Terrorism Theater

(Picture from here.)

I don't like to talk about terrorism. I'm a creative person. I can think up many, many nasty things that can happen. I'd just as soon not go through life frightened.

That said, recently botox is now on the terrorism watch list. (See here.) The use of an item used by the Western Rich to make themselves more beautiful (and more vain) as a means of attacking those same Western institutions cannot be ignored. It, or some similar idea of it, changes the playing field.

Terrorism is theater. It is a dramatic means of getting a message across. It was not an accident that the Twin Towers were targeted. Theater has an audience and the nature of that audience determines the nature of the dramatic act.

In Terrorism Theater, Americans are not the audience. Let me repeat that. We are not the audience. That we reacted the way we did is a happy accident for Al Quaeda. The meaning of the act was to destroy an American symbol and show the audience Al Quaeda's power and ability. It was a very successful act.

Americans like simple answers to things. Suicide bombers and terrorists attack us because they "hate freedom" or other similarly inane arguments. The world circles around us in our own minds. That we are incidental to the cause doesn't sit well with us. We're not the most important country in the world; in terms of power, we're the biggest and most obvious. We occupy a symbolic point in the theatrical rhetoric that would be occupied by someone else were we not available.

How we make ourselves available is the subject of another post.

Now, botox comes along. In 9/11, the target of Terrorism Theater was the symbol of American wealth: the Twin Towers. That they fell was a tremendous propaganda coup. But the mechanism of the fall was unimportant. If a car bomb had been used, the coup would have been pretty close to identical. Planes striking the tower were media hot but the fall of the towers was so incredibly hot it made the planes insignificant.

What makes botox so different is that the means of the terrorist act is symbolically hot. What better symbol of Western materialism and arrogance than using a poison as a means of creating physical beauty? Botox could be so symbolically compelling that it could make the target less symbolically importance-- something I think that has been inadvertently protecting us. As long as the target has to be symbolically hot, we can get by protecting hot targets. But as soon as the means becomes hot, then the targets can be broader.

Houston, we have a problem.

==================================
Wall of Idiots
High speed glacier melt
Dwelling on Climategate

Links of Interest
Eclipse photographs
Running barefoot
Ginger dinosaurs and here
Humans killed off the megafauna
Exercising good for aging
Aliens in plain sight
Excavating China's dinosaurs
Handling your web affairs post mortem
Ghost peaks of Antarctica
Quantum simulation of Hydrogen
Wind and the grid

DIY
5 minute projects
Dessert recipes
Fermentation

Emergent Properties of Characters

(Picture from here.)

"Character is what you are in the dark."

So says Doctor Emilio Lizardo ably played by John Lithgow in Buckaroo Banzai.

Of the things that are important to me in writing, I have to say character rises to the top. Prose is nice. Plot is good. Imagery is key. But, to me, it revolves around the nature of the participants in the story-- that is, to say, character.

There are inherent issues with understanding characters in story that are not often addressed. The first one is who knows what is going on? The second is who's telling the story? Following from these two is, who's going to tell the reader?

These only appear to be trivial questions.

In SF and fantasy stories there is always the problem of getting the world across to the reader. Often referred to affectionately as the expository lump, for the smooth way it must be swallowed. Consider your own world-- this blog, for example. Say a person from ancient Hyperborea (Boston in the 1970's) appears. You have to explain the internet, cell phones, twitter, etc., to him-- things you would never ordinarily think about because they are part of your world. In fact, in a story, you would absolutely require such an ignorant individual to provide an opportunity to explain the internet, cell phones, etc. This is true for any milieu sufficiently different from the milieu of the reader.

Different writers have handled this in different ways. Some put up a lump. Some hit the ground running and hope the reader will stay with them long enough to explain. (Neal Stephenson does this.) Some twist the environment to make it sufficiently like the reader's (or at least a piece of the reader's) world that no explanation is necessary. Some pander to a perceived truth of the milieu to tell the story trusting the legend will trump actual history. (Amadeus does this.) But, win, lose or draw, if you don't tell the reader directly you're going to need a character to show things.

Hence the first question: Who knows what's going on? Every story has a mystery to unfold and only the characters can know enough to impart it to the reader-- you as the author know it all. But unless you're Puck, you're not telling.

The second question is who's telling the story?

Every story has voice and that voice belongs to someone. You can lie and say it's the author but that's blowing smoke. No author writes the same book twice-- not if that author is worth a damn. For one thing, the act of writing the book changes the author. For another, it must be decided who are the focal characters, what must be left out, what is left in-- these are choices the author must make. Often, it's not the story teller that knows what is going on-- think The Great Gatsby. The narrator knows almost nothing. Think Huckleberry Finn. The reader knows more about what is going on than Huck. Huck sees all but understands little. The storyteller determines what can be revealed and how it must be revealed.

