A Few Observations

I was reading a review of Daniel Dennett's new book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and this line struck me:

"Religion, as he provisionally defines it, involves believing in, and seeking the approval of, a supernatural being."

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this as a definition of religion, but since it's good enough for a noted philosopher, it probably has some merit. And it did suggest to me some new ideas about the things I've been reading about marketing lately.

It seems to me that there have been a growing number of religious themes or allusions in writing about marketing, what I like to think of as "meta-marketing," or the promotion of marketing as an occupation. The earliest reference I can think of is Guy Kawasaki's role as a Macintosh "evangelist." That term has survived and proliferated.

There's also a religious dimension to The Cluetrain Manifesto, with its 95 theses, deliberately evoking Martin Luther's 95 theses and the Protestant Reformation.

Kathy Sierra entitles her weblog Passionate: Creating Passionate Users. Of course, the etymological origin of the word "passion" is related to the crucifixion of Jesus; and it's emotional weight, or "juice," is borne by its connection with suffering. Of course, marketers misuse the word to exploit its emotional value, or connotation, while intending its denotation to mean "enthusiasm." But "enthusiasm" doesn't carry the same emotional weight, in order to lend a false sense of gravity, so we just devalue "passion." Who really wants their users to "suffer" for using their product? Well, more about that later. I think it's also revealing that Kathy thinks it's a good thing if people hate your product. The worst thing is for them to be ambivalent. What if they hate your product because it's ruining the planet?

Evelyn Rodriguez frequently makes explicit references to spiritual or religious thought or themes in her writing about marketing. I can't get behind that. I think Evelyn is a wonderful person, but I just can't buy into her mixing of the commercial and the spiritual.

Tara Hunt, a marketer of the moment it seems, invokes The Cluetrain Manifesto in developing her new meta-marketing meme, "Pinko Marketing." She doesn't seem to rely on religious allusions so much, instead seeming to go for a kind of political theme. Presumably marketing as some kind of advocate for the proletariat. Don't believe that one for a nanosecond. But what prompted this whole train of thought was her quoting Hugh MacLeod, "The market for something to believe in is infinite."

Yeah, if you want someone to sell you something to believe in. Which, of course, all marketers hope you do.

"The market for something to believe in is infinite."

Tell me this isn't a reference, unconscious perhaps, maybe deliberate, to the idea of "market-as-God."

MacLeod is another meta-marketer, riffing off the cluetrain with his "Hughtrain."

But when I read Dennett's description of religion as "believing in, and seeking the approval of, a supernatural being," all the allusions to religious thought and themes seemed to make sense to me. If you consider the "market" as a "supernatural being," then marketing is a religious exercise.

We already ascribe certain virtues and powers to "the market." It rewards some and punishes others, presumably on the basis of "merit."

That next made me realize that marketers and businesses are dependent on "the market." Without a market, without customers or "consumers," they have no income, no means of success, no validation of their existence. No meaning.

This dependent relationship with the market goes a long way to explain the contempt marketers and businesses have for consumers. Marketers go to great lengths to hide or mask their contempt, but it surfaces readily. Dependency breeds resentment. Marketers resent the market because they are dependent on it. They must flatter and appease it, or like an angry god, it will punish them.

Here's an example of Hugh MacLeod sharing his high regard for potential customers: "OK, if they're so smart, [l.] Why are they working for somebody else? [2.] Why are they posting anonymously? Since when does wage-slave cowardice count as brains?"

There you have it. Those of us who work for somebody else aren't "so smart." Indeed, we're "wage-slaves."

Hugh MacLeod also makes vague, seemingly non sequitur spiritual or religious comments in his cartoons. I don't find MacLeod to be a very interesting writer. He tries too hard to be provocative, but his insights are, like those of Scoble, extremely superficial, when they're not so ambiguous as to be meaningless. And sometimes it's not even clear he's thought through his own opinions, as when he wrote this about making money from weblogging: This commercial agenda makes some people squeamish, but... nobody cares.

Well, call me a not-so-smart wage slave, but presumably the people who are squeamish care. So either MacLeod contradicts himself out of obliviousness, or he dismisses those who care as "nobody." It's hard for me to say which is more likely. If it's possible to be both, that'd be my guess.

Marketing is not an occupation that enjoys great public esteem. Seth Godin called his recent talk to Google employees, "All Marketers Are Liars" with reason. More, much more, about that talk some other time. Meta-marketers are in the business of selling a better image of marketing. With our radically skewed perspective regarding the role of the marketplace, a religious approach seems almost inevitable. Religion touches on some of our deepest emotions, and today, Seth Godin will tell you, is all about emotional marketing.

I think it's a mistake, and I think it's wrong, but I don't think there's much anyone can do about it. Except perhaps to try not to buy into the illusion. It doesn't help matters that religion itself is buying into marketing. But that's just one of many problems religion faces.

Bought Some More Stuff

I ordered an internal Pioneer dual-layer DVD burner yesterday. I have a single-layer burner, but I need to make archival back-up copies of media content that exceeds the capacity of a single-layer DVD. These archival copies will be safely stored in a remote, off-site location, where the integrity of the data resident on them will be periodically verified and reported to me. All strictly on the up-and-up.

I also contributed to the iPod economy by buying another set of speakers for my iPod. When I was looking into the ZVOX I read a lot of good things about the Logitech MM50 portable speakers. They have an internal rechargeable battery, come with a carrying case and a remote, and offer good sound. They normally set you back about 150 samoleans, but the Exchange had them on sale for 119, which made it a more attractive proposition. I'm listening to them now. They sound pretty good. I'm not sure when I'll have occasion to take them with me anywhere, but they're reasonably compact, reasonably loud, with decent battery life. I'm pleased.

I'm also very pleased with the ZVOX speaker system as well. It's a great little unit for good sound without the complexity of theater surround sound systems. Of course, you can't claim any real snob appeal either, but simplicity is its own reward.

Questions That Answer Themselves

What's up with the price of gas?

BSG: Ron Moore's Weblog

Ron Moore has been making something of an effort at keeping up a weblog about Battlestar Galactica. He even posted three updates over the weekend. The Q&A section was most worthwhile to me. There was an excellent question, and valid criticism, regarding the role of Saul Tigh as the XO in Season 2. Moore's answer makes me hopeful that we'll see more of the better side of the XO in Season three, in Cylon-occupied New Caprica.

Pretty Damn Cool

My life is pretty simple these days, and I'm happy about that. It wasn't always so, and there were various periods of my life when I embraced particular methods of getting and keeping my shit together. These days, my feeble brain and a Sony Clié I'm not very disciplined about synchronizing with my Mac are usually enough to keep me from embarrassing myself.

Most of the time.

I remain a big fan of LifeBalance, but I read something today that actually had me laying out $50.00 I probably would have been better off hanging onto for OmniOutliner Pro.

This guy, Ethan Schoonover, has done something pretty damn cool with OmniOutliner and AppleScript, tying it together with iCal. It's called Kinkless Getting Things Done, or kGTD (an FLA - "Four letter acronym"). The design is based on David Allen's much-lauded book and eponymous system for Getting Things Done.

For the record, I'm not a David Allen acolyte, and I've never read Getting Things Done, so my enthusiasm isn't based on embracing the latest fad in time and task management. I was just wow'ed by the movie!

DRM is Just All Right With Me

DRM or Digital Rights Management is another TLA (Three Letter Acronym) cluttering up what remains of the rapidly diminishing storage space of my feeble brain.

It is also "evil."

I'm listening to some Willie Nelson tracks I bought from the iTunes Music Store this weekend. I'm enjoying them. I'm happy I have them. They were convenient and, while not "cheap," they were "affordable."

DRM is a cause for some people. That's fine. People need hobbies.

The rhetoric is ridiculous, but that's what we get in this age of marketing, when crap is king.

I have my own causes. Mostly, they're lost ones, but that's okay.

