Waxing Poetically: News and Lifestyle with a Twist of Poetry

I was talking to my girlfriend the other night and I had an epiphany: Though I know where he stands on national policies, I don’t know Barack Obama. Who is this man? What does he think about before he goes to bed. What’s his favorite movie, book, work of art? I know all this trivial, but I want to know these things.

You see, it’s really elementary. The measure of a man is often who he is when nobody is looking. As Jesus says, God knows the secret deeds. Who is Barack Obama to his family, friends and the to people who bag his groceries? is he truly for the people on his day off? what are his hobbies beyond just playing basketball? Lastly, what does his non-oratory, regular speaking voice sound like? No one knows.

Oddly, I feel as though I know George W. Bush. He’s the guy who loves to vacation on his ranch. He loves to watch baseball and hates to read newspapers. He’s optimistic to a fault. He truly believes the world will be okay and that the high fuel prices in the country will help people drive less and the recession will take care of itself. Isn’t that cute? Frankly I imagine, “Dubbya” might have a barbecue after as he would call it a “nuc-u-ler” explosion. I also get the immediate impression he’s never had to work for anything. He’s just so happy all the time. Who else could be dealing with a civil war that he started, a terrible economy that has been stagnant for at least a year and multiple in-house scandals and still act as if everyone else is crazy. I’m truly boggled by it more and more.

So, I’m sincerely hoping against hope that Barack will show he’s as upstanding in private as in public, that “Yes we can!” is a personal affirmation and not simply a public placation. I pray this Thursday night at the DNC he will show who he is in full. If he does, he may be unbeatable.

Keep waxin’!

The following is a debate on the morality of abortion between Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy, Boston College and David Boonin, Associate Professor of Philosophy, UC-Boulder Yale University from 12/1/2005. Each argument is the most thorough I’ve heard in quite some time. Boonin argues viability or fetal independence is key. He says the fetus has the right to life fully but that because it uses the mother’s body, the mother may have the right to cut off life support in the womb due to that mother’s right to control her body. He uses a very logical analogy of the right of a person to refuse bone marrow to a patient if the donor will be substantially harmed by the donation. Kreeft, in turn, argues the naturalness and inherent healthiness of the state of pregnancy in itself in so far as to say the pregnancy though trying and strenuous is not harming the mother’s body, to use my own analogy, anymore than being hungry a half hour before one’s lunch hour harms one’s body. Rather one’s hunger is simply an inconvenient precondition to one’s being able to recognize hunger in order that it be satisfied within the upcoming lunch hour.

Both debaters bring across strong rationales and I want to stress that though I am pro life, I feel neither speaker fully moved me toward either viewpoint because of the profound logic of each stance. Please listen fully to this 90 minute debate when you have time. This just seems like a discussion which warrants your comments…. So get waxin’!

(Listen here).

Well, just when I thought I might have run out of topics to blog about, along comes Vh1’s special on hot teen stars to cover all my socioanalytical needs. Over the weekend while eating lunch, I had the TV on and I happened upon a retrospective on teen stars which included C. Thomas Howell who you might remember as Ponyboy from The Outsiders. Anyhow, the sociologists at I Love the Past 30 Seconds (or fill in your favorite nostalgic title here) Pointed out one the all-time most intriguingly horrid films to be heralded with the likes of Howard the Duck, Dude Where’s My Car and Of course I’d be failing you as an analyst if I didn’t include Showgirls in that bunch. Even beyond such colorful gems is an ever rarer diamond named Soul Man. I watched it. It’s corny. But, unlike its associates, 1986’s Soul Man stands as one of the more meaningful bad movies ever made.

Clearly, for me to make such a commanding statement I must provide ample evidence — I’ve got it! The plot begins when Harvard Law Freshman Mark Watson (Howell) is suddenly cut off from his father’s millions and left to pay for school on his own. Mark, knowing he cannot do this looks for a scholarship and find that the one which suit him the best is only for black students. Mark then uses experimental tanning lotion in a high dose to make himself look black. Mark gets in to Harvard Law thinking that he’ll be welcomed with open arms in “The Cosby Decade.” He soon finds out otherwise in a string of unabashedly racist jokes, including when the student assume he’s am excellent basketball player, when two snobby white guys just happen to be telling black jokes when Mark is around, (this occurs in a least five scenes and gets tiresome after three) and in an attempt at a serious tone, Make is thrown in jail after a white police officer tails him causing to be pulled over for reckless driving after which Mark is beaten in his cell by who he describes as “drunken bigots.”