Which leads us to the final, and I think, most important question: who's going to tell the reader?

Let's rephrase the question to make it clearer: How is the reader going to know what is going on? In Huckleberry Finn, Huck knows what happens but understanding is left to the reader to learn-- understanding beyond what Huck is capable of. In HF, Jim is a fully formed man, with wants and needs, with children and a wife. He knows this. The reader can see it. But Huck has to be brought to that revelation.

There's a common flaw in a lot of fiction where a given character knows more than he should. Or suddenly starts talking about something that by all rights is part of the room's furniture. How often do you talk about how light switches work? Yet, in some stories, people talk about the equivalent of "light switches". It's as if the characters are schizophrenic, part of their own world and part of ours and switch between them at the author's necessity.

Remember Lizardo: "Character is what you are in the dark." The nature of the characters in a story is not limited to how they act on stage. In order to be true characters, they have families, lives, ancestors, dreams and ambitions when they are off the stage as well as when they are on the stage. The person that they are when the spotlight hits them has to be congruent with the person that exits stage left.

==========================
Wall of Idiots
Rep. Alfred Baldasaro (R, NH)

Links of Interest
NASA's next spacesuit and here
The 1830 Moon Hoax
2009 2cd warmest year yet
Solar power for Haiti and here
Jet fuel from coal
Prions may have positive effect
Soviet versus Capitalist Birds
World's greatest wedding invitation

DIY
Bentwood birdhouse
Coconut birdhouse
Shoe birdhouse
Unique birdhouse
$2 Birdhouse
Gourd birdhouse and here
Eastern bluebird house
Paper airplanes
Peanut butter
Chilaquiles Soup
Squirrel proof bird feeder
R/C plane from trash
Weekend workbench

Boskone 47

(Not the Boskone logo. Picture from here.)

Here's my preliminary Boskone 47 schedule:

Friday 8pm Biblical Themes and Religion in Genre Fiction
Jeffrey A. Carver (M)
Walter H. Hunt
Dani Kollin
Steven Popkes
Margaret Ronald
OK, it's full of some really fabulous stories. A lot of people are familiar with it, so there's resonance in the well of souls. Any other reasons writers keep coming back to these sources?

I've been playing in this field for a while. (Note: Fable for Savior and Reptile as an example.) So this should be fun.

Saturday10am SF/Mainstream Convergence? - yes/no, good/bad/
Kathryn Cramer
James Patrick Kelly (M)
Steven Popkes
Vandana Singh
Melinda Snodgrass
Is SF converging with the mainstream? Just as SF tropes have invaded films and TV, have they also become so much part of our common culture that the genre will simply be absorbed (or absorb) the rest of literature? What will this mean for SF and for us? Is it a Good Thing?

Hm? Threat or Menace? Recall I spoke about this somewhat here.

Saturday4pm Graphic Novels, Film Audio, Web Comics, +!? - Different Ways to Tell the Story Bruce Coville (M)
Steven Popkes
Everett Soares
Rene Walling
Jane Yolen
There's more than one way - and more than one media - in which to tell a story, isn't there? Discuss. But - why mix media? Is one picture really worth a thousand words? Can voices convey nuances better than the written word? Than art? What works (and what doesn't)? What's good and what's bad? Recommend some of these unusual and innovative newcomers in the science fiction/fantasy/horror field.

Yay. I get to talk about webcomics.

Sunday 10am Autographing

Not sure what I'm going to be autographing.

Sunday 2pm Werewolves (and Other Shapeshifters): Finally Getting the Respect They Deserve?
Bruce Coville
Leah Cypess
Adam Golaski
Steven Popkes (M)
In many ways, werewolves are the antitheses of vampires. Bursting with life (perhaps too much?) and deeply connected to the natural world in ways their dead, generally more elegant, and possibly darker bretheren can't begin to approach, werewolves *seem* to be beginning to make an impact on fantasy (and horror). True? If so, why is this happening? And -- besides wolves -- what other animals are shapeshifters simulating?

I get to talk about Stegosaurus Boy. Yay!
====================================
Wall of Idiots
James M Inhofe, Senator, R Ok.
Consumerism
IPCC
Losing health care
Democratized investment
V: Colbert rips conservative pundits
Brown costs Democratic majority!
Michelle Bachmann
Pat Robertson

Links of Interest
Sequencing MRSA
Live longer

DIY
Microwave mitten warmers
Ice skating rink
Winter vegetables
Solar heater
Ski bike
Heated clothing
Instant hat and scarf
Quinzee (snow hut)
Hot chocolate
Sleep warm anywhere
Winter bike commute
Other winter fun
Things with coffee
Wood projects

Atheism and The Downfall of Man

(Picture from here.)