Given the problems facing us, I'll settle for some "evil" DRM if that's what it takes to get a little Willie to take the edge off the rest of the bullshit the folks who strain at gnats while swallowing elephants whole would have me jump up and down about.

Cowboys are special with their own brand of misery,

Themselves and their slow-movin' dreams.

Thanks Willie, and Waylon, and Steve too.

Competing Messages: Codrescu on the Cluetrain

In the event that you didn't hear Andrei Codrescu's commentary at NPR that I linked to earlier in the week, here's a brief clip to pique your interest:

Weather Man

A neighbor of mine loaned me the recent Nicholas Cage movie, The Weather Man. She didn't like it very much, saying it was the most relentlessly depressing movie she'd ever seen. She's a Nick Cage fan, but I'm guessing she's never seen Lord of War, now that was a relentlessly depressing movie. I gave her City of Angels to cheer her up. As Bugs Bunny would say, "Ain't I a stinker?"

I watched The Weather Man on Thursday night. It is not a light comedy, though it does have some humor in it. It's not a pure drama either. Much of it is depressing, but it is a good movie. If you think you'd like to see it, you should probably stop reading about now. I'll wait while you click something else in your aggregator.

...

Okay, if you're still here, you're probably not a Nick Cage fan, and it's a really boring day at the office.

Nicholas Cage plays David Spritz, a Chicago weather man, except he doesn't know anything about meteorology, his degree is in general communications. His father, Robert Spritzel, played by Michael Caine, is a straight-arrow, award-winning author and Cage is his only son. Cage is divorced from Noreen, played by Hope Davis, and they have two children who live with Noreen. A "troubled teen" son, and an overweight 12-year-old daughter, also troubled.

I'll skip to my conclusion, and then you can decide if you want to stick around for all the analysis, it won't be very lengthy.

The movie is about attachment, about unresolved loss, and the suffering that attends it. Michael Caine delivers the great line in the movie, which, oddly, doesn't appear at IMBD.com.

"David. This shit life. We must chuck some things. We must chuck them, in this shit life."

I must add that you need to see the line in context, in the scene itself, probably the best in the movie, to get it. But that's it. That's the movie.

There is another wonderful line from David, and this one is at IMDB.com, so I can just copy and paste:

I remember once imagining what my life would be like, what I'd be like. I pictured having all these qualities, strong positive qualities that people could pick up on from across the room. But as time passed, few ever became any qualities that I actually had. And all the possibilities I faced and the sorts of people I could be, all of them got reduced every year to fewer and fewer. Until finally they got reduced to one, to who I am. And that's who I am, the weather man.

Okay, a little discussion or analysis. I'm not a student of literature or cinéma, so bear with me. The central plot vehicle is the impending death of David's father, who has been the defining feature of David's life. It's clear that David has spent his life in his father's shadow, hoping to live up to his example and earn his father's respect or praise.

Michael Caine, as Robert, is also attached. Attached to his notions of what it means to be a father, to his expectations for his son. Right after he delivers the illuminating line of the movie, he creates a sense of uncertainty by adding another line that bookends much of that scene, "There's always lookin' after." So it's not exactly clear that he gets it. I tend to think he does, but habituated thought is difficult to extinguish.

The "always lookin' after," Robert refers to is the meddling he does in his son's life and the lives of his grandchildren. It's done, I'm sure he believes, out of love, but it's really borne out of fear. Fear that his son and his family won't live up to his expectations. But I think he gets it at the end. He tells David, "You have time," in that scene. I think we all wake up at some point.

David's suffering comes from living an inauthentic life. That phrase probably makes some people gag, but tough shit. David is David, he's the weather man, but he's never accepted this, never embraced it. He's been, say it with me, in denial, the first stage of grief, the process we've evolved to integrate the inevitable losses of this shit life into our lives. David has remained attached to his father's expectations, made them his own when they were never his in the first place. The good news is, he figures this out, with help from his father.

There's a lovely little meditation on mind in the movie. The bow and arrow are an important part of the movie. It's kind of Zen thing, though this is never mentioned. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears." David got to the end of his rope, tied a knot in it, and couldn't hang on. He found out he could let go. His daughter wanted to take archery, though that's not what she really wanted to do. But David found something that could quiet his mind, creating a place where he could simply experience being himself.

The movie is relentlessly depressing, but mostly in the way that life is relentlessly depressing when we're trying to impose our expectations on it. During the movie, you're uncomfortable or frustrated or angry, but by the end, you can look back at it with a different perspective.

Like another movie about a weather man, this one is worth watching.

Non Sequitur du Jour

Life is meaningless.

Living may bring meaning to life.

Paying attention yet?

Social Hygiene: Codrescu on "Plugging"

I happened to hear Andrei Codrescu's commentary on All Things Considered this evening and I loved it. I usually enjoy his commentaries, but this one will strike a familiar note.

Give it a listen.

BSG: Why I Like Battlestar Galactica

I've been kicking this post around for some time now, and I've written a couple of things that never made it online. Part of my difficulty is that I'm not sure if why I like it should be of interest to anyone else. But then, I'm not sure why anything I write is of interest to anyone else, so why should this be any different? Okay, enough angst, on with the show...

I'm not going to recap the original Battlestar Galactica, if you're familiar with that show, you're at a disadvantage to anyone who has never seen it, I think. If you thought the original series was cheesy and lame, suffice to say this series is not. Give this one a chance.

If you have never seen it before, and are inclined to give it a chance based on what you read here, or other critical praise for the show, I think you will be best served if you begin at the beginning with the mini-series. All of the things that hooked me on this series are in the mini-series, and for a television effort on the Sci-Fi channel, they're done exceedingly well.

Battlestar Galactica has three main areas of appeal for me, and two of those are likely not broad areas of appeal to everyone. In fact, I suspect they are likely the kinds of things that might keep some people from giving the series any attention. So I hope I can help lower those barriers a bit, for those who may have them.

Its first appeal to me is that it is science fiction. The problem with that is that there is so much bad science fiction in the marketplace that it makes it difficult for the good stuff to earn a large audience. SciFi pictures also produced a movie called Mansquito, about some genetic experiment going awry with the result being the chimera that is the title of the movie. About the only thing that movie was good for is fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000. Alas, the robots have moved on to wider orbits.

There is also the problem that many people base their expectations regarding sf television on a few well-known franchises with significant fan bases. Among those would be Star Trek in all its various forms, Babylon 5, Stargate SG1, and I think one would have to include the Star Wars movies in this group. Some of these are good science fiction, but even the good ones conform to certain norms that have come to be predictable and mundane. They're boring. Battlestar Galactica, along with the late, lamented Firefly, have changed all that.

In Battlestar Galactica, there are no aliens, no mysterious "life-forms" (which all seem to take on a human form at some point). There are just humans, and the machines they've made, the Cylons. Now, the twist here is that the Cylons have engaged in a little "intelligent design" of their own, and many of them are essentially biological copies of human beings, but more on that later. It's refreshing not to be encountering green, mottle-skinned humanoids with enlarged craniums and slit pupils and pointy ears, or living "energy fields" and the like every week.

Technology is advanced in BSG, but it's not ludicrously advanced. They have faster-than-light travel, which is one of the significant "willing suspension of disbelief" elements of this science fiction series, but there are no "phasers," no "force fields" or "shields" to divert all power to when the going gets tough. They shoot bullets, and missiles and use nuclear weapons. There are no "transporters" or "tractor beams," no "holodeck," and if you want hot tea, you have to boil water and hope there is still some tea left in the fleet. Elements of Galactica itself are decidedly "low-tech," and if you watch the mini-series it will be explained why that is so. In this respect, BSG seems more accessible, more "believable" than what we've come to expect as standard TV sf fare.

