August « 2010 « The: Foolish Human

August, 2010

Bob Dylan’s 1st Bad Dream: “Man Gave Names to All the Animals”

Bob Dylan is my favorite singer/songwriter. Original, I know, and I’ll spare you the diatribe about his greatness as his standing among the 20^th century’s greatest performers and personas is well established. He is immortal as far as the history of music is concerned and bears responsibility for some of the best musical and lyrical offerings ever produced. That being said, Dylan’s undertakings became more mercurial as his career went on, and in addition to having written some of the most powerful and groundbreaking songs of his generation (or ever), he may also have lashed together some of the worst I’ve ever heard. This ongoing series entitled Bob Dylan’s Bad Dreams seeks to bring those forgotten anti-classics into full view with naught but love and admiration. The idea is to keep this list going on a semi-regular basis until I run out of things to say.

Album: Slow Train Coming (1979)
Link: Lyrics/Audio

I’m not sure if “Man Gave Names to All the Animals” is the worst song Dylan has ever recorded, but it’s certainly close. Coming of the earlier portion of his descent into Christian-themed music and through twelve verses of banal, unironic descriptions of — for the most part — farm animals, Dylan alludes to the story of Adam bestowing names upon all God’s creatures:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl in the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:19-20, King James Version

Dylan, however, tends to phrase Adam’s exploits in this regard with considerably less poetry than the indelible King James Version of the Bible. Take, for instance, my favorite verse of the lot:

He saw an animal up on a hill
Chewing up so much grass until she was filled
He saw milk comin’ out but he didn’t know how
“Ah, think I’ll call it a cow”

He couples his childish lyrics — and really, this song’s only legitimate home is within the disease-ridden confines of a Kindergarten classroom — with a hefty serving of backing Gospel singers as would be his wont for some time. (There will be other entries that deal with more egregious uses of the Gospel tradition, which I do like, by and large. It can, however, be abused and mutated to horrendous effect.)

To end off what amounts to a musical version of a See ‘n’ Say, Dylan concludes the song with an ellipsis as if challenging you to name the animal he is describing in the last verse. Go ahead. See if you can guess, but you have to actually listen to the roughly 4:20 that precedes this point in the song because I did, and it’s very lonely out here.

This article is cross-posted at They Will Rise Again from the Tundra.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Neil's Discoveries / Science & Medicine / The Web — No Comments
31
Aug 10

The Guardian (+) Science = Very Wonderful

By Neil Gorman

The Guardian’s science site is really very wonderful. That is all. Full stop.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Ethics, Morals, & Values / Neil's Discoveries / Politics & Government — No Comments
26
Aug 10

More Thoughts on Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, and Nuclear Weapons

By Neil Gorman

Over at The Atlantic there is an article by Karim Sadadpor called “5 Minutes With Benjamin Netanyahu.” In this article Sadadpor states:

With its own arsenal of over 100 nuclear weapons — not to mention the unconditional support of the world’s greatest superpower — Israel needlessly elevates Iran by labeling it an “existential threat.”

I’ll grant that — given what seems to be public knowledge — calling Iran’s nuclear ambitions an “existential threat” may be somewat hyperbolic at this stage in the game, and I agree that the use of this term has elevated Iran’s actions. However, I believe that elevating Iran is precisely what is called for due to reasons I have previously stated.

Sadadpor goes on to say…

Given that Israel’s underlying problem with Iran has more to do with the character of the revolutionary regime than with its nuclear ambitions (after all, Israel seems unconcerned about the Pakistani bomb), then the mathematics of an Israeli strike don’t make sense.

I wish to humbly disagree with this statement. Iran’s relationship to the heavily armed Lebanon situated group Hezbollah (and visa-a-versa) makes Iran fundamentally different from Pakistan. In addition, Iran’s dubious “democracy” is a far cry from the democracy which exists in Pakistan, as evidenced by the election of the late Benazir Bhutto, which is something that would not happen in Iran today. i.e. Even if Ahmadinejad does lose an election, that does not mean he will stop being the President of Iran.