For me, atheism is something that just sort of happened. There was a point in my life where I considered being a preacher. But then I discovered sex. The equation was fairly straightforward: Church says sex bad. Sex feels quite good. => Dump church.

But I didn't actually become an atheist until much, much later.

In fact it came about from a desire to convert to Judaism-- which I maintain is Nature's Perfect Religion. However, when it came to the point where I needed to make a decision, I looked in my heart and discovered somewhere along the line I had actually quit believing in God. After that, what was the point of conversion?

I did discuss this at one point with a friend of mine who subsequently emigrated to Israel. Her response was: "What does God have to do with it?"

It's possible I came by this honestly. After all, one of my Mother's heroes was Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

That said, I added it to my image of myself and went on. Sunday became just another day on the weekend.

This was a long time ago. Long before Christianity and Christian lunacy became fashionable.

Nowadays, it seems that atheists seem to have to somehow defend themselves for living a moral life without the intervening excuse of God.

I've become sensitive to this sort of persecution to the point that candidates that flout their religion get a regular downcheck in my political notebook. Candidates that don't are automatically presumed to be extra-honest, since they are penalized these days for not affirming their cozy personal relationship with Jesus.

I don't mind other people's religious beliefs. I just don't want to be bothered by them. Or blamed for their own problems.

It seems these days that a belief in God is connected to doing the right thing, all evidence to the contrary. In opposition, atheism is believed to signal the downfall of America without any evidence whatsoever.

I revel in my new found power.
=====================================
Wall of Idiots
The Faith Project
Discovery Institute's Darwin's Dilemma
Trijicon's Bible verses on rifles
Theodicy
John Freshwater
SCOTUS
Massachusetts Democrats: A story that makes sense

Links of Interest
The amazing tentacled snake
Octopus tool use
The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate
Plug n play hospital
Orangutan as peacemaker
Iceland's penis museum
The Great Stalacpipe Organ

DIY
V: Christmas tree rocketry
Snow science
The Spoken Wood
Card and pencil constructions
Chicken coop door opener
Furniture from sawdust
Biodegradable seedling pots
Lathe captive ring
Flat pack cubicle
Seed sprouting bag
Tiny turtles
Smartphone mount
Plastic paper clips
Tootophone
Polynesian ice canoe
Coffee Bean Cooler
Flywheels

Joe Thumbfingers

(Picture from here.)

A recent article in science news suggests the human genome is anything but pure. (See here.)

Human being share the flotsam and jetsam from bacteria and viruses and, in fact, some of these insertions have neuronal implications.

This is relatively easy to explain in evolutionary terms. It's also very exciting to see these "dirty" mechanisms having implications in our make up.

It makes the Intelligent Design ideas even more hard to swallow than they already are. If the system under question is so complex that it can only be conceived as divinely created the implication is that the system is elegant and, well, designed. A Porsche, if you will.

But if that Porsche has a Ford 150 fender bolted on one side, the trunk is comes from an MG migit and two of the four tires comes from a different kind of car and one whole side has tank treads, the "design" idea becomes a little hard to support. After a while, one begins to think that this thing was cobbled together out of parts on hand for the purpose at the moment and then bent to fit. Which is, more or less, what happened.

I guess you can think of God as Joe Thumbfingers who reused every good (and bad) idea he had and then welded things together as best he could. Maybe that's a comfort.

Neat evolutionary links:
Fish may not have evolved gills to breathe
Feet the key to human hand evolution
Primate brains wired for math

======================
Wall of Idiots

• Jesus on toast
• Mountaintop Mining
• TV shortens your life
• Exxon Valdez again.
• Rich man's medicine
• Where we get our oil
• Killing giant freshwater fish
• FDA can't regulate BPA
  

Links of Interest

• 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD By Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
• V: Birds Play Guitar
• Space power
• Museum of Hoaxes
• Disappearing star
• Plant/animal hybrid?
• Neanderthal body paint
• Destructive internet social contract
• Homo erectus as early modern man
• Sugar in the New World
• Life on Mars proof this year
• Changes in the maternal brain
• NASA's Electric Icarus
• Aurochs return
  

DIY

• Smoker
• Cutting glass with string: Here. Here. Here. Here.
• Paper notebook modifications
• Easy recipes
• Reuse of plastic cards
• Green home building
  

After the hangover

(Picture from here.)