One of the things I liked in the mini-series that they sometimes seem a little less rigorous about in the series is depicting combat in space. I remember reading Gene Roddenberry talking about the "Swooooosh!" you heard in the opening credits when the Enterprise would fly by. He knew, of course, there is no sound in space, but it just didn't "work" as television without some sound attendant to the motion. Battlestar Galactica seems to do that a bit better, but there are always little shimmery-tinkly sounds whenever a ship "jumps," which I could do without, and there seems to be more and more sound associated with the combat between the Viper fighter spacecraft and the Cylon Raiders. One thing they do right includes not following an aerodynamic physics model for the motion of the Vipers in space. They use reaction control systems, which you can see as thrust is applied from small jets at various locations on the spacecraft, and will simply flip the ship over and apply thrust to change direction, rather than following some cinematically pleasing, aerodynamic arc that we're accustomed seeing in air combat sequences on film and television.

Anyway, it is science fiction that breaks many of the conventions we've grown accustomed to, and bored of, in television and film. They don't get everything right all the time, and sometimes they get it wrong enough to make me wince, but mostly because they've sort of set a standard for themselves that I expect them to meet every week. It's refreshing, intelligent and interesting, and that by itself makes it worth taking a look at.

The second broad area of appeal for me is that it is, in large measure, a military show. Having spent 22 years in uniform, 26 if you count four years in a reform school on the Severn River, I don't watch military shows on TV. It's just too painful, except when it's unintentionally funny. Well, I take that back, it's too painful or unintentionally funny only when it isn't as boring as hell due to so many clichés and tired straw men.

Galactica is by no means exclusively a military show, in fact, much of the dramatic conflict revolves around political issues between the civilians themselves and between the civilians and the military. But the star of the show is Edward James Olmos as Commander William Adama, callsign "Husher" (which they never use). (Trivial update: Watching the mini-series yet again, I noticed in another scene that Adama's callsign on his old Viper is actually "Husker." Bummer. I liked "Husher" better. Like, he "silenced" them.)

Ronald Moore, one of the producers and writers for Battlestar Galactica spent some time in Navy ROTC, and aboard ship. He managed to pick up a genuine feel for the service, one that I don't get from other series, but then I never watch them, so maybe somebody else has done it as well. Let me just say that I never thought any of the military stuff on The West Wing was done very well.

I could feel at home on Galactica. Olmos as Adama is a good skipper, and he plays it very well. On a couple of occasions he's gone a little over the top, but it's a disappointing episode that doesn't have a significant scene with him in it. The mini-series really did this very well. Galactica is an old ship, and that resonated with me as well. Of the four ships I served in as ship's company (as opposed to being embarked as a staff member, or aboard for an inspection), only one remains in commission. In the mini-series, we're introduced to Galactica as she is being retired and converted into a museum, and Adama is preparing to retire as well. The interactions between the crew and the CO were believable to me.

Galatica is not the Enterprise. It is not the "pride of the fleet," it's not the newest, shiniest, slickest thing in the galaxy. As such, it does not get a hotshot young CO with a prominent middle initial, a la "James T. Kirk," which all Trek fans know stands for "Tiberius" (as if it wasn't pretentious enough). As an old ship, near the end of its life, it usually gets the least of everything, including personnel. Fortunately, institutional wisdom often confuses the "best" with the "least."

Bill Adama is a combat veteran of the first Cylon war. He's a Colonial officer with broken service. This is revealed in some deleted scenes from the Season 2 DVD set. He got out as a Viper pilot after the war, and bummed around on merchant spacecraft before deciding he wanted back in the fleet. Officers with broken service are not unheard of, but they are usually not as competitive as officers who did not leave and then return. In the U.S. Navy, the service must compete with its sister services for resources. Much of that competition focuses on the face it presents to Congress, and so youth and flash are sometimes rewarded at the expense of experience and, perhaps, wisdom. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that Adama, whose earliest professional goal, also revealed in the deleted scenes, was to command his own battlestar, is assigned the oldest battlestar in the fleet. It also makes some sense to me that Admiral Cain, young and attractive, with the arrogance borne of too much success too easily earned and too quickly rewarded, was in command of Pegasus, when it was encountered in Season 2. Why an admiral would be in command is a little less clear. But the personality dynamic between the two senior officers made sense to me.

In the mini-series, there are two moments that are, for me, the emotional heart of the movie. The first is when Adama is in his cabin after the ceremonies for the decommissioning have been completed, and he is buzzed by an officer in CIC about a message sent in the clear, stating a Cylon attack was underway. Olmos says, "I'll be right there." Now, what was great about this was how understated it all was. There was no hysteria, no dramatic revelation, no barked commands, just a quiet, "I'll be right there." It's probably hard for me to explain this, but this scene was done so well. Part of it was the props. We really do "buzz" the captain. There was no "Bridge to Captain Kirk!" followed by a "Kirk here." The lieutenant apologized for disturbing the captain who's sitting at his desk reading a book, probably in his underwear. Just a quiet, "I'll be right there." That's the "beat," the moment where the story of the Galactica pivots. It's followed by what was probably a commercial break, but works equally as well as a fade to black, and then a cut to the XO, also in his stateroom, when we hear the call to "action stations."

I liked that too. "Action stations," is the British command for what we call "general quarters," or what you often hear in WW II movies as "battle stations." I also liked the understated alarm, which I'd like to say we used in the navy, but we have a really annoying electronic gong sound that does get your attention. I could go on at length about how that whole sequence appeals to me, but it would probably bore you. I just think it's probably about the best thing I've seen like it on television. This is probably overstating it by a great deal, but it's kind of like witnessing the resurrection. We've come to know a ship and a crew on their way out, about to die a quiet death, returned to life to answer a call no one ever wants to hear. I love that scene. I've never seen anything like it on television, or even the movies.

The XO is a great character as well. Another combat veteran of the first Cylon war. His backstory reveals he's seen more direct combat with the Cylons than any other crewmember on Galactica, and it accounts for some of his drinking problem. His relationship with Adama is close, Adama got him back in the fleet, probably saving his life. Within the narrow confines of his duties, he's thoroughly competent, but he's easily out of his depth when it comes to dealing with civilians and politicians, and he's burdened with an ambitious and unscrupulous wife. He's not "Number 1" ready to step coolly into Captain Picard's shoes when the Borg have him. He's a deeply flawed human being who is, painfully, aware of his weaknesses.

Lee Adama, callsign "Apollo," is equally well developed. Before the death of his brother, he seemed to be eagerly following in his father's footsteps. For the most part, he appears to be "regular navy," though his recent affair with an enlisted woman seems out of character for him. Dualla's uniform in the Season 2 finale suggests she's received a commission and is attached now to Pegasus as ship's company, but I'm sure we'll learn more about that in Season 3.

The other crewmembers are also memorable characters, Starbuck, Helo, Chief Tyrol, Sharon and the others, and for bevity's sake, that's all I'm going to offer about them in this piece.

Of the civilians, the co-star of the series is Mary McDonnell. What a coup. She's fantastic. Here again, the mini-series is the important foundation for this part of the story, the civilian arc; and it somewhat parallels the Galactica arc.

In a brilliant dramatic move for the mini-series, that created a problem once the decision was made to go into series production, Mary McDonnell's character, Secretary of Education Laura Roslin, learns she has terminal breast cancer in one of the opening scenes of movie. She, like Galactica, is dying. The Cylon attack on the colonies destroys nearly all of the civilian government, and though she is 43rd in the line of succession, it falls to her to shoulder the burdens of leadership of the civilian government. Watching Mary McDonnell perform those scenes was another highlight of the series, it is the other emotional "pivot-point" that changes "everything."

What's brilliant is that McDonnell as Roslin is every bit a match for Olmos as Adama. This is not strictly a military show. Indeed, it is Roslin who effectively saves humanity by persuading Adama, the old warrior, that the war is over and humanity lost. The relationship between these two great characters, portrayed by two great actors, is a rich and fertile dramatic ground. One of the best scenes in Season 2, in my opinion, is a brief and quiet one between Adama and Roslin as they confront her mortality, and, for Adama, another unbearable loss. Fortunately, this being television and science fiction, the inevitable deus ex machina was dramatically invoked at the 11th hour, and Roslin (Surprise!) is saved. Still, up until then, her illness was a compelling part of her character.