Meanwhile as cliche’ movie writing dictates, Mark has a love interest, a single mom, Sarah who somehow becomes the love of his life while the two study in the library –cue the worst Lionel Ritchie song you’ve ever heard and multiply it by seven– Mark then discovers after a night of warm conversation, that he took the scholarship Sarah would have gotten had he not darkened himself. Mark feels terrible about the whole mess and decides to make amends by paying Sarah her full scholarship plus interest and telling his Professor and superior (conspicuously played by James Earl Jones) that he wants to do charity work and put a portion of his future lawyerly earnings toward a scholarship in Sarah’s name. Sarah forgives Mark and the the happy couple walks hand-in hand as the credits roll.

However, there are some good points to this fiasco of color lines. First is the utter implausibility of the premise. I no of no tanning formula that will turn anyone black. So in that way, there is an element of fantasy which can make the viewer lose sight of the fact that the lead character is in blackface. Next, is the very noticeable fact that though Mark is pretending to be black, he makes no attempt to change his personality, voice or mannerisms in general. The obvious exception is when he has to hind his voice from people who know him as white (including his own parents). lastly, it become clear thoughout the film, that how mark is treated has little to with making any kind of overt joke. Rather, Mark just learn how it feels to be black and becomes a better person for having lived that “reality.”

Overall, while I expected to be offended greatly at some point, I actually enjoyed the unbelievability of the plot of Soul Man. The scenario made me wonder if it would ever be done in our current age of affirmative action. I do think someone might try to do something similar, thought possible to discredit the affirmative action movement as a whole. There are those who may say basing Harvard Law eligibility on race allows such a stupid premise to be considered. But then, to live in a world where racism must be counteracted by law is quite preposterous itself.

Wax, rinse, repeat.

This is a little preview of one of my posts on my new blog Art from the Outskirts For more join me there regularly as I explore both the limits and the wonders of the various arts.

The Psychological Aesthetics of Sexual Attraction as Artistic Appreciation

A Commentary by Michael LaPenna

“Introduction”

It begins innocently enough: A young man gazes from across the room at a little diner in suburban Chicago. His eyes have fixed themselves upon the seemingly angelic presence of a vibrant, young, women in a gently draped pink, cotton blouse and white, Capri pants that both appear to fit quite well with her body’s contours. She has features that he’s rarely seen: richly carameled skin, and wavy, black hair that falls to the nape of her neck. All the while he can’t help but notice that her hair has the faintest indigo tint in the room’s light. As she turns her eyes toward him, the young man notices her familiar dark brown, walnut shaped eyes quite craftily and symmetrically woven into her face. Her nose is kitten-like and her mouth’s lines seem to invite him to conversation with her…and so the young man carefully approaches the women.

“Hi” he says. She looks calm back at him. “Dave?” she asks. Moksha” he exclaimed!
“How are you?” I knew it was you!”
Oh, I’m pretty well, I’d say.”
“Babe, c’mere! You remember Moksha from the figure drawing class? Ya know… the model.”

“Dressing Table” Pino Dangelico

Has this type of scenario ever happened to you? Have you noticed someone so striking that you couldn’t help but think of that person as a kind of art? Every line, curve, dip, dimple and indentation was almost palpably pleasing to you If so, you may, like me, be the type of person who occasionally visits art galleries, paints, writes, etcetera. On the other hand, you might be like a lot of folks on the planet who simply know what they like in any object, whether that object be a painting, a flower or yes…even a person! Do I risk credulity or misogyny in assuming this? Many if not most of us have likely admired aesthetic niceties, but more often we think the word aesthetic itself belongs tagged on to a piece of furniture as in “The craftsmanship of that chair is amazing!” or “This house looks Victorian.” or in the look of a particular film as in “That movie reminded me of a Hitchcock film.” But the world actually means specifically that which relates to the perception of beauty in art or nature. In this sense something that looks a particular way, feels, seems or reminds and so forth is expressed aesthetically. In other words, it is a that part of us which is not confined to rigid definitions of beauty, attractiveness or ugliness within the strictures of scientifically precise measurements. Whereas a person can know what the standard of beauty is mathematically, symmetrically and with regard to markers of health such as coloration or body mass index, there are those aspects which never quite conform to the prescribed definitions given by science such as Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed in his 1864 novella Notes from the Underground When the Underground Man declared, “I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too.” In the same way, art is objectively placed far beyond the mechanics of science. Sometimes attraction is as well.

Stay tuned for Section 2!

Back in the Fall of 2000, America was a very different place than it is today. Britney Spears was a vibrant star on the teen pop horizon. With the booming economy Bill Clinton had enough free time to receive oral sex and ponder the definition of “is,” before federal prosecutors, and a prodigious college dropout named Shawn Fanning had just shocked the music biz by creating a way to download all the music fans wanted for free by creating a little thing called Napster, and lastly George W. Bush’s admission into the White House was still pending review by the American public.

Just eight year later, the once glowing teen Britney has rebounded and rehabilitated and reinvented herself more times than a less than shimmering Dennis Rodman at and Alcoholics Anonymous drag show. A formerly fumbling President Clinton now stands at his wife’s side proudly as she claims the runner-up spot for the presidency while Shawn Fanning’s seemly slacker-like ingenuity has sparked a multitude of copycat Media sharing sites including itunes, Youtube, Limewire and stumbleUpon…. And, yes, “Dubbya” after winning two dubiously contested elections, stands poised to become the most disliked American leader in recent history.

Yet, beyond the circus side show that is America, there has been no greater progression in popular culture than that of the Internet. While in 2000 instant messaging, chatrooms, webcams and online video were just growing into their trendy, personal uses, today, prolific media such as online forums blogs, and video diaries have matured into fully cultivated tools able to move millions of voices where ever they wish to go.

In a documentary this past Thursday, BBC News offered a glimpse into the Internet’s remarkable effect on this year’s presidential campaign. It focuses primarily on the Net’s ability to reach millions of people who might not have been heard and raise millions of dollars that might not have been raised in previous years. Most notably, it details Senator Obama’s raising of 200 million dollars via just two million supporters over the Net and Senator McCain’s ability to appeal to youth in as man in his seventies using the very same medium.

Please watch the report and comment as you see fit. You’ll note that the report does have a slightly left-leaning bias. But, whatever you do…keep waxful!

Watch the BBC report).

“Attacking or Embracing” by Abigael Escobal

Readers, it is a presidential election year in United States and for a citizen like me that usually signals my need to brace myself for the quixotic banter and pre-packaged idealism that lay ahead in every major debate until the final hand is shaken and one more innocent tot is baptized by the kiss of a politician. Over the past two years, I’ve heard arguments for change and tax hikes for the wealthy from Senator Obama and calls from Senator McCain to reduce wasteful spending by such a regal and superfluous declaration as to say that radical Islamic extremism is the transcendent or even “transcendental” threat of the 21st century. (I wonder if McCain is looking forward to a mystical terror experience anytime before his would-be term is up). With all this there lingers something even more prominent on the lips of many in Washington: The idea as expressed by John McCain and implied by journalist Ann Coulter that the United States is a “Christian” nation.

The Christian nation premise is nothing new. Many of America’s founders and law makers knew quite a bit about the Bible and Christianity as is contained and expressed in works such as Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Bible which argues for a moral mimicking of the teachings and ways of Jesus Christ. However, many argue that while many Biblical principles correlate well with those of the nation’s justice system, the idea of the United States being a Christian nation may be a bit misguided at best. Writer and journalist Cenk Uygur explains why when he says, “My name is Cenk Uygur. And I am proud of it. It might sound a little different to your ear, but it doesn’t make it any less American. That’s the whole point of the country. If I wanted to live in a place where your race, ethnicity or religion mattered, there were plenty of other countries to choose from. I chose to be an American because I believed we were all equals in the eyes of the law.”