Interactive maps and analysis of the special election: Here. Here.
Scott Brown's victory speech here. Fairly interesting opinion analysis here. Jon Stewart here. And no commentary would be complete without something from Adolph Hitler.

Scott Brown won. As I write this, the wounds are fresh. Bill Morrissey once said that he recorded all of the 1986 Red Sox World Series debacle and afterwards taped over them with reruns of Love Boat. "Some wounds don't heal easily."

By now, if you read Brown's victory speech, you will see it has become national in importance. The Republicans have claimed it as a mandate.

Sigh.

As if all of the efforts of Obama, Biden and Clinton could ever have gottenCoakley elected.

If you read Brown's acceptance speech you will see that Brown is ready to be a "worthy successor" to Ted Kennedy at the same time he's going to be the "41st Republican". One could think this an impossible presumption but facts do no sway him in the pursuit of his higher truth.

Brown claims to have beaten the "machine". That's sort of like watching a great and wounded elephant stumbling to its knees and dying in front of him, then declaring victory.

What has really happened is that Massachusetts has traded their local politics for national politics. They've traded local democratic rule with national Republican rule. Republicans operate in lockstep and punish severely those to step out of line. This has been shown all through their machinations. If Brown does not represent a Massachusetts "machine", he is owned body and soul by a much nastier and malevolent one.

Enjoy the illusion of autonomy, those of you who voted for Brown. It will be short lived.

Thank You, Massachusetts

(Picture from here.)

I'm writing this before the polls close here in our state. I want to get my opinions down before they are soured by whoever wins.

For the fortunate people in Bumfudge, Idaho who haven't been barraged by what's happening up here, it's pretty simple. We have an incompetent Democrat campaigner in a death grip with a savvy Republican. This does not bode well for the state.

Here in Massachusetts we have a strong Democrat political machine. The machine churns up who's going to run and the voters respond. Unfortunately, the machine spits up candidates that satisfy the requirements of the machine but who are often only marginally electable. In 1990, William Weld was elected governor against John Silber, about as unelectable a Democrat as they come. He won 71% reelection against Mark ("Who the Hell was he?") Roosevelt. In 2002, Mitt Romney, as vicious a Republican as could be found anywhere in the country, much less in Massachusetts, trounced Shannon ("And who the Hell is she?") O'Brien. This, in an overwhelmingly Democrat state.

Party acceptables. Voter unacceptables.

Now we're doing it again.

Martha Coakley has been a party hack from day one. You can read about here here. She was attempting to win Ted Kennedy's seat-- who has never been a party hack. You can say many, many bad things about Ted but you cannot say he has been a party hack. So, who does the machine put up to succeed him? Martha ("Oh, yeah. She's the lady that... uh. Can't remember anything good.") Coakley.

But wait, you say: Didn't Coakley win the primary? Yes, she did. Her opponents were Mike Capuano, Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca.

Mike Capuano was a progressive in the House representing the 8th District-- JFK and Tip O'Neill's seat. He actually has national experience and is a known progressive. Alan Khazei has been running interesting non-profits for years. He's one of the founders of City Year. Stephen Pagliuca is the co-owner of the Boston Celtics.

Capuano was the obvious choice. Khazei would have been interesting. Either of them would have been a good contender for Scott Brown. So what happened?

Who votes in the Democrat primary? Dyed in the wool Democrats, that's who. Even though voters classes as Independents can vote, they don't often show up in any numbers. Most Democrats don't, either. Primaries are poorly attended. Special primaries less so. Thus, we got Coakley who can't campaign to safe her life-- and is not campaigning now and it is her political life at stake. Instead, the Mass. Democrats are practicing pre-criminations and wandering around pointing fingers before the pools opened much less before they closed.

And Scott Brown, exactly the same sort of cut taxes and raise spending George Bush sort of Republican is rolling towards to the Senate.

Let us be absolutely clear. Scott Brown has pulled off no miracle. He has made no particularly interest sally into national politics. He was handed his opportunity on a gilded platter, lovingly crafted by the Democratic politicians of Massachusetts.

Thank you Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Addendum: Just to show you that Scott Brown is only supported by loyal Massachusetts Republicans, here is Fox News telling you that if Brown wins, you're 401 K will benefit. Somehow, this is not paying for votes.
=========================================
Wall of Idiots
Media bias and religion
Pat Robertson and here
Rush Limbaugh

Links of Interest
Preparing for disaster
Doug Gordon: Recipe for the Disturbing

DIY
Bend PVC pipe
Mini blind plant tags
Saddle pipe cuts
Djembe drum
Credit card device stand
Green power science.com
Vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT)