"-pal, though I may know her far more intimately than I know my own sister.

Digital media, the content of computer communication, is immaterial, not even reproduced, only represented. Unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, pens, Perrier bottles, or DVDs, digital content is the opposite of tactile. It is typically downloaded in bits, destined to be periodically purged from the viewer's temporary cache via virtual re-cycling bin. Or it is saved, tucked away into the recesses of computerized consciousness, awaiting the singular click that will revive it or corrupt it. In any case the digitized media will eventually be ruined, a certainty recognized and feared by the virtual curators behind the Internet Archive, who in their manifesto nervously state:

The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come. Open and free access to literature and other writings has long been considered essential to education and to the maintenance of an open society. Public and philanthropic enterprises have supported it through the ages ... Internet libraries can change the content of the Internet from ephemera to enduring artifacts of our political and cultural lives. (archive.org, accessed 30 March 2008)

Fleshed out and properly dissected, the features outlined here can now be plugged back in to their electrical sockets, their electronic context. Archetypes, such as the village bulletin and town crier, are pixelated, .zipped into easily downloadable bits, and pumped through every artery simultaneously. Electricity, which contains itself as its only content, is in this way akin to the impenetrable binary code of on/off switches that regulate the flow and flux of energy. And just as McLuhan expected in an electronic society, the global network makes each one of us an access point: we, as eternal receivers and senders, through the extensions of our psyches that are computers. Our collected knowledge is open-sourced, uncovered, publicized, and remixed into wikis. To a much greater degree than television, we become interconnected and intimately involved with people we will never face, and we feel their moods pulsate throughout our nervous systems. Digital junk-static, the amateur content of myspaces and livejournals, the type of thing that used to be thrown away, is tidied up and preserved lovingly by the Internet Archive alongside New York Times hypertext, in fascinating accordance with McLuhan's principle that whatever media are surrounded by another become art forms.

It becomes evident that if we have not yet actualized McLuhan's vision of
‘the final phase of the extensions of man -- the technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society, much as we have already extended our senses and our nerves by the various media’
(Understanding, 2-3)

-- that the Net brings us far closer to this conception than ever before. We seem to still be catching up with McLuhan, who beckons us always from the day after tomorrow, into ethereal space.

Subsequently, "our tools shape us," the Internet creates us in its image. It is no longer just the computer that is networked -- each of us are 'worked' over by the 'net.' Typical sociability and friendliness has now been dissected and recast as social network-ing, traditional apprenticeships and work ethics implode into the ambivalent attitude becoming of business networking, as in the phrase, ‘It's all about who you know.’ Teenagers take a profuse amount of digital self-photos, accentuating their various physical parts, one after another -- transfixed, like McLuhan's Narcissus, by their unfamiliar, externalized bodies.

As for my Antarctic blog subscriber, maybe she even turns out to be a viable romantic prospect, in the true-to-life, tidied-up and refreshed mail-order bride tradition (one with roots in the Wild West, which now re-emerges, updated for our new global frontier). Just as the Internet Archive catalogs digital ephemera, so too would match.com survey, dissect, and interpret our personalities, effectively characterizing our compatibility "index" based on our amputated, externalized psychic traits.


Share/Save/Bookmark

TO HAVE DONE WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD

TO HAVE DONE WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD

written and read by Antonin Artraud.

Artaud reads from his play, in French.

BROADCAST: KPFA, 15 Oct. 1968. In French. (41 min.)



Share/Save/Bookmark

Nader Exposed as a Racist on National TV

By Shepard Smith of all people. Officially the weirdest thing I've seen on TV, precisely ever.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Britney Poses Nude



You know, I had a lapse in judgment a couple weeks ago, and felt sorry for Britney Spears. The image of her breaking down on camera opposite Matt Lauer, sobbing the words, "I wish they'd just leave me alone," the tears ruining her meticulously overdone eyeshadow -- it was enough to make me a bit sympathetic, understanding that the paparazzi are utter jackals.

But now, Britney Spears has posed for the cover of Harper's Bazaar, buck naked and six-months preggo. And in response, my abject disgust has crept up my esophagus like acid reflux, yet again. I can't help it; it is an entirely auto-immune response to the shovels-full of bullshit she keeps stuffing down my throat.

Does anybody really care about this broad anymore? Sure she was arguably attractive at the age of 17-18, but that was before we saw pictures of her without five pounds of foundation, lipstick, and botox. Here's the way the shit works. If you gladly give the paparazzi what they want, sell your soul for a record deal, lesbian fake-kiss Madonna, and cheapen your body for a glossy photo-spread, you don't get to complain on national TV about how many photographers follow you around looking for money shots.

That's like slathering wet manure on your neck and then complaining about all the flies.



Share/Save/Bookmark

The Plastic Lobster

Is there any end to how ridiculous this animal rights/health food spectacle will get? Whole Foods Market, the four billion-dollar-a-year corporation that pretends it's a neighborhood grocer, has recently banned live lobster sales. In a statement released June 16th, they claim:

plastic lobster

"Although we discovered significant improvements are possible from capture up to in-store tank conditions, we are not yet sufficiently satisfied that the process of selling live lobsters is in line with our commitment to humane treatment and quality of life for animals."

Apparently, the upscale supermarket chain did some extensive testing to make sure that lobsters were comfortable living in a small tank with 20 of their closest friends and rubber bands around their claws. I don't know if they surveyed the crustaceans or what, but it turns out that what really make them red with anger is that they can't breathe too well sitting for months in, effectvely, puddles of their own excrement.

What I'd like to know, is who in their right mind gives a shit about oversized marine bugs? What, it's okay to boil the suckers alive, but putting them in cramped spaces is crossing the line? I smelled something fishy, and it sure wasn't lobster poop.

A much more believable reason, I think, is that profit margins are negligible for a low-turnover, high-maintenance product like live lobsters. Keeping those things alive costs more way more than just stocking the frozen meat, which by the way Whole Foods still does. But of course, profit margins are not a dignified enough reason for the yippie demographic, whose priviledged pseudo-communist sensibilities usually find all this talk of profits exceedingly distasteful. So Whole Foods went on a staged "fact-finding mission" to expose the dirty underbelly of lobster trafficking. Call it euphemistic muckraking. I call it a steaming pile of buoyant lobster shit.

Nevermind that lobsters don't have central nervous systems, or brains bigger than the size of a pea, or that a Norwegian study recently demonstrated that lobsters cannot experience pain. This has nothing to do with actual study, and everything to do with making symbolic gestures toward placating PETA, who run a lobster liberation website, among other pea-brained follies. So instead of looking like a big bad business, Whole Foods comes out looking like animal rights champions. Too bad it cares less and less about the rights of actual human beings.

I'll admit, I don't shop at Whole Foods, even though I am a vegetarian and love the taste of organic food. They charge more for their products than all but the upper-middle class can afford to spend, and their price-gouging is reprehensible considering the everyday low prices of Trader Joe's. But shopping at Whole Foods has never had anything to do with lofty ideals of social and environmental awareness. No, people shop at Whole Foods because they want to congratulate themselves for being such responsible consumers, buy into trendy activism, and perhaps atone for their middle-class guilt. It's the classic benevolent, kitschy trickle-down mindframe that fuels Whole Foods' fire.

And don't even get me started on PETA. Those hypocritical bastards can go suck on a lobster's claw, while it whimpers ever so softly, "Put me out of my misery."


Share/Save/Bookmark