Okay, this is getting longer than I cared to write. I wanted to go on some more about Roslin, and of course, Gaius Baltar and Six and Tom Zarek, but suffice to say, they're all great characters wonderfully portrayed.

The third main area of appeal to me is the thematic element of the series. It looks at "big questions" in compelling ways. It doesn't just presume that humanity is the measure of all things good and right in everything we do. It asks the question, do we deserve to survive? It appeals to me that the Cylons are the product of our own hands, a technology we developed to make life "easier." It doesn't exhibit the same blind faith in technology that science fiction is ordinarily associated with simply embracing, unless it is using it as a superficial, two-dimensional "villain," a la HAL 9000 in 2001. It also explores, or exploits, depending on your point of view I suppose, contemporary social and political issues in novel and interesting contexts. What are the arguments regarding the right to abortion in a situation when there are less than 50,000 people left in existence, and more people are dying than being born?

It's uneven. It's not perfect by any means. But they do many things better than any other show currently on the air, some better than they've ever been done in a dramatic series on television. It is not without merit that some mainstream media publications have called it "the best show on television." It has certainly been, for me, a rewarding show to watch. Easily on a par, though in different ways, with the best of The West Wing.

If you have never seen the series, I encourage you to give it your attention. Again, I believe it would be most rewarding to begin at the beginning with the mini-series, which is included in the Season One DVD collection. This series should appeal to a broad audience, beyond those who normally enjoy science fiction. It's simply good drama and good story telling.

And, with that, my fingers are tired.

Weekend Cheese Sandwich Report

Had a nice weekend here. Weather was a bit cool, well, for Florida. Sunny though.

Battlestar Galactica being on hiatus, I watched A History of Violence instead. I didn't care for it that much, and didn't really see why it garnered so much critical praise. It's a very spare movie, apart from the violence. Not much character development. It really does resemble a graphic novel in many respects. I was disappointed I guess.

Did some housework then went to taekwondo on Saturday. Caitie called before I left and said she wanted to go, which is a little unusual for a Saturday when I don't have her. It was a good class. I remembered to wear my mouthpiece the whole class this time. A week ago, I managed to break off a repair to a small chip in my remaining real front tooth. The other one being a cap from an unfortunate incident a few decades ago. The funny thing was, I just had that chip fixed a few weeks earlier. Fortunately, I had to go to the dentist anyway for the second of three crowns I'm getting this year, so he it fixed it again. I tend to grit my teeth when we're practicing some of the techniques. Saturday class is actually a ground fighting class, with elements of jujitsu and wrestling involved. It's a hell of a workout. No strikes, all submission holds, take-downs, mounts, guards and escapes.

Dropped Caitie off after class and headed home. Stopped in at Sierra Grill for a Corona and a burrito. There's nothing like a cold beer after a tough workout. Okay, maybe something that replaces electrolytes or something, but you know what they say about beer, "It's not just for breakfast anymore!"

"Beer. The other sports drink."

I jest. I'm a bad example boys and girls. Just drink water after a strenuous workout.

I used to go to Firehouse Subs after Saturday class, but they're victims of their own success. The place is always jammed, they've lost my order a couple of times, and Ursula hasn't worked there in months. Plus, they don't sell beer. They still make a good sandwich, but the weekend before this one, Caitie went to Firehouse for a sub after class because she didn't want to go to Sierra Grill (they're right across a small parking lot from each other). I had my burrito and beer and was back at Firehouse before she even got her sub. She says she'll go to Sierra Grill next time.

After lunch I headed across the street to Target to look around a bit. The security guy there is an old classmate from taekwondo. He was only in the black belt program, so he stopped going after he earned his black belt. He's a young guy, just graduated from college, hopes to get a job in a local police force. I think he'll be a good cop. He had told me he started taking a jujitsu course from another school down the road from mine, but stopped going after he developed a nasty infection from some abrasions he picked up in class. I told him about our new instructor who is small circle jujitsu national champion. He says he'll stop by and take a class and see if he wants to sign up.

Managed to make it out of Target without spending any money. Picked up some supplies at Publix and headed back to the apartment. Did a load of laundry, put the iPod in the dock connected to the JBLs, laid down on the couch and slept while loud music was playing. Go figure.

Talked to Mom and Dad a little later. I gather ADM Giambastiani, the Deputy CJCS, is going to make it home to Canastota for the dedication of the WW II memorial. Dad got a call from his office asking for the details, which I could tell tickled him a great deal. I've been planning to go home for either Memorial Day or the dedication and I've got a couple of domestic issues to resolve before I make up my mind. I'm leaning toward the dedication at the moment. Dad's been working pretty hard on this project, and so I think that's the event I'd most like to be present for. We'll see.

Saturday night I watched Good Night and Good Luck. I really enjoyed that movie. A pretty damning indictment of television, and I'd say much of the same criticism can be directed to the internet today.

Sunday morning I took a bike ride down the beach. It was nearing high tide so I stayed on the road. Probably about 15 miles altogether, not a bad little ride. A little on the cool side though, especially when the clouds blocked the sun, or the high-rises being erected on the ocean front. I stopped by this place where there was once a little one bedroom, cedar-shake cottage, built in the '30s, probably as a vacation home. It was up for sale a few years ago, and I wanted to buy it in the worst way. Unfortunately, I was still only separated and financially it was a non-starter.

When I went to look for it, I couldn't find it and thought I had forgotten exactly where it was. One of the locals was out by his driveway so I asked him about it. Turns out I hadn't forgotten, just that the new owners had it torn down and erected a narrow two-story house in its place. The lot was incredibly small, I'd guess they had to get a variance to erect the new place. It was kind of depressing. It was a very neat little place. All tongue and groove floors, walls and ceilings. I hate seeing all the development going on at the beach, erasing the character of the place and replacing it with modern, commercial crap. I guess it's just a reflection of our modern character.

Anyway, finished the ride, met one of the dogs and her owner in the condo complex. Colleen is a German Shepherd mix, a rescued dog. Eight months old, a little on the small side, probably ideal for a condo. A little shy, but well behaved. We made friends.

Put the bike away and started another load of laundry. It's what I live for. Didn't feel like eating anything in the kitchen, so I figured I'd try Firehouse. I got lucky, the after-church crowd hadn't arrived yet, so I got my sandwich in fairly short order. Stopped by Publix afterward and bought some flour for a loaf of bread.

Got home, threw the wash into the dryer, started the last load and then made a loaf of bread. Took a little nap, then ended up sticking Once Upon a Time in Mexico in the DVD player. I'd bought it a long time ago, but hadn't gotten around to watching it. Typical Robert Rodriguez exercise in Robert Rodriguez, which is to say, entertaining if not especially credible.

Later on I caught Mr. Deeds, the Adam Sandler remake. I normally don't care very much for Adam Sandler, but this was pretty enjoyable. I liked it and would probably watch it again.

Enjoyed a couple of slices of warm bread and called it a night.

So there you have it...

I tell you, this internet stuff is going to change everything.

Three Posts

Lazopipo: Lonely Planet

Brothers in Arms

Reminder: You Will Die

Getting Back to Normal

In my personal experience, anger seems related to fear. I haven't checked the literature yet, but if we haven't already done so, I'm sure we're going to be studying which parts of the brain get activated for fear, anxiety and the like, and see if how they correspond to those parts of the brain that are activated for anger. That may "prove" whether or not fear is the necessary antecedent to anger or not, but for right now, it is my contention that anger proceeds from fear. Where there is no fear, there will be no anger.

Now, by "fear," I'm including the low end of the scale that is probably better called "anxiety." This emotional state may have been induced by stress, but if the state is persistent enough, the stress doesn't have to be present to maintain the state. This is related to "conditioning," and the propensity for biological systems to maintain a steady state condition we refer to as "homeostasis." So if you've been exposed to a stress that induces a state of anxiety for a prolonged period of time, that state of anxiety will eventually become an unconscious "norm." You can't live with the conscious awareness of the anxiety, because it is attention-demanding, and we have finite attention resources. But the emotional responses remain activated, or rather, the mechanisms for creating the emotional responses remain activated. In effect, you become "spring-loaded" for certain emotional responses.

I'm getting a little ahead of myself here, but this is important. That unconscious "norm," and the desire of the body to maintain a homeostatic condition, will drive our behavior to maintain the level of stress that it is accustomed to. Now, I could be all wet on this. After all, I'm an authority on nothing, and I make all this shit up. But I've read it in a number of places, we seem to observe it in people, and I seem to have observed it in my own life. So I think that, even if that's not ultimately proven to be the actual basis for the phenomenon, it does exist and it is something of a useful explanation for it at the moment.

Of course, it's not this simple at all. There is other conditioning present, other forms of behavior also exerting themselves. In my case, I had a very stressful domestic situation, but the nature of that situation was such that I did not or could not exhibit the emotional responses in the domestic situation that induced them. So they'd find their outlet elsewhere, often behind the wheel, sometimes at work, sometimes toward my kids. It was never a pretty thing. And I wasn't really aware of them as a "problem."

I've told this story dozens of times, but when I first went to see a mental health counselor, I wanted to talk about my domestic problems and she wanted to talk about my anger problem, and that just made me mad. Fortunately, I didn't stop seeing her. Most of our early sessions dealt with the literature she had given me to read about anger, and my efforts to debunk it, pointing out the "health" and "utility" of anger. To make a long story short, she was patient, and while I may be dense, I'm not utterly stupid, and over time I began to understand that I had a problem.

In one of the happier examples of irony being the fifth fundamental force of the universe, it was my desire, motivated by my anger, to "prove" that my anger was normal, healthy and not a problem that compelled me to do additional research into anger. The results of that effort eventually helped convince me that she was right. So go figure.

Now, the short course on anger consists of two statements:

1. I'm not getting what I want, when I want it.

2. Someone is doing something to me that I can't control.

Implied but unstated in statement 2 is that the "something" is usually undesirable.

The thing is, 1 and 2 happen to us all the time, and they don't always provoke anger. And in most "normal" situations, they shouldn't.

In my case, there was a lot of unexamined fear or anxiety, prompted by stress both at home and, to a lesser extent, at work, that lowered the threshold for events described in 1 and 2 to evoke an angry response.

The first place I began to notice this was in my daily commute. Much of my drive to work, when it wasn't listening to stress-inducing news reports on NPR, consisted of a running commentary on the character, intelligence and skill of the drivers around me. I wanted to view the drive to work as kind of a mutual effort, where we all obey the rules of the road, drive safely, and arrive at our respective destinations on time and in one piece. What I got was a much more competitive effort, where it seemed like everyone behind me just wanted to get in front of me, and everyone in front of me just wanted to be an obstacle to me! (Me, me, me!) I'd start out maintaining a "safe" distance (it was probably still too close), between myself and the car in front of me, and then some asshole (because that's what I thought of them) would pass me, usually on the right, and then wedge himself into that space, and so now he was in front of me.

I wasn't getting what I wanted, which was a sane commute to work where everybody was courteous and safe. On a more fundamental level, I expected people to be "fair," treating the line of traffic like a line at the store, where it was socially unacceptable to cut in front of someone. I felt I was being treated unfairly, that the individual cutting me off had no regard for me, that I didn't "count." And clearly, people were doing things "to" me, that I couldn't control.

All of which were somewhat similar to the kinds of unconscious thoughts I had about my domestic situation, the source of most of my stress, where I was inhibited from expressing an emotional response. So I was emotionally primed to see myself as being mistreated on the road, and I had far fewer inhibitions to expressing an emotional response. So I would often "punish" offending drivers by blowing my horn, flipping them the bird, riding their bumper and sometimes even more stupid things. And don't think I was alone out there, either.

Eventually, I learned about all this, and the drive to work became much less of an ordeal, both for myself and the folks who have to share the road with me. I still hate to drive, and I still find myself "driving angry," now and then; but I take action to correct it now, because it's no longer "unconscious," and I don't desire it in my life.

My divorce finished in November of last year. Now, when it comes to divorce, I made every single mistake you can make, some of them twice, so it was a very stressful ordeal in itself. Once it was over, I was looking forward to a period of blissful calm. Unfortunately, I hadn't really appreciated the tendency of the body and the mind to maintain a state of homeostasis. If being stressed feels "normal," you're going to unconsciously maintain that level of stress.

As an aside, the same tendency exists in the dynamics of family relationships. But that's a topic for someone better qualified than I am. I can talk about myself because I have my personal experience to rely on, even if I'm not always a reliable observer. But if this is the kind of thing going on in your life, it's probably important to be aware that families try to maintain a certain level of stress in their relationships as well.

I didn't notice it at first, but later on I realized that after the divorce was over, my eighteen year old son became a good source of stress for me, as anyone who's ever been the parent of an eighteen year old can probably agree. I still see Sandy, and she pointed that out to me, and I was surprised and disappointed that I hadn't been able to see it for myself. So I was able to work on that and not allow myself to unconsciously rely on my son to be a source of stress.

It's also worthwhile to mention that I pretty much abandoned my habit of regular sitting. I thought I wouldn't need it anymore. I was wrong about that.

Since I noticed I was allowing my relationship with my son to be a source of stress, I unconsciously went back to allowing driving to be a stressor. I noticed that, and next I allowed worry and anxiety about buying a house to be a source of stress. And there have been a few other things, not the least of which probably includes reading weblogs. I'm getting better at identifying what I'm allowing to be a source of stress in my life.

And I'm going back to sitting. But even that has been difficult.

I had been thinking that after the divorce, I'd go back to "normal" and everything would be great and I'd be happy. I admit that I'm disappointed to learn that it doesn't work like that. The good news is that I've learned it. Some people never learn things like that, and we all suffer for it. I hadn't really realized, though I was aware of it because I'd read about it before, that "normal" for me was something not very good. And that if I want to get back to something that I imagine is what "normal" is like, I'm going to have to work for it. Like getting back to a "normal" weight. Nothing, it seems, is ever easy.

But again, the good news is that I know something about this, I know something about myself, and I'm "empowered" by that. The only power that exists, despite what all the marketers will tell you, is the power to choose. Everything else is authority, and you choose what to recognize in your life.

Fear and anxiety will always be present in my life. So will faith. Which one I allow to govern my attention is, to the extent that I make it so, a choice. So I sit. I inhale and think "faith." I exhale and think "fear." And I think a lot of other things, but I mostly let those just go wherever thoughts go when you don't attend to them. I'm a martial artist. It sounds kind of silly to hear myself say that, but I am. But I'm not one just because I say I am. I have to practice. I have to go to class and I have to work, and sometimes I get hurt. But I can't be a martial artist just by saying I am. I can't be normal by just saying I am either. I have to practice, I have to work, and sometimes I guess I'm going to get hurt. Such is life.

Too many people are unconscious of this, allowing their fear and anxiety to govern their attention, to allow their anger to hurt others, when they're really just afraid. If you're an angry driver, you'll flip someone the bird or ride their bumper or cause an accident. You can tell yourself that those other drivers are assholes, but it's just fear. If you're a multi-millionaire, you'll hire a lawyer to intimidate someone to give you what you want when you want it, so they won't do something that you can't control. You'll tell yourself it's just business, but it's really just fear. If you're a country with an anxiety problem, you'll attack another country. You'll tell yourself it's a matter of national security, but it's just fear. None of which ever solves the problem. All of which create bigger problems of their own.

