mfg.tumblr

elpasajero:tinypic

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:44:18 -0400

elpasajero:tinypic

feastingonroadkill:Bootsy Collins. Funkeh!

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:29:39 -0400

feastingonroadkill:Bootsy Collins. Funkeh!

isbsh: SELF CONTROL (via POCKY2001)

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:16:12 -0400

isbsh: SELF CONTROL (via POCKY2001)

a family member’s reply to the previous posts (which were part of an email discussion): to...

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:53:00 -0400

a family member’s reply to the previous posts (which were part of an email discussion):

to start with, let’s go to your first question: “Do you think the children [I guess you mean people] born between 1955 and 1970 have been partner to any kind of revolution?” What is the single real question here? I’m not trying to be Jesuitical, but there are many questions that could be answered by an answer to the one you’ve posed. There’s a question implied in the phrase “partner to” — you’re not asking if these folks caused it, you’re not asking if they had it happen during a particular period in their lives. Assuming that “any kind of revolution” has happened during the lives of Americans [?] born during those 15 years, what does “partner to” mean, and however you define that, what does that make the underlying question?

Let me go from the micro to the macro. Is a “generation” monolithic anyway? If you agree that it is, you have to confirm in what way(s) — because there will be many “ways” — it is monolithic. For instance, baby boomers (which I incidentally am not). Among the many shared characteristics of bb’s is that they were conceived by parents who had the GI Bill — that is, they were born to parents who, if they had military service, knew they could go to college. That’s a big difference in the assumptions of people getting pregnant, but so far as I know it has never been explored by people examining the generationness of bb’s. Also among bb’s, there’s a definite difference in those born as first children, say before 1950, and those born as later children who were also possibly born ten years later. Which variables make them who they are? Was it being born later in their families, being born to older parents, having more elderly grandparents, having many cousins, or being born into a society well past the shocks of the war and the immediate memory of the depression? Was it being raised in neighborhoods of newer, better houses? Was it having television and LP records? Was it rock ‘n’ roll instead of swing? Was it having vitamin D in their milk so that nobody remembered rickets? All those things could have contributed to boomers being identifiably different, but it would be straining for a dissertation topic to choose one or a cluster to create that definition .

So what of the “generation” born between 1955 and 1970? By 1963, boomers were adding to those births themselves. A person born in 1955 remembers watching the Vietnam War on TV; a person born in 1970 may have only trace memories of hearing about the December bombings that effectively wound it all up. The Vietnam War is considered formative for boomers, but how can an experience felt so differently create the same effect in separate minds? The 1955 child registered the shock and horror of the older generation watching the assassinations; the 1970 individual grew into a world of acceptance. The 1955 person was pre-Sputnik; the 1970 baby may be named for Neil Armstrong. The 1955 person could have had polio as an infant or been blinded by measles; the 1970 person would have neither cavities nor chicken pox scars. And so on!

I say these not to get lost in past minutiae but just to say that while, superficially and actually, there are frames of mind that mark groups of people, I think it’s a concept better suited for marketing and advertising than in forecasting future political behavior. Even though the marketing and advertising gangs are manipulating the political process, if you are asking who individuals really are, the tool of the defining generation may not be the sharpest one you have.

i guess the ‘partner to’ aspect of that question pertains less to involvement and...

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:58:03 -0400

i guess the ‘partner to’ aspect of that question pertains less to
involvement and witness with/of a revolution, than pressured by the internal
conflicts generated by an expanding mind coming of age in an era. the era
being largely shaped from the beginning with televised deconstructions of
the great American myth; war and presidency. beyond Watergate, what fueled
the minds of that age demographic (i would move away from ‘generational
characteristics’ and similarly arbitrary generalizations based on loose
psychology), who were 16/36 years old in 1970/1990 and 16/36 in 1986/2006?

initial question reparsed: What impact did these prominent features have on
the (premise #1) historical arc of political paradigm extending from post
war south, peaking in linguistic clarity with the depression, and tapering
off now?

[def. “linguistic clarity”: in a paradigm for any discipline, an adaptive
language will develop for users surrounding the central themes or problems
said discipline is meant to address. the words are heaped together at first,
fight for primacy in the language. the linguistic accuracy will peak and
decline as new users as well as issues and problems supplant the old.]

moving away from the baggage that the idea of ‘generation’ carries, i seek
more to identify users of a political language that once sought to describe
a certain set of problems and reframe the question you ask, ‘Is a
“generation” monolithic anyway?’, as the following question, ‘when we assume
all other forms of development in the sciences and so forth, what happens
when we allow our political language to stagnate?’ these two may seem to be
unrelated questions, but in the spirit of diagnosing an illness and
recognizing a collapse when it happens, i think they are very related.

if we focus on the scope of problems afflicting an age group still using one
language, while a wholly separate age range views the connotations of terms
in a wholly different light, how can we expect them to not talk past each
other. i would suggest that (premise #2) whether a paradigm shift is really
happening, the language is evolving to suit a different perspective on a set
of radically different problems.

taking the two premises, that #1 there is a historical arc in whose tail we
now reside, and that #2 a new language and set of problems are already
evolving, what major events have a) molded the minds of those who have the
most immediate impact on the politics of today, and b) how can we begin to
make the transition, translation from the old language of another age range
that will become more bereft of social consequence as they start collecting
their AARP cards and bankrupting social security? (though by no means bereft
of power and social significance, i mean that they become less invested in
the struggles and experiences immediately consequential to the acting
majority of society.)

this translation is of enormous consequence because, unless the global
market continues growing unabated without any crash ad infinitum, the
economy up until the 90s will be radically different in 20 years in
evolutionary terms. this translation will become even more important when we
begin to face the stark reality that the idea of national sovereignty is no
longer open to new players on the global scene. the powers of hegemony will
need to be fluent in the next historical arc’s linguistic tools so as to get
out in front of the problems these tools are meant to address.

so* if *we are evolving beyond an antiquated set of language and problems
(perhaps because we left them unaddressed or acted to repress them),
where *have
we* been growing since 1970? aside; if the government is a synthetic
delivery mechanism for services, is politicking simply a method for
determining the services delivered?

Paradigm Shifts in Politics to simplify the question, “Paradigm shift, sometimes known...

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:57:02 -0400

*Paradigm Shifts in Politics*

to simplify the question,

“*Paradigm shift*, sometimes known as *extraordinary science* or *revolutionary
science*, is [used] to describe a change in basic assumptions within the
ruling theory of
science.
It is in contrast to his idea of normal
science.”
wikip-

i really am just splashing around in this vat of an idea and am looking for
any threads of thought. essentially, there is a hype *and* a reality
surrounding a *possible paradigm shift in the mechanics and architecture of
politics*. i dont really want this to sound as far out as some overly naive
‘hope’rator, i am talking more about the peaks and crashes of politics in
history. i know i thrown this poster around before (
http://ping.fm/mIFuN)

[image: [History of the Political Parties]]

now theres a newer one (http://ping.fm/qnktq)

[image: [History of the Political Parties II]]

if you look at these two charts, it has essentially been since 1885-1889
since the two major political parties have maintained their coequal tents.

historically speaking to just partisanship, for the dems to take the uptick
in population is only to be expected by the pattern displayed over the past
120 years.

by paradigm shift, im speaking more to the core of what makes politicking a
viable means of trafficking power; consent of the masses. theres two parts
forward on this. a) we dont live in a state of voter apathy, it’s denial. b)
politics operate on overt and coercive levels. the overt level would be the
language of problems and the language of solutions. the people will move
from denial of the death of democracy to anger at the psychobabble from
problem solvers (obama is not necessarily immune from such a charge).

im making this range up i guess, but it seems to me that the ages of 16-35
are the primary settling phases where a person is most in the vise of
cultural influences; before, too impressionable and inexperienced, after,
too stolid and inflexible. it seems to me that the range of people born
1955-1970 are from the school of Depression era politics.

the central idea, then, is that there has been a period of history extending
from 1885 with the rise or splinter of the Democratic-Republican party (i am
referring to way back when they were formally the same party), forward to
the current time (where they still cycle back and forth between themselves).

during this period, they have traded in the same languages and problems to
the same American mindset (implied: our minds havent changed since the
post-war south). the arc of history that climaxed with the new deal,
perhaps, should be coming to a close. obama is likely the sacrificial lamb
(should he be elected) and will likely be the point of time during which the
democrats will collapse. many of the ‘revolutionary’ moments and times of
this period are illusionary in terms of their actual evolutionary impact on
politics; the cold war, the civil rights movement, and rise of terrorism.

the closest thing to evolutionary, for better or worse, would have to be the
idea of nation building insofar as it is considered a decentralized,
globalized means for virally constructing hives of co-interested parties. im
no NWO/World Bank conspiracy theorist, but that idea forward in that
direction is so wholly removed from the current language of power that most
people can only assume it is a kook-imagined spectre. its just an idea
though, the common tongue may be unable to speak it. however, just as they
may not quite understand string theory and black holes, the people and their
common tongue worship them on high as lofty ideas they assume are true based
on arguments from authority. once the common tongue develops a bit more of
the globalization language and such, quickly the isolationists will die off.
(ironic that nation-building and globalization are supposed to be ideas a
kin to separate parties)

mfg

i have a question. do you think the children born between 1955 and 1970 have been partner to any...

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:55:04 -0400

i have a question. do you think the children born between 1955 and 1970
have been partner to any kind of revolution? i guess i mean this in the form
of a transformative paradigm shift. not just in the form of protesting, but
constructive effort to advance our country?

now, i know this implies biases on my own part; the ‘radicalism’ of reagan
wasn’t really radical to me but a re-branding of an already in place boomer
agenda. *if (i need to stress my use of the conditional here) *we’re
staring now down the barrel of a paradigm shift, what pre-history do we
truly have for it? have we truly experienced a paradigm shift since the
depression?

the idea of paradigm shifting is a regular one for me and I’ve latched on to
it since before i was politically interested when i learned about the term
in its true context; the change from one set of scientific assumptions to
another, newer science’s assumptions.

an interesting controversy in paradigm shifting is whether trotsky-ite, or
violent revolutionary actions can actually trigger a shift.(Kuhn who framed
the primary debate would say it actually happens when the members of the
older school just die off.) one might say that (as i think i am inclined)
the 60s and 70s were a step forward and backward. though protest served to
open a dialog, they actually did little to actually adjust and
correct institutional problems (the masculinization of feminism is a great
example thereof). the idea of sexual liberation, or liberation as a whole,
follows swiftly behind as the coequal attraction and repulsion to the idea
and practice of ‘liberation’ spawned many wholly unhealthy developments
(from AIDS and prostitution as a “form of power,” to EOE & quotas) that
serve now to split people apart rather than understand and just resolve
issues.

essentially, i ask this question because many liberal bloggers and reporters
(not progressive) are missing the boat and will be on the same side of the
river as hagee and pat robertson (ie, folded into the walking corpse of the
greatest generation and the selfish one). i think the pragmatic progressives
are sick of them as they become more akin to jettison and their political
capital is quickly expended (schism in the wings). when you do the bio they
all seem to fall in the age range of 53-38. it seems like they are trying to
ride a paradigm shift with a 1960s era unicycle and as they are the dominant
voice in the media paradigm (who are not elected), they keep shouting down
viable policy debates with boomer addled injunctives. why does the news
media market depend on baby boomers so much when this is obviously an
election that would wrest the executive power from boomer hands?

inky:A history of computer data storage, in pictures Above left:...

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:36:57 -0400

inky:A history of computer data storage, in pictures Above left: A 250 MB hard disk drive from 1979.Above right: The IBM 3380 from 1980, the first gigabyte-capacity hard disk drive.

good morning monday, this weekend tired me...

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:25:25 -0400

good morning monday, this weekend tired me out

retlet:dewfalse:Twitter

Reality Sandwich | Beyond Brand Obama

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:49:27 -0400

Reality Sandwich | Beyond Brand Obama:

Nothing against Barak Obama, but we’d be mistaken to consider his politics a complete break from the past, a renaissance in participatory government, or the realization of an Internet-enabled “open source” democracy…

…He’s pretty damn good, don’t get me wrong, and he may just represent the closest thing yet to a GenX, post-boomer, anti-sentimental and a-mythic candidate for president.

Wonkette: The D.C. Gossip » Blog Archive » Bobby Jindal Is Insane, GOOD GOD, And Will Now Castrate Humans

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:58:03 -0400

Wonkette: The D.C. Gossip » Blog Archive » Bobby Jindal Is Insane, GOOD GOD, And Will Now Castrate Humans: “This bill also provides that a court may instead order a physical castration instead of the chemical castration.”

phoenix ‘too young’ (dir by steve hanft who recently...

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:22:46 -0400

phoenix ‘too young’ (dir by steve hanft who recently did an album with april march!)

hipsterdiet:delbertshoopman:I’m not ready to let go of this…...

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:19:33 -0400

hipsterdiet:delbertshoopman:I’m not ready to let go of this… it’s my favorite thing I have ever made. Re-Blog Party! NO? OK.

the out-of-touch-elitist, ‘at the country club leaning against the wall with a cigarette and a...

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:16:48 -0400

the out-of-touch-elitist, ‘at the country club leaning against the wall with a cigarette and a martini making snide comments about everyone’? i guess rove made some comment like that; i know politics is nothing if it isnt personal, but thats just catty. if anyone has the link to the original source i want it: email me. [i paraphrased this from whaaatshertits (is that a horrific name filler?) on the today show while she interviewed first lady clinton’s fmr press secy.] too cool for school vs too hot for tv; which tagline will win?

badminton:Vasily Kandinsky via spacecollective.org

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:01 -0400

badminton:Vasily Kandinsky via spacecollective.org

i guess ping.fm doesnt want me to be able to post links in a non tiny-url format; i was just trying...

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:23:21 -0400

i guess ping.fm doesnt want me to be able to post links in a non tiny-url
format; i was just trying to drop, what will now be a 3rd, plug for
internetenthusiastdaily [dot] com; or as ping would have it
internetenthusiastdaily.com

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@ * http://ping.fm/BSv7q ] [»...

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:09:22 -0400

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@ *
http://ping.fm/BSv7q ]
[» dum_ping(.fm) stripping props i tries to pops]
[i_hrt’ugly_texts;_IT_killed_the_spacebar

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@ http://ping.fm/BSv7q ] » nvr4get

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:39:22 -0400

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@
http://ping.fm/BSv7q ]
» nvr4get

how to be everything to everyone; pragmatism

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:17:22 -0400

how to be everything to everyone; pragmatism

idealism is the new pragmatism? (pt1/pts 1, 2, 3) mmcain should represent the present state of...

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:57:00 -0400

idealism is the new pragmatism? (pt1/pts 1, 2, 3) mmcain should represent the present state of pragmatism; problems x, y, z and expedients a, b, c should be the words coming out of his mouth. i think he gets to the x,y and a level of completeness. obama should be seen as some twinkle in the eye wheel turning idealist who is, himself, a nice idea but not a practical implement. actually, if the match up today was a year younger then those perceptions would be entirely apropos (though mmcain would retain his dark horse status from an entirely similar yet opposite position). is it that when night is darkest hope and ideals are all we have for light?

if i address a problem that is not a segment of your enduring malcontent, no matter the expedience of my solution it will never settle what ails you. it seems amazing that so many have reached the dregs of situations that long abided as the well of hope for the democratic brain trust. amazing because seeing an idealism turn into a practical solution is the most amazing of political metamorphoses.

the danger that lingers is the squandering of that public trust, that faith in having something get better. attach a dozen bills or so, varying from 80$ to 580$, to a single person who was thrown into an uncontrollable circumstance. add 3 liters of frustration, a half dozen bureaucrats, and a pinch of self-contempt and you have a very desperate person.

when this person is let alone on the vine to die it is one thing; when it becomes an epidemic you have (not a lobby but) a political action committee (PAC). after it has become an epidemic, and it degenerates into a systemic failure due to malfeasance, disinterest, and sporting partisanship it will devolve into a pandemic and the pupae may soon see their day. but can it escape the cocoon? it depends on the example you choose. the above situation applies to a lot of issues. i do think that mmcain can stand up for the status quo on most, and maybe tame the fringe and get us into a plateau.

mfg.tumblr

elpasajero:tinypic

feastingonroadkill:Bootsy Collins. Funkeh!

isbsh: SELF CONTROL (via POCKY2001)

a family member’s reply to the previous posts (which were part of an email discussion): to...

i guess the ‘partner to’ aspect of that question pertains less to involvement and...

*Paradigm Shifts in Politics* to simplify the question, “*Paradigm shift*, sometimes known...

i have a question. do you think the children born between 1955 and 1970 have been partner to any...

inky:A history of computer data storage, in pictures Above left:...

good morning monday, this weekend tired me...

Reality Sandwich | Beyond Brand Obama

Wonkette: The D.C. Gossip » Blog Archive » Bobby Jindal Is Insane, GOOD GOD, And Will Now Castrate Humans

phoenix ‘too young’ (dir by steve hanft who recently...

hipsterdiet:delbertshoopman:I’m not ready to let go of this…...

the out-of-touch-elitist, ‘at the country club leaning against the wall with a cigarette and a...

badminton:Vasily Kandinsky via spacecollective.org

i guess ping.fm doesnt want me to be able to post links in a non tiny-url format; i was just trying...

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@ * http://ping.fm/BSv7q ] [»...

» obligatory [post about nyc/5burroughs] per [tc@ http://ping.fm/BSv7q ] » nvr4get

how to be everything to everyone; pragmatism

idealism is the new pragmatism? (pt1/pts 1, 2, 3) mmcain should represent the present state of...

Paradigm Shifts in Politics to simplify the question, “Paradigm shift, sometimes known...