There are two points Sadapor makes that I do agree with. The first, which I totally agree with, is that Iran’s nuclear program is costing its government lots of money and has yet to produce any nuclear weapon. If this spending of money and getting nothing for it other than economic sanctions, the ill will of the rest of the world, and the threat of being bombed continues, the citizens of Iran and the “green movement” in particular can use it to motivate people to push Ahmadinejad out of power.

The second point I agree with, but I think it is important to point something out:

To put things in perspective, a $1 drop in oil prices is approximately $600 million in lost annual revenue for Iran. Military action that would send oil prices skyrocketing makes it far less costly for Iran to continue supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention expand the ranks of bassij militia and Revolutionary Guards who rule by terror.

This is indeed something that should, and I believe does, weigh heavily on the minds of decision makers in Israel. My guess is that the Israelis are thinking along the lines of, “It stands to reason if Iran does get access to the protective umbrella having nuclear weapons provides, that umbrella will extend to Hezbollah, which will in turn be far more likely to start firing rockets into Isreal with greater frequency.”

So giving Iran more money to fund Hezbollah is much better than allowing Iranian access to nuclear weapons with which it would protect Hezbollah.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Ethics, Morals, & Values / Neil's Discoveries / Quotes — No Comments
26
Aug 10

Fundamentalism = “Lunacy on Stilts”

By Neil Gorman

From the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, by Jeffery Goldberg.

The thinking of scriptural fundamentalists seems, to the secular-minded, or even to the sort of person like me who feels the constant presence of God in his life but does not believe Him to be partisan in His love, as lunacy on stilts. It is also cruel beyond measure. Fundamentalism is the thief of mercy.

What a great quote.

Some pages later Goldberg describes what he says, after being arrested in Gaza, during an interrogation by Arab who is accusing him of being a spy. Goldberg insists that he is a journalist working on a story the possibility of Jews and Arabs coexisting in the same stretch of land.

I told him I thought that there must be a way to create on this narrow ledge of land a place for Jews and Muslims to live in peace, side by side, without perfect justice, but without murder, either. Now, I know Jews better than I know Arabs. I think the Jews –not all, God knows, but many– are readying themselves for this day. But I don’t know about the Arabs. There are people who tell me they know the answer, but I don’t trust these people. In the Middle East, people who say the have the answers often don’t know the questions. So what I’m doing (and if I keep talking without pause, maybe you’ll forget about torturing me, or at least give me m cell phone back, yes?) is searching for the right questions.

So far this books is filled with writing that is making me think, and making me want to keep reading. Wow.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Education & Learning / Ethics, Morals, & Values / Neil's Discoveries — 1 Comment
26
Aug 10

The “Ground Zero Mosque” Is a Good Idea

By Neil Gorman

From a wonderfully informative and thought provoking piece about the proposed Islamic cultural center (AKA the mosque at ground zero) titled “Can We Talk?” over at Foreign Policy In Focus:

The controversy du jour is whether an Islamic cultural center should be built a couple blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City. One side says that such a building would desecrate the memory of those who died on 9/11. The other side says that freedom of religion is a core value in this country. For me, the issue is a no-brainer. The center promotes inter-religious and intercultural dialogue, which is precisely what we need more of to prevent future attacks. As Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) rightly points out, “I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation.” The opponents of the center — with their “Islam is the enemy” posters — are as fundamentalist in their outlook as the jihadists they oppose.

My thoughts: saying that all followers of Islam are like al-Qaida is like saying that all christians are like the Puritans who put on the Salem witch trials. There are similarities, but there are more differences.

What harm can come from engaging in a dialogue? Not nearly as much as can (and I believe will) come if people of the various religions of the world and secular people don’t start to talking and listening to one and other! We could all benefit from the creation of a place where we can talk about what we believe, why we believe it, and how believing what we believe informs our actions and inactions.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Education & Learning / Neil's Discoveries — No Comments
25
Aug 10

Educational Problems and Educational Change

By Neil Gorman

Today I was reading an article in The New Republic called “Why Go to School?” by Paul Goodman…

The point of the article is that society as a whole, and those involved in providing education in particular, should really examine the motivation (or lack thereof) which exists for going to school. Goodman talks about how the education system has evolved and created grades, advanced placement, standardized test scores, etc., and the effects these systems have had on the process of education as well as the students that are forced to endure that process in the United States.

The damage is universal. Intelligent youngsters, whether bookish or non-bookish, can of course perform, but for the non-bookish the performance is a second-best activity and the achievement is fraudulent. The slower are tormented and humiliated. But in my opinion, the authentically scholarly are even more injured; the competition, the speed-up and the rewards create false values and destroy the meaning of their gifts. The studies are no longer presented as though they were intrinsically valuable. Bright youngsters “do” Bronx Science in order to “make” Harvard; but of course they also “do” Harvard. In fact, the motivation of society is narrow and anti-intellectual; it is to give, at public expense and eventually at the parents’ expense, apprentice-training for the corporations and the armed forces. President Kennedy, in his 1963 message on education, explained to us the motivation to explore the unknown: it is “for economic, military, medical and other reasons”! (A professor of astronomy at Yale complained to me that, though his students included many excellent mathematicians who had “mastered” the subject, not one of them would be a good astronomer. How was that? “They don’t love the stars,” he said.)

Speaking as someone who teaches high school and has been a student long enough to earn a Masters, I could not agree more with Goodman’s sentiments.

I believe in knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I believe that learning is its own reward. However, most of my students seem to have been taught if there is not reward, if there is not something tangible in it for them, then they should not bother with intellectual pursuits.

The rest of the article lays out some very interesting ideas, which I believe are worthy of consideration. But one of the best points is made at the end of the article…

…all should be educated and at the public expense, but the idea that most should be educated in something like schools is a delusion and often a cruel hoax. Our present way is wasteful of wealth and human resources and destructive of young spirit. The better way is to expand social needs that are also opportunities for education appropriate to different dispositions. Of course what I am here proposing involves a radical change in our present false standards of prestige, status and salary; it would be opposed by government, corporations, labor unions, and even the present urban poor who would consider themselves downgraded. It would certainly deflate the education business and require very different educators.

If only more people shared this vision.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Journalism / Neil's Discoveries / Politics & Government — 1 Comment
23
Aug 10

“The Point of No Return” by Jeffrey Goldberg Will Knock Your Socks Off

By Neil Gorman

There seems to have been a great deal of speculation in regards to what Israel may or may not do to prevent Iran from continuing down the road to acquiring nuclear weapons. Yesterday I happened to read an article in the Atlantic about this very thing. The article was titled The Point of No Return, and it was written Jeffrey Goldberg, and I’d go so far as to say that it was one of the best pieces of long form journalism that I have read in recent years.

The article basically lays out the facts that make it seem very obvious that if the United States does not do something more drastic than create sanctions against Iran, then the nation state of Isreal will take it upon itself to use force to “rectify” the situation.

From the cover of this Month’s Atlantic…

Here’s the scenario: one day next year, Isreal’s national-security adviser and defense minister will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon to inform them that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just ordered roughtly 100 Israeli air-force jets to fly east toward Iran. The Israelis will say they are attacking because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the survival of the Jewish people. They will tell the Americans that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission because it will be too late to ask for permission.

They stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever…

If that caught your attention (as it did mine), if you’re concerned about the price of oil / gas in the future, if you’re interested in the possibility of the United States becoming involved in some sort of military operation in the land situated in between Iraq and Afghanistan, or if you care about the relationship the United States has with the Nation State of Israel, I highly recommend that you read the rest of the article. It will knock your socks off!

For what ever they may (or may not) be worth, here are a few of my thoughts on this issue:

1. I don’t want the nation state of Iran to have nuclear weapons because they are a nation which at this point in time (and for many years now) has been lead by a group of religious fundamentalists (please note the use of the word religious as opposed to the use of the word Islamic).

Full disclosure – I’m a light weight Athiest. Meaning that I don’t believe in God, but at the same time I don’t have any problem with people who do, so long as their religious behaviors don’t cause harm, or appear to be getting ready to cause harm, to others.

In the case of Iran I believe the current (fundamentalist controlled) government has made it clear that they see it as their personal, political, moral, and spiritual duty to cause harm to the Jewish people and/or the nation state Israel and the citizens who live there. Feel free to disagree with me if you like, but religious fundamentalists all over the world have shown time and time again that when they get their hands on a weapon -any weapon- they have far fewer qualms about using said weapon than those people (religious and non-religious alike) who are not fundamentalists. This time the religious fundmentlists happen to be in control of the nation state of Iran, and they have their sites on the nation state of Isreal.

2. If Isreal does bomb Iran their government will have to deal with backlash from numerous political, economic, and ethnic groups.

Backlash, by its definition, is not something that can’t be prepared for. Be that as it may, I really believe that Isreal needs to be as ready as they can be by having a bunch of smart people sitting in a room with lots of coffee gaming this thing out as much as they can, for as long as they can.

The more time Isreal spends on (please forgive the term) pre-game preperation the better this will be for them.

3. No matter what Isreal should keep its “bomb in the basement” in the basement.

If Isreal were to publicly state that it has nuclear weapons, which is something that has never been stated but is totally understood, it would place Israel at a disadvantage in the short and long terms.

The short term disadvantage – Iran would look more justified in pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The long term disadvantage – an increase in animosity directed towards Israel, and by proxy, Jewish people all over the world.

~~~

I plan to keep up with this issue and blog about it throughout the next week, possibly longer.

Share this with other foolish humans:

Neil's Discoveries / Technology & Gadgets / The Web — No Comments
18
Aug 10

Thoughts on the Mobile Web, Pt. 4

By Neil Gorman

Via Johan Larsson's photostream.

The two major players in this battle thus far are Apple and Google. Each player has some clear advantages and disadvantages.

(1) Apple Has The Initiative:

The largest advantage that Apple enjoys is… They were the first company to get it right. The iPhone gave people a REAL BROWSER and was a huge success right off the bat. This gave Apple the early initiative in the battle. Apple seems to currently enjoy the largest marketshare of the mobile web.

(2) Apple’s Product has Been Rock Solid: (current antenna issues withstanding)

The second advantage is the Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Just like with their computers apps that are made to work on the iPhone or iPad just work.

Both Google and Microsoft making software and telling hardware manufacturers “To run our software you need to do X,Y, and Z.” How the hardware manufactures do X,Y, and Z is up to them… as a result there are several different configurations as opposed to Apple’s one (rock solid) configuration.

The fact that Microsoft is getting into the battle for the mobile web late is interesting… Maybe they just wanted to see what Apple and Google did, and how customers responded before launching their own prodeuct. Maybe. But I don’t think so, my guess is that they just missed the bus.

However, if Microsoft’s product has a good price point, and the device / softwear combo is solid than they have a shoot at being a real player. If their price point sucks and/or their product is anything less than solid (see Windows Vista) they will have spent lots of time and money to fail.

(3) Apple’s Closed “Control Freak” System:

Apple’s product being so solid is largly a result of the fact that they make the hardware and the software, but it is also the result of something that I personally see as a negative of their approach: that they are a closed system. i.e., All apps must pass through the Apple gatekeeper to be “approved” to be in the app store.

This limits their developers and, unless their iPhone had been “jail broken“, their customer’s choices.

I was going to count this as one of the advantages that Android had going for it, but after reviewing the information I see that Apple’s app store still has more choices in it than the Android app stores (notice Apple’s singular “store” and Android plural “stores). And I believe that, in addition to having just more apps, Apple also has more high quality apps than the Android stores.

(4) Android is Open: (Softwear, Hardware, and Carrier).

This is huge. Open systems might have a hard time getting going, but they have a way of catching up to and eventually surpassing closed systems. It is the wisdom of the crowd.

Android is not only open from a development prespective, it is also open from a hardware prespective. Thus Android’s ability to be run on so many different devices on more than one carrier will provide it with larger and larger market share as time goes on.

As I stated earlier: If Microsoft gets its act together with Windows Phone 7 , Google might have something to worry about. However, Google’s lead in the mobile web arena is going to be at least as difficult for Microsoft to catch up to as it has been for Android to catch up with Apple’s lead.

(5) Summing It All Up:

Apple has the lead, at least for now due to the fact that they got into this game first and went above and beyond what anyone had done thus far when they introduced the iPhone. In effect, they set the bar, and everyone has been trying to clear that bar, which has forced the other companies to play catch up.

Android is an open system that Apple needs to be afraid of. True, it might be a bit jankie as of this writing, but it gets more and more solid with every new build that comes out.

In addition to this, Android keeps gaining marketshare as it becomes an option for customers on more and more hardware and more carriers, while Apple’s iOS remains only on one device (the iPhone) on one (really shitty) carrier (AT&T).

For Apple to keep their lead they will need to push inovation, and not make any (more) mistakes.

Microsoft has yet to show us what they can do. As a company, Microsoft has a ton riding on Windows Phone 7, so if they bone this (and for the record I hope they don’t), they will take a major hit. If Microsoft really knocks this one out of the park it could be the start of a huge comeback for the company. (Yes it would be a “comeback” because they have been getting their asses kicked by Apple and Google for a few years now).

Share this with other foolish humans:

Books, Print, & Publishing — No Comments
18
Aug 10

Interesting Bits: The Library of Congress

By Neil Gorman

Today I was reading up on library science, and I came across an interesting bit of information about the United States Library of Congress.

From the Wikipedia article on library science…

Thomas Jefferson, whose library at Monticello consisted of thousands of books, devised a classification system inspired by the Baconian method, which grouped books more or less by subject rather than alphabetically, as it was previously done. Jefferson’s collection became the nucleus of the first national collection of the United States when it was transferred to Congress after a fire destroyed the Congressional Library during the War of 1812. The Jefferson collection was the start of what we now know as the Library of Congress.

Yet another cool thing that Thomas Jefferson did. It’s a pity more people don’t know this odd little fact.

From the Wikipedia article on the Libary of Congress…

The Library of Congress is the research library of the United States Congress, de facto national library of the United States, and the oldest federal cultural institution in the United States. Located in three buildings in Washington, D.C., it is the largest library in the world by shelf space and holds the largest number of books. The head of the Library is the Librarian of Congress, currently James H. Billington.

The Library of Congress was established by Congress in 1800, and was housed in the United States Capitol for most of the 19th century. After much of the original collection had been destroyed during the War of 1812, Thomas Jefferson sold 6487 books, his entire personal collection, to the library in 1815.^[2]^[3] After a period of decline during the mid-19th century the Library of Congress began to grow rapidly in both size and importance after the American Civil War, culminating in the construction of a separate library building and the transference of all copyright deposit holdings to the Library. During the rapid expansion of the 20th century the Library of Congress assumed a preeminent public role, becoming a “library of last resort” and expanding its mission for the benefit of scholars and the American people.

The Library’s primary mission is researching inquiries made by members of Congress through the Congressional Research Service; although it is open to the public, only legislators, Supreme Court justices and other high-ranking government officials may check out books.

The Library of Congress is one of those places that I have never had a chance to visit, but it is on the list of top five places I want to visit.

Share this with other foolish humans:

The: Foolish HumanWhat skyclad devilry is this?

August, 2010

Bob Dylan’s 1st Bad Dream: “Man Gave Names to All the Animals”

The Guardian (+) Science = Very Wonderful

More Thoughts on Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, and Nuclear Weapons

Fundamentalism = “Lunacy on Stilts”

The “Ground Zero Mosque” Is a Good Idea

Educational Problems and Educational Change

“The Point of No Return” by Jeffrey Goldberg Will Knock Your Socks Off

Thoughts on the Mobile Web, Pt. 4

Interesting Bits: The Library of Congress

Archives

Categories