Sooner or later, we all have to wake up.

Knowing Myself

If you read that article I linked in the previous post, and you really should if you haven't, you probably recognized some of your own behavior in it. We devalue the future. I'm guilty of that myself.

I've learned a lot of things about myself over the last few years, most of them the hard way. Trying to incorporate those insights into my own behavior has been far more difficult than I first expected.

I've not been without some success, and I hasten to add that even knowing how I'm falling short is a measure of progress. The key to whatever success I've had, and to knowing where I'm failing is a simple thing: paying attention.

To what?

To what is going on inside myself.

Now, let's think about this for a moment. Is attention a finite resource? I don't care if you're a believer in "continuous partial attention," which I believe is a load of utter bilge, or not, you have only so much mental bandwidth, and we all have the same amount of time. So while some of us probably have more attention resources than others, it's pretty much a finite resource.

What good is my attention? What value does it have? It depends. Children value their parents' attention. Lovers value each other's attention. Teachers value their students' attention, and vice versa. Doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, and so on. There are many productive relationships that have as their foundation shared attention, so it seems to me that attention is valuable to me in terms of establishing, preserving or enriching relationships that are valuable to me. But my attention is also valuable to other people with whom I will never have any sort of meaningful "relationship." Usually people who want to sell me something, whether it's a new widget or some service, but sometimes they're just people who crave attention, because attention is often confused with authority, and authority is what determines rank in the hierarchy.

Those latter entities, the marketers and attention-seekers are all competing with one another for our attention. And the more they're able to claim for themselves, the less we have for our relationships, and the less we have for ourselves. And this is an important point, so don't miss it.

Because attention is a finite resource, the more the marketers and attention seekers are able to claim for themselves, the less we have for our relationships and the less we have for ourselves.

In order to exercise authority, the first prerequisite is to have the attention of the person or people one wishes to exert authority over. In the military, the command "Attention!" is one that often precedes any formal exercise of authority. In the Navy, we like to say "Attention on deck!" whenever a high ranking officer or the CO of the ship walks into a space.

To exercise authority over yourself, it is necessary to understand who has your attention. If you have given all of your attention to your relationships and the marketers and attention-seekers competing for your attention, whose authority are you really recognizing?

Not your own.

The only power that exists is the power to choose. You choose who to give your attention to. If you choose to give all your attention to external entities, then you've surrendered all your authority, all your power.

Now, of course, it's not quite as simple as simply choosing to reserve some attention for yourself. You must learn to exercise that attention wisely. If you don't have the strength, the chops, you'll find your attention for yourself will go mainly to all your fears, themselves the products of attention to externalities, so you're no better off than before. This is manifested in different ways, although all the negative manifestations are mostly expressions of fear, whether its anger, anxiety or narcissism. You must learn to pay attention, and it's a skill like any other, that requires practice and patience and perseverance or discipline.

This is where I fall short often, in my practice. That I notice this at all is itself a measure of progress. I notice it when I'm driving angry. Most of us have a daily commute, and mine is kind of an internal barometer on the state of my attention, and my authority over myself. This is because it's where I first learned about it, so it's the most firmly rooted lesson. For you, it may be somewhere else, or it may be nowhere at all, because you haven't learned this yet.

So where do you "learn" to pay attention? Well, right where you are. How? That's a little harder. Mostly you have to ask yourself questions, which can feel really weird at first. It's more a way of looking at yourself, in sort of a detached way, but you can't get there right away. It's easier just asking yourself questions, mostly about what you're feeling at a particular moment. This is not as simple as it sounds, especially for guys who don't really have a large emotional vocabulary. But it's not that hard to expand it, and begin to identify with some specificity what you're feeling toward something or someone else, or, most often, yourself. The next step is to identify what the belief is that underlies that feeling, and this is also difficult at first. We're practiced at the art of self-deception, so it's sometimes helpful to have someone else check your thinking here. When the student is ready, the teacher appears, is probably worth mentioning. I found mine, you'll find yours. And it ain't me. I'm just some guy giving you the finger.

This first effort is kind of a reactionary response to attention. Generally the stimulus of a negative emotion is required as a prompt to begin the exercise. It's also worthwhile to note that the process is equally valid in response to a positive emotion. Sometimes we believe things that aren't true because we like the way they make us feel. (Marketing!) In general, negative emotions are more immediately destructive, but the positive feelings attendant to flattery can be equally as destructive in the longer term. But this is just an important first effort. It's learning that you have some authority over your attention, next you need to strengthen it.

Call it whatever you want, "sitting," "being still," "meditation," I don't care. It's all the same thing, it's like doing push-ups for your attention. It's tricky though, because what you're trying to do is nothing, which is harder than it sounds. There's nothing fancy about it, you don't need incense or candles or a special pillow to plant your ass on. It's no more mysterious or spiritual than doing push-ups, though you'll probably sweat less. I'd say it's probably about as hard as doing push-ups though, but don't let that discourage you. It's good that some things are hard. Here's a good book that makes it about as simple and as painless as it can be. I used it, and I thought it really helped a lot.

I've gotten out of practice, and I'm getting back into it. I don't like driving angry. Going to taekwondo is probably harder than sitting. Well, no probably about it, it is harder. But there's a social aspect to taekwondo that makes it a little easier to be motivated. It's something I do with my daughter, and I like my instructors and fellow students. It's easy to skip a morning's sit, and just tell myself I'll do it tomorrow, and then read weblogs that make me angry. For a lot of reasons, I've been conditioned or I've conditioned myself to maintain a certain level of internal stress, and if I don't consciously work to avoid it, I will unconsciously seek it. It's authority I've surrendered to others over the years, and now I have to work pretty hard to take it back.

That's the price we pay in the marketplace of perceptions, where we surrender our authority (our money and our attention and our peace of mind), to those who compete for it, in order to promote their interests.

Know Thyself

One of the reasons why you ought to be paying attention to your attention is because others are doing so, with the idea that somehow they will be able to make money. And they're probably right.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from an interesting article that you probably won't read:

“We are vulnerable to how choices are described,” Wanner explains. “Advertising is a business that tries to shape how people think about their choices. Neoclassical economics can explain ads only as providing information. But if the seller can invest in advertising that frames the choice, that frame will skew the buyer’s decision. The older economic theories depend on the idea that the successful seller will produce a better product, the market will price the product correctly, and the buyer will buy it at a price that maximizes everyone’s interest—the market is simply where the buyer and seller come together. But once you introduce framing, you can argue that the buyer may no longer be acting entirely in his own self-interest if the seller has invented a frame for the buyer, skewing the choice in favor of the seller.

“Then, the model of the market is not simply buyers and sellers coming together for mutually beneficial exchange,” Wanner continues. “Instead, the exchange between buyers and sellers has aspects of a zero-sum game. The seller can do even better if he sells you something you don’t need, or gets you to buy more than you need, and pay a higher price for it.” The classical welfare theorem of Vilfredo Pareto was that markets will make everyone as well off as they can be, that the market distribution will be an efficient distribution that maximizes welfare. “But once you introduce framing, all bets are off,” Wanner says. A zero-sum game between buyer and seller clearly does not maximize everyone’s welfare, and hence suggests a different model of the marketplace.

Which sounds to me a bit like something I was saying in this post from January 2005.

The article is called The Marketplace of Perceptions, and you probably ought to read it. Because, you know, it's in Harvard Magazine, and not Groundhog Day.

Later: Be sure to read the sidebar articles as well.

Link via 3quarksdaily.

Happy Birthday!

Elaine of Kalilily has a birthday today! Best wishes to you, Elaine. Enjoy your time with your family.

Attention Please

Reading Steve Gillmor lament the topic of "attention" and the lack of it that he received at eTech due, presumably, to his "authority" on the subject, brings to mind the idea of gatekeepers, which, of course, don't exist.