Uygur speaks to the intrinsic independence required for a free nation as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In light of such realities, Uygur has written a piece originally published in The Huffington Post pointing to the fact that in October of 2007 42 congressmen voted “present” (not “yea”) concerning a resolution passed by the House of Representatives that would allow the Islamic holy month of Ramadan to be recognized within Congress. Uygur identifies himself as agnostic and it is unclear from the language of his piece what his cultural religion is. However he indeed makes an effort to defend religious freedom fully, as I equally as a person of faith, uphold his right not to practice a religion. Separation of powers is explicit in American law and in such a regard, I do not support any legislative action or inaction that infringes upon that boundary. If the government wants to claim America to be an exclusively Christian nation in the name of its collective right to free expression of faith, that’s fine. But I’d be surprised if their legal council were not comprised of at least some, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics etcetera. Furthermore, are these not the same individuals who always reference theocratic governments as extreme and radical? I guess they don’t include Christians in that bunch. Alas, it seems the “transcendent threat” to which John McCain refers is being welcomed by Congress’ somewhat inhibited and non-transcendent understanding of democracy.

In sum, it may be the separation of church and state which allows each body to flourish on its own merits. Moreover, it is likely the freedom to choose one’s faith that makes each believer’s faith that much stronger. Thirdly, it may be that if we as autonomous beings were not free to choose what we believe that we would never truely believe in anything for the fact it would inevitably be taken for granted. You see, this is not a Christian nation. It is rather, a nation whose citizen are free to choose to practice Christianity. Never lose sight of that difference!

So until we meet again, I hope you will feel free to express your faith whatever it may be and may you as always… wax poetically!

Footnote:

The term transcendental has several meanings:

1. Philosophy
a. Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience.
b. Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience.
2. Surpassing all others; superior.
3. Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural.
4. Mathematics Of or relating to a real or complex number that is not the root of any polynomial that has positive degree and rational coefficients (thefreedictionary.com).

Ladies and Gentlemen, when I check my Google account I expect many things, not the least of which are emails, useful tidbits, news and important alerts detailing the latest flesh-eating disease to strike within 20 miles of my home. Still, there are those scant and fleeting occasions when I wonder how a particular piece of information makes its way through the atmosphere, let alone to my desktop. Yesterday was one of those occasions.

Apparently, one blogger at Wikihow has taken it upon himself to be the beacon of hope for every well-read, credible and serious journalist and PR guru on the beat today by teaching a skill no reporter should ever be without: the ability to deceive the public. And why not? Bad things inevitably happen, and the news is so depressing as it is! People can’t possibly expect in the “Really Real World” that truth to be told all the time, Can they? Of course they can’t. Take for example our world leaders. They need to look and sound their very best, in control and and authoritative. Come on! America has George W. Bush! If the world knew every detail about that guy the compound fractures of the collective breastplates over the hearts of the world’s children would be just too much even if Chris Brown were to write a really, really amazing song about it. But don’t fear! As the Wikihow article says, “It’s not really lying, it’s not ‘disinformation’ but it’s not a straight-forward presentation either. In many ways, it’s the essence of politics. ” So, it’s really fine. Everybody does it.

In this spirit, here are that article’s guidelines for effective and expeditious spinning of any negative story. My comments are in italics:

1. Research the event: You need to know, to the last detail, what happened. If you don’t have this knowledge, you will do better to gloss over the event until you do know. Note dates and times, things that led up to the event, people involved and most significantly, the immediate results. You must gather have all the facts first in order to create a believable fictional story. But of course, it’s not outright lying so yo don’t need to work too hard.

2. Create a timeline: This is not just for the past but for the future too. Use your research to build this, then project as many repercussions as you can into the future. If, for example, a retail corporation had a very poor fourth quarter, will you need to close stores; lay off people; borrow money? Identify all the bad things that are likely to come of this. Basically, you’ll need to plan for the absolute worst and draw up a verbal escape route. Try asking the definition of “is” ala Bill Clinton… Then again, don’t.

3. Create alternate event descriptions: This is where you will build the “spin” for the public. You can’t do anything about things that happened - they happened - but you can present them differently. Think of happy, euphemistic, musical language. If it sounds poetic that’s even better! People love a good poem!

* People didn’t buy from lower-priced competitors; they delayed premium buying decisions.
* You didn’t have ineffective marketing; you delayed premium advertising to coincide with the delayed buying decisions.
* You aren’t going to close stores; you’re repositioning for market acquisition.
* You aren’t laying off sales employees; you’re elevating the consumer’s experience through added independence.

4. Roleplay and improve: To do this properly, it takes a group of people dedicated to the result. You will need several “devil’s advocate” types to listen to the presentation and slice it to pieces. You want to know every possible argument ahead of time. Use small focus groups and make the presentation, then tweak it, then do it again. Each time the backlash is reduced, you’ve made an effective improvement. Eventually (after 4 or 5 sessions) you should get to a stable point. In lay terms, every actor must study his craft, get into his character, memorize every line or sometimes improvise. If you can do this, no one will outspin you!

5. Prepare your audience: You’re not going to just jump in and make your presentation. You want the audience to be receptive to your information. Start leaking information that is favorable to your position and negative to any alternate position. You will neither confirm nor deny this information, but you will caution people that any information about your corporation will come from official sources, only. Like a rockstar, you’ll need to leak out some “songs” to the public before you release the full album.

6. Pause: Don’t release your information immediately following the leaks. Let the audience have time to absorb and process the information - they need time to reach equilibrium. Again like the rockstar, delay the album. Keep the audience hungry

7. Go Public: Release your information. Publicly and loudly. A surprise press conference (that was rumored to be in the works) is an effective and time-tested method. Whether you have a Q&A session after will really depend on how good your spin is and, to a large extent, how prepared you are. It’s also a matter of personal taste. Your bottom line is dependent marketing and promotion. Never forget that!

8. See Step 1: Spin only lasts just so long. Eventually, the future catches up to your timeline, and you’ll need to make new announcements. Start planning for how you’ll do that, now. This is really an endless cycle and there is strong job security for somebody that’s good at it. When it’s over create something new for the public to consume. If you really want to be a rockstar of spin you have write exceptional new material.

Tips

* A positive attitude is a must. You absolutely may not allow yourself to exhibit even the tiniest bit of indecisiveness. If you don’t believe it, they won’t. Believe in your bull****! If you don’t, no one else will.

* Credibility is critical. Your audience must believe you without any question. You are appealing largely to their emotions. Always look great, and sound greater!
* Have diversity in your focus groups. You want the members to be as varied as possible so they will have different views on your presentation. People an like Skittles, the more flavors you have to choose from, the better everything can look, and with so many options the possibility for a good outcome is so much greater!

Warnings

* This can have a serious backlash if there are holes in your presentation. Be as critical as possible. Otherwise the public will destroy you!
* Be sure about the loyalties of the people that help you. Select your focus groups carefully.
* Don’t fall for your own spin. It sounds good, makes sense… but seriously, you know better. You built the twist - don’t let it go to your head. I mean, who the hell in his right mind would believe this crap, right?

Right. That’s the moral of this story. Don’t fall for it! I may wax poetically, but I’ll never wax fictitiously!

(Read How to Spin Bad News).

Photo: George Obama, Telegraph UK

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair has an exclusive from Barack Obama’s youngest Kenyan, half-brother George. George, who is just 26, is is now living on just a dollar a day in Nairobi but is hoping his enrollment in technical college will change that fact. He has only met his would-be prez brother twice, once at age five and again in 2006 when Barack was visiting Nairobi.

