The Death of Our Culture: Risks Not Taken

Anyone who knows me knows that I like stuff done well. I prize quality above volume. Our American culture unfortunately is very good at pumping out sameness when it comes to entertainment in film, music, art, and literature. Now most of my fellow gripers would concur that this is true for American pop culture, but I submit it is generally true of more than pop culture. In fact American culture has come to the point where imitation is not only the most sincere form a flattery, but it is also the most common form of product, especially when a risk taken pays off.

We all know that if a movie or a book is popular, there will be copycats and sequels. The nature of commercial entertainment system is to milk anything that made money until it starts giving blood instead. (Often it still gets milked and then just bleached at that point in time.)

A case in point is the Star Trek series. After the Next Generation came Deep Space Nine and Voyager and Enterprise. The continuation with the "product line" was a classic and prudent business decision. It had been making money, so give it the minimal amount of funds necessary to support its being sucked to death by the money milkers. The final milking of the franchise was the film Nemesis; it was not a good film. It was when the blood started to come. So the franchise has been rebooted with the recent Star Trek film, a final kick of adreniline to sustain the franchise.

Thus, we have become a culture of imitation. On American Idol, singers croon out smooth vocals of existing songs, instead of the shows of the '60s where talent was discovered through original songs. With CSI, we come out with a new department to investiage a different segement of criminal activity or a new city to cover, instead of finding a new approach to the classical mystery show. On YouTube, people can post their remixes of any given song with cool stock photography, panning in classical powerpoint style, and these YouTubers are told they are "amazing" or--if your British--"brilliant" when honestly they are average or marginally good or even straight up bad.

Our culture is dying to imitate itself. It's no suprise really. Imitating success is less risky. When you take a risk, you stand to lose. When risks are taken, some people are naturally excluded because they will not like what you did. So imitation is easier and cheaper. It takes no creative talent to sing the same song some else made popular. But American Idol sure can make a lot of money letting you do it as long as the some of the judges tell you how wonderful you are.

So to the risk takers,  my hat is off to you, even when I hate what you created. At least you bother to try.

The Squeeze

Every once in a while God places people in very, very tight places in order for people to be squeezed into looking god ward. Even if people to not speak to God, they are still looking and knowing what is going on.

Everyone has something that can be squeezed until they must look up, and usually the first question asked is "why?" Usually, the full question is "why me?" However, soon after the "why me" lies "why not someone else?" We seem to think that God's squeeze is something that He arbitrarily and capriciously places on people. However, God is not made in the image of marred man. His motives for the squeeze are pure and righteous.

This squeeze eventually has two very different endings, yielding or destruction. Those who are under the squeeze as it were are insisting on a third option, an option where God doesn't get to choice the outcome. However, we simply don't get it. No man can frustrate God's pure will, and He will frustrate everyone who thinks that He's out played God.

Certainly, no man ever says out loud that He is smarter than God, but it is implied every time someone sets out in clear violation of moral will. That man says in his heart either that "there is no God" or "there is no God who cares" or "there is no God who will stop me." All three thoughts are wrong. And any man holding them will discover his futility in spurning God's way.

So for those under the squeeze, realize your dependency and embrace it. To do otherwise will be frustration and eventually destruction.

Obama: Working His Tail Off to What End?

This blog post is a reaction a CNN opinion column. I posted a version of this as a reply, but I'm incredulous as to whether it will make it on the site.

I cannot argue that Obama "is working his tail off." Altogether so far, he has coerced laws through congress at a curiously alarming rate and has signed numerous executive orders. I dare say that any President can write his name to several documents. Granted, a president cannot do much more than sign his name to documents and order people around. As the executive branch, that is the job description. 

However, he is acting like he needs to fix all the problems in the US. Why else would a man sound so desperate unless he assumed that the world was upon his shoulders and the success of the nation depended on his commands.

Now let me be generous and call his actions leadership. What is he leading to? Mr. President, what is the American Paradise that you envision? If all we must do is what your word, then what must we do as nation to hasten this progress? By the way, Mr. President, you may dictate whatever your heart's desire is because you are in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet. A nation who has lived without you for over two centuries. Nevertheless, since you are the man of the hour, what is you dream?

Habits of an Effective Learner: Ask Questions Better

A question is a wonderfully magical thing. You state it, and often you will receive information which satisfies its request. However, some people simply don't want to be embarrsed by asking a question that may make them look stupid. In my opinion though, it is better to look stupid for three seconds than to be stupid forever. Sof if you need answer, go ahead and look to stupid. Ask the question. However, if you want to learn how to ask any question better, keep reading. A good question generally is concise, open, and specific.

Instead of being concise, when people ask questions, they often ramble, trying to fill in all the nuances of their ideas. However, you don't use questions as a way to talk, to give information. You should use questions to get information. Granted, sometimes background is needed, but give only a little background and then ask the question.

Generally, people ask a lot of closed question. A closed question is one when the answer is simply yes or no. If you are wanting to learn, generally you want more than these monosyllabic answers. Open questions are smply better at stimulating a discussion because the person being asked the question feels permission to expand on what has been said. Consider the difference between asking, "Do you want to eat tonight?" and "Where do you want to eat out tonight?" One leads to a definite ends while another can go on for a while.

Being specific is something that everyone struggles with. When a question is packed with specifics, it demands answering. For example, I could ask you, "what is the difference between those two operating systems?" or I could ask "what is the difference between the kernels of SUSE Linux and Windows?" The first question does not require a lot of thought to ask while the second question requires you know a little about what you're talking about and thinking about how to phrase it.

Too often simply asking good questions is overlooked as learning method. I suppose the most basic reason is that questions take thought, and unless you are willing to think, you won't be able to ask those good questions. And with all things concerning learning, unless you're willing to think, you will not learn.

Marx's Take on the Financial Crisis Fix

I read an article which claimed, "Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him." The essential premise of the whole article is that the cash injections are communistic in their philosophy, and the cash injections are bound to fail for multiple reasons.

I appreciate the concern about proposal number five of Marx's Communist Manifesto being enacted through legislature. However, I think the author is wrong in a few ways. However, I don't have the time or the inclincation to go into all of them. I'll focus on one problem: the fear of the great depression.

The author links what he calls throwing "free-market analysis overboard as soon as there is some downturn in the markets" to "the fear of reliving the Great Depression." In short, he says we're tossing aside the free market because we're afraid of Great Depression Episode II: Attack of the Loans. We don't want to go through that horror again, and so we're panicking.

Perhaps, he is right. We're all panicking because the largest financial centers in the united states are collapsing because of an earthquake of bad mortgages. So all we should do is ride out the earthquake and know the market will take care of us.

Honestly, I am very tempted to say that. But I can't agree. I'd rather try to calm the quake than wait for it to calm itself.