Reading Dave Winer lament that he won't be receiving any attention at Mix '06 because he was told it would only be Microsoft corporate personnel addressing developers, only to learn later that some of the same people, not affiliated with Redmond, that spoke at eTech and SxSW will be speaking at Mix '06, brings to mind the idea of gatekeepers, which, of course, don't exist.

Fortunately, hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.

Or something.

And with respect to the issue of attention, I'd point out that I've been paying attention to attention for a while now too. This is the first post I found where I used the phrase "attention economy," (citing the title of a book) and you'll note also this post where I mentioned finding the article by George Franck called The Economy of Attention, which was written in July 1999.

Those tricky Europeans! But I guess Steve Gillmor invented RSS too.

Cool Beans

Via Doc Searls, I read Virginia Postrel's account of donating her kidney to a friend, an act of profound generosity. Kidney donation is a safe procedure, and it's different, I understand, today than it was when I gave one of mine to my brother on 2 June 1997. He and his bean are still going strong, as am I.

I recall watching CNN in the hospital room right around the day of the surgery when Johns Hopkins announced a new method for removing a donor kidney using a laparoscopic procedure, requiring a much smaller incision with a shorter recovery period (and much smaller scar) for the donor. As usual, my timing was a little off.

These days, all a donor actually has to have is a matching blood type; although the better the match, the easier it is for the recipient in terms of managing against tissue rejection.

If you're in good health, under 60, and actually have two kidneys (How do you know? Has anyone ever checked? Some people only have one!), you're a donor candidate. At the time of my donation, all medical costs of the transplant were borne by the government, because transplanted kidneys are orders of magnitude cheaper than ongoing dialysis and managing the health-related issues attendant to dialysis. I believe that remains the case today. I donated mine on active duty while I was a member of the Board of Inspection and Survey, (kind of like the Spanish Inquisition, but not really), and since my surgery was scheduled over our normal two-week summer break, I think I missed only three weeks of work, and a week of that was for the travel and prep work prior to the surgery. I think the recovery time for donors today is even shorter.

Kidney donation is not without risks, and you'll sign a dozen waivers that will scare the hell out of you. Driving a car is not without risk, and will often scare the hell out of you. There are few things in life anyone can ever do that will make as much of a positive difference to someone else, so it's worth the risk, in my opinion. If you know of someone who needs a kidney, consider becoming a donor.

Hawk Wings

I happened upon Hawk Wings via MacSurfer. It focuses exclusively on Apple's Mail application. Well, almost exclusively. Address Book and iCal are covered from time to time as well. Lots of interesting reading.

Not So Different

I was doing a little blog-searching on ZVOX to see what experiences other bloggers might have had. Turns out, there's not many.

But one result that got my attention was a blog at MSN Spaces called, We're Not So Different. She's not a frequent blogger, but she's got a human voice, unlike all the marketers and corporate shills masquerading as human beings. The ZVOX result itself was a very engaging piece.

I went through her archives and liked this one as well. And I enjoyed her account of her deer problems, and the pictures that accompanied them.

I think you'll appreciate them too.

Third XB-70 Valkyrie Built and Flown?

Aviation Week and Space Technology was required reading for guys like me many years ago. They tracked reports of various "black" aircraft. Not so much recently, and space has kind of lost a lot of its sex appeal after Columbia, with just an International Space Station as kind of a 21st century effort in futility to keep people's attention.

But this week AW&ST has a report on a black project that has been supposedly cancelled or shelved. A two-stage to orbit system, with the carrier vehicle based on parts built and delivered for a third XB-70 Valkyrie bomber never constructed after the program was cancelled in the '60s.

I don't know if the report is true, but it does sort of remind me of the excitement of days long past when they speculated on the stealth fighter, the stealth bomber, the Soviet Buran and space planes and the like. I imagine something like the Valkyrie would be a bit safer to fly today with modern computer avionics and advanced engine technologies.

If it is true, it's too bad it hasn't been declassified. It'd be a hell of a thing to see, and I'd venture to say it'd be something of an inspiration to a generation of future aerospace engineers.

Via spacetoday.net.

Sounds Different

After Apple announced their HiFi speaker system, I went looking for the thing that sounded very similar to me. Turned out to be the ZVOX 315 powered speaker system. My curiosity got the better of me, and so I read nearly everything I could find about the thing, and I ended up buying one.

At $200.00, plus $36 for shipping, the thing isn't cheap. But when you look at the prices of similar speaker systems on the market, it's not too bad. The thing I liked most about it, is that it comes in a single box.

That right there should tell you I'm no audiophile. I have nothing against audiophiles, but I can't get excited about audio technology anymore. Once upon a time, I could. I'm sure most guys my age can remember when we worshipped at the alter of high fidelity specifications and testing results. The Technics direct-drive turntables were the best because they had the least amount of wow and flutter and "rumble." And, like Steve Martin, most of us had a "moon rock needle" in a gold-plated cartridge. Never mind that our buddies vomited or spilled beer on our latest Judas Priest album, and what Nazareth ever had to do with "high fidelity" I'll never know.

In any event, it's all I can do not to roll my eyes when somebody talks about "sound stage" or when they observe that from any distance, all-in-one speaker systems are, for all intents and purposes, monophonic. Fine, I'm happy for you.

The fact is, I live in an apartment, and a small one at that. I have neighbors above me and below me, and it's not like I'm ever going to be "rocking the house" anyway. I also don't want wires running all over the place, and I didn't have the damn thing custom-built for myself, with gold-plated, shielded speaker wire already run to every room. For the most part, I thought the little 5 watt per channel 2"x4" speakers built into my JVC 27" television sounded pretty good. When I wanted to get all serious and shit, I turned on the "Aux" input to my Panasonic 20 watt per channel bookshelf stereo system. Woo-hoo! But the sound wasn't so much better that it was worth the hassle of trying to keep track of the Panasonic remote to control the sound level, since the audio out on the TV wasn't variable, just line level.

The ZVOX 315 was pretty much an impulse purchase. If I'd made myself sleep on it, I probably wouldn't have bought it. But most of the reviews I read raved about it, and I figured Battlestar Galactica might sound cooler with a decent speaker setup. So I bought the damn thing.

It arrived today and so this is my report on my first impressions using it. Didn't take too long to get to the point, did it?

What's nice is that it fits in my existing, cheap, low-tech TV stand. It doesn't fit perfectly, because it's too tall to give everything its own shelf. Fortunately, it's a very sturdy cabinet, so I just put it on the bottom and the DVD recorder sits on top of it and the stereo and the GameCube sit on top of the DVD recorder. It ain't exactly pretty, but it all fits.

If you've read much of the literature about the thing, you already know it uses a power brick. No big deal to me, but for some people it might be a deal-breaker. It's just a powered speaker system, and all the controls are on the back of the thing, so you want to set up the sub-woofer volume, "phase cue" and max volume of the thing before you get everything arranged just-so in your equipment cabinet (or cheapo TV stand, as the case may be). Since the main volume control is in the back, you want to connect it to something that has variable output, which in my case happens to be the headphone jack on the Panasonic bookshelf stereo. This has the advantage of automatically cutting out the Panasonic's speakers, which I think I'm going to stash in the closet now. ZVOX included a stereo mini-plug patch cord (gold-plated!), with nice right-angle connectors. Makes for a neater install than having the normal straight plug sticking out with a tight 180 degree bend in the wire back to the speakers.

It only took a few minutes to get everything hooked up and turned on to try it out. I started with regular broadcast TV audio. The "phase cue" adjustment was max'ed out, and there was a distinct echo, or "ringing" in the TV vocals. I dialed that back about halfway and it went away. Dialed it all the way back and noticed that the speakers sounded "smaller" somehow, so I went back to the halfway position. Turned the sub-woofer down about halfway too. All the way up was a little too much bottom for my taste, and we haven't gotten to music and movie soundtracks yet. I ended up turning the master volume all the way up, and if I turn up the Panasonic all the way, I can probably irritate the neighbors. It's not super-loud, but what do you want for a 40 watt system?