According to Little Brother, they barely talked and the meeting was very awkward. “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger,” said George. I wanted to comment on this before people just jumped on Senator Obama’s back like rabid spider monkeys because the way I see it, this type of situation can happen to most people who are out of contact with family. I happen to have a new step-family I’m just getting to know and it honestly is quite strange to be asked about my step-family and not know all that much. So, in a similar respect, I understand why George Obama would not publicly admit his relation to Barack. The press would eat the Senator alive if his dollar-a-day half-brother was all over the media. George says he tells people he and Barack aren’t related because he [George] is ashamed of being so poor. Somehow I understand. The whole scenario is just very awkward in general.

So in light of all this, until I have more details on the situation, I’m withholding my judgment. However, I do wonder if the possible President Obama will be getting to know his Kenyan blood further or even wiring some cash his way. What do you think?

“Brothers don’t shake hands…. Brothers gotta wax poetically!”

This one is something I came across in my email this morning. It eloquently discusses how fully content people seem to function similarly and are in general, just some great tips to a better life. This is just a little something I wanted to drop into the blog for kicks. . this is all based on Abraham Maslow’s psychological studies of highly mentally healthy people. Enjoy and wax poetically! Feel free to Digg or stumble this!

“Atomic Holiday Self-portrait”

As some of you know, last week I posted my views on the general absurdity of human free will when juxtaposed with the instincts found in animals. So today I follow that piece with a comment on a study published in Scientific American today that points to evidence that many philosophers and scientists don’t believe in free will and believe instead that all decisions are arrived at solely because they are influenced by previous actions or events or experiences.

The article summed up a scandalous little study by psychologists Kathleen Vohs at the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler at the University of California at Santa Barbara wherein two groups of subjects were given two passages to read from the popular scientific analysis book The Astonishing Hypothesis by biochemist and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, (he discovered the double helix composition of DNA with James Watson). One group read a passage saying, “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.” On neurological influence it continues,“…although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” The second group was ask to read a passage about the nature of consciousness that lacked any mention of free will. The participants then filled out a survey on their beliefs about free will.

Next both groups were given 20 arithmetic problems to answer on a computer but due to a “glich” were also told that they must press the space bar in order that the answer not be shown for them to be able to cheat. Still, no one would be able to tell if they did. The results were that those who read the anti-free will passage cheated considerably more than those who read the consciousness-centered section and the amount of cheating by each person directly correlated to the to the responses on each corresponding survey. Therefore the readings proved influential, but why? The researchers believe that the doom and gloom of the anti-free will rationale may have driven Group One simply not to care, or at least to be less inclined to do so.

Yet beyond the study, there was no conclusive evidence to tell how the results pan out over any longer term. Also, the general moral habits or beliefs of the participants prior to the study are unknown. However after preforming cross-cultural studies, research shows people overall desire to want to think they are free moral agents. Further the study illustrates more people believe in free will than in determinism. But what does this really suggest?

First, there is the argument that all decisions are determine by previous actions, events, experiences and so forth. This seem only logical. A person must be influenced by all he encounters in some way, as in “It’s raining, so I won’t go swimming today,” or “I was bitten by a shark last time, so this time I’ll be more careful.” This is nothing new… is it? The more pertinent question is “What is the nature of consciousness?” or “Why are people aware at all?” People definitely have choices they can make as far as they are aware of them but that does not mean objectively that they choose those choices, but it definitely means they think they do.

Ultimately, this seems like a circular debate. From where I sit, it’s very similar to arguing whether reality is the same for all people or if the individual is just dreaming it. It is in fact, all based on perception and anyone with half a brain knows that only testable principles such as gravity, social norms and cause/effect relationships can ever be debated. Free will is defined as the ability to make choices. Humans clearly do make choices. The subjects in the study made a clear and conscious choice whether to cheat on the tests they were given. The question scientists seem to be posing is whether people’s perception of their autonomy is somehow fated by something outside of their knowledge such as nature or even God.

Any further debate just seems pointless. Even if people don’t understand the true nature of their wills, as long as they are conscious of the choices they make and believe they are free and autonomous, maybe that’s all that matters. Rather it could just mean there is a debate regarding what the concept of free will means. Basically it comes down to what causes people’s will and has nothing to with the process itself…. Your brain will still function regardless of any of this. I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

Wax. Don’t dryclean.