At first I didn't think it sounded all that great, and I started to think I was foolish for spending so much money on a set of powered speakers. So I muted the stereo and turned up the volume of the TV's speakers and immediately noticed a massive difference. I mean, I instantly could not believe I used to listen to just the TV speakers. AMC was playing that old Gene Hackman flick where he goes to Vietnam to rescue POWs, and with the ZVOX I could hear all kinds of insect sounds and stuff that just wasn't audible on the TV speakers. HUGE difference! So now I'm kind of excited and happy with myself, gave myself a big high-five.

So then I started playing with the DVDs. Ran through Sarah McLaughlin, Cher and Bruce Springsteen. Made a few more adjustments to the sub-woofer volume, bumping it up a bit, and played with the phase-cue a bit, but nothing major. They all sounded great. Then I put in Battlestar Galactica, and Gladiator. That was when I discovered the "surround-sound" button on the Panasonic. The ZVOX people mention you should play with the simulated surround sound features on your TV or DVD player, because sometimes the results are very pleasing. I'm happy to report that such is the case with my little Panasonic stereo and the ZVOX. Switching the feature on and off really changed the spatial character of the sound, with it much "bigger" with it on. I mean it was kind of eerie, the perceived "origin" of the sound actually moved outward to either side. It doesn't make the sound "weird" or tinny either. It actually sounds really good, to my pedestrian, untrained, unsophisticated, unworthy of having an opinion, ear.

When I started playing Gladiator, my TV suddenly seemed too small! The sound seemed to make the screen appear smaller. After a few minutes, that perception seemed to go away, but it was weird there for a bit. I was thinking I'd have to buy a bigger TV! Both movies were much better experiences with the ZVOX speakers.

Downside? Well, it's not an exceptionally "bright" sound. My perceptions may be colored from listening to a lot of music through those small Harmon-Kardon or JBL sound "transducers" in the Creature Speakers and the On Stage system. They may be a little "brighter" than normal. It's not "muddy" though, in my opinion, which is a criticism I've read about them.

Bottom line: I think the ZVOX 315 "Sound Console" is cool beans, makes watching TV a much richer experience, and doesn't clutter your life with more wires and speakers that you have to find the exact "right" places for. If you want a simple fix for much better TV sound, I'd say go for it.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: It's Just Marketing

Back in January, Rebecca Blood published an interview with Dave Weinberger where Dave is quoted to have said, "That we shouldn't be writing blogs in order to gain a mass market. And we shouldn't be evaluating blogs and bloggers by how many people read them."

Yesterday, Doc Searls wrote this, "Mostly I want to put the subject-blogging idea out there, because it's so easy to default our consciousness constantly to the Old Way of looking at media, which puts top priority on popularity, celebrity, traffic and money. Some of us blog for other reasons."

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electro-magnetism, and gravity. Well, I think the fifth is irony.

Here we have two guys, each one of the co-authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto, each espousing beliefs that are very attractive, yet each is an advisor to Technorati, which is all about "evaluating blogs and bloggers by how many people read them," and which places "top priority on popularity." (And very likely, celebrity, traffic and money too.)

Each of these guys is a member of Technorati's "advisory board." Presumably, this means they "advise" Technorati about, I don't know, something. They like Dave Sifry, and neither ever has a critical word to offer about Technorati, even though it seems to represent everything they don't believe about weblogging.

Actions speak louder than words. I think it's safe to conclude that the beliefs they espouse in their weblogs and interviews have no moral force in their lives. If they did, perhaps we'd hear about their struggle with the dilemma posed by Technorati. But there is no sign that they ever have any problem with Technorati.

I mean think about it. If there were ever an opportunity to have a blog search engine company that marketed itself with respect for our intelligence, that didn't exploit our weakness in vanity and ego, that showed some insight in marketing in "the post-Cluetrain™ era," one would think it would be from a blog search engine company that had two of the Cluetrain™ authors on its "advisory board," and who were friends with the owner-architect of the company!

If that can't produce a company and a marketing effort that has respect for its audience, well, I don't see anything else having any more effect.

So what about all that stuff in The Cluetrain Manifesto, and all these warm and fuzzy notions about how we're supposed to evaluate blogs and bloggers, and the snide put-downs of "old media" and its fascination with popularity and celebrity?

It's just marketing.

BSG: Rocks

I didn't write anything last night because I wasn't feeling all that well and I wanted to hit the rack. Probably just needed some sleep, because I was fine today.

That said, I don't have a lot to say tonight, mostly because it was just the first half of the episode. But it was pretty damn good. I'll reserve judgment on whether it's on a par with the other "best" episodes, but it's looking good.

Things I liked:

Dean Stockwell! And he had an excellent part with some choice lines as a Colonial Fleet chaplain. AKMA might be interested in hearing pastoral counseling in the Galactica universe. I thought it was very well done, even though it seemed asynchronous with the rest of the story line.

Glad to see the rescue mission back to Caprica. I have to say, I'm liking the Raptor more than the Viper these days.

It was good to see Roslin and Adama laughing. But then we had Sharon foreshadowing doom to kind of make sure we didn't get too giddy.

Richard Hatch continues to impress as Tom Zarek. For those just tuning in, Richard Hatch played Apollo, Adama's son, in the original series in the late '70s. He lobbied heavily for a new Galactica, only to see it go to Ron Moore and his group. Many of the original fans resented this, but Moore offered Hatch a role in the series as an imprisoned terrorist/political prisoner he's become a regular character in the series. Zarek's an interesting and complex character and Hatch does a great job playing him. The only other thing I ever saw him do was the original series, which was very cheesy.

As for nits, there are always little things that bug me about the show. But they're pretty minor usually, and for the most part they don't really detract from the show. Last night had one that bugged me because it was a good dramatic plot element, but it was revealed in a way that made no sense whatsoever.

The final hyperspace jump was planned to terminate in Caprica's atmosphere, hopefully beneath Cylon sensor coverage. Presumably a hyperspace jump normally terminates well above the atmosphere, where it's much safer for the people making the jump. I liked this, as it made some sense and they seemed to acknowledge the risk, so it was all pretty credible. (Of course, I'm wondering how momentum is conserved in a "jump?" How do you know what attitude you'll have with respect to the horizon and what your velocity vector will be? But that's just me.) Anyway, they make the jump and Helo (the sensor operator or ECO (electronics control officer, I guess)) does a count of the Raptors in the formation, but notes one missing. He then reports that he's picking up their transponder, though he doesn't have them on radar (dradus in Galactica-speak). Starbuck asks where they are, and I'm figuring they crashed on entry, jumped too close to the surface, which would be pretty cool or consistent with the risk. So there's a dramatic beat following Starbuck's question and Helo says, "They jumped into the mountain."

Okay, that's pretty cool as a dramatic "bad thing,"and it was risky and all that. But, um, excuse me, why would their transponder continue to work inside the mountain? Where presumably all the little Raptor and people atoms are trying to occupy the same "real-space" as a roughly equal number of mountain atoms, which would seem to suggest that electronics won't really work anymore as there really isn't any Raptor anymore. It's all just part of the rock matrix of the mountain. I mean, if you sliced it maybe you could make out where Raptor/mountain merge and all, maybe like a fossil or something, but it'll just be inert mass. Anyway, that annoyed me. A neat idea, but there was no way to reveal it that made sense. In "reality," if it is possible to come out of hyperspace inside another mass, there'd be no way to ever know with any certainty that that's what happened.

Now, if they had an oscillation overthruster, well, that'd be another story. Literally.

Looking forward to next week's season finale.

iPod HiFi Inspiration?

I did a search in Macintouch where I recalled reading about a speaker system that I considered some time ago that sounded a lot like the iPod HiFi system. Turns out it was the ZVOX 315 Sound Console. Same size speakers, roughly same size enclosure. Different design though, and not portable.