Damnit. That last post was just wacky. I was trying to go at the thing from a natural perspective and it all got lost somewhere there. It came out a lot more anti-technological there and borderline primitivst. Which I'm not at all. I think the basic concept there, to try to first explain this society before going onto another one was a good idea. And frameworking it all was good too, but I need to not have as my sourcebook the ruddy Unabomber Manifesto. So we're going to Take Two at Part One. I can never tell if something's good when I'm writing it, I have to look at it later. Anyway:

And so this page stood for several hours while I first wrote some stuff, then deleted it, then wrote some more, then deleted it, then went to take a nap because I never got to bed last night, then came back and forgot about it and read the news a bit, and then I remembered. I think this could take some time. So I'm just going to update this, and Take Two will come as it comes.
3:52 PM

Well, I started this project ages ago after Katie began her challenge, but I got sidetracked-

since I found out I have ADD I've taken to excusing any behavior with 'ADD!'. *hits sister* ADD!

-and it's really hard. Not because ADD, just because it's hard to state your beliefs. I have a lot of them. I could just take apart Katie's belief post, but that's negative, not positive, and so doesn't really contribute anything.

Ok. Let's start with this very specist statement: the world has two conditions, without humans and with humans. The addition of humans is the most monumental thing that has ever happened on Earth.

The difference between animals and humans is that animals don't plan for the future. It's not the use of tools, or just our rationality, or that we're mean buggers. It's that no animal would ever think of forcing its food to grow-either through agriculture or livestock. No cow has consciously encouraged grass growth, no wolf has domesticated sheep. Animals live at the mercy of nature, man lives at the mercy of man.

Or at least, that's the goal of man and has been for quite some time-to live completely at her-

I hate to say 'human' when 'man' sounds so much better, but I also hate to be sexist by saying 'man' and 'his' all the time, so we're going to cancel eachother out by using 'man' and 'her'. Freak the squares, man.

-own control. When there is a drought it will be the animals who suffer, not us. We have irrigation. Of course, this isn't the case in all-or even most-of the world, but it is the goal of the West, and the West, whether the rest of the world likes it or not, is trying to dominate the world altogether.

Setting aside the question of whether or not it would be desirable, we have to ask whether or not this goal is even vaguely feasible. This isn't something where we can point back in history and say, 'so-and-so did it', because it has never been done. Nor can we point at one region (America/Western Europe), and say, 'they liberated themselves from nature, can't everyone?', because the fact is that America is not liberated from nature because it only survives because it sucks a lot of money and work out of the third world, and those people are certainly not liberated from nature.

So we're striking out on our own. To conquer the world more literally than any emperor has ever done. When a country goes to war the whole system becomes a War Machine, every resource and job contributes to the fight. And it's the same with the War On the World. The modern world is set up as much as possible so the largest number of people are dependent on man at the exclusion of nature('modern man goes to the grocery store and thinks himself self-sufficient', to quote Mr. Gandhi) rather than trying to live in harmony with both.

That's the historical/ecological background, then, of where we are now. I have to preface anything I say with this because though its been the agenda of man for ages it's very rarely said out loud. It's a natural assumption-progress is beating nature, the civilized man controls her air, her light, etc., while the 'savage' controls nothing. For a much more thorough (if rather didactic) over-view of all this read 'Ishmael', though I should caution that I don't actually agree with the author, who's a deep ecologist, which is a rather misanthropic philosophy. I really like mankind, I just think that we need to learn to deal with nature.

Ok, so I gave it away just now, I don't approve of the current state of affairs. I don't think we can beat nature. Isolated pockets of the world might be able to, but never will the whole world be able to live artificially. Nor would this even be desirable, as any number of oh-so-trendy films point out, there is a distinct sense of alienation in modern Western society. We have alienated ourselves from the earth and in consequence are alienated from eachother.

We're in luck, though. Mother Earth does not hold a grudge. She hasn't even been fighting, for millenia she has turned the other cheek. There are no Ents striking against the evil wizards in control, no killer dolphins taking our towns. All we have to do is dismantle the war machine-and each individual must consciously stop being a soldier.

A note, here, which wouldn't be necessary except that some very silly people have gotten it into their heads that we should destroy technology and go back to the time of tribes. This is ridiculous. One, it's just impossible, you'd have to kill off several billion people, Two, it's not desirable, not all technologies are evil, Three it's not even sustainable, since it wouldn't be long before we go right back to the present situation.

Another note is this is not an excuse for some weak-kneed environmentalism-save the whales and all that. That's just like charity. Human society in general has to be changed from the bottom-up. Saving the whales is a good sentiment, but it's like sprinkiling a few drops of water on a burning dog: it ain't going to do a lot of good.

And on that note I'm going to stop for tonight. Tomorrow: What Alex Thinks Should Be Done.
11:13 PM

As I write this it's about 4 in the morning. And as I was rather bored I was looking through old posts. You know, for good links and the like, not because I take some masturbatory joy in reading me, as if some wonderful person had cloned me and distilled all the wit and joy that is me into paper. Anyway, I realised this:



In the posts where I think I was the funniest I barely got any comments at all! The post that got the most comments, of course, was that unfortunate but yes rather humourous one where the fratboys all started threatening me. So assuming my strategy isn't going to be finding other sites and insulting them to get comments from their peoples, I am left with this truth: that comments and content seem to be two different spheres.

- As an aside to anyone who thinks I'm too obsessed with comments: comments justify the blog. The blog justifies me. I justify the world. So stop being anti-American. -

So what can we deduce from the comments? One is that I have pre-existing relationships with everybody who posts here. You people aren't going up to your friends and saying, 'Lo, I have discovered the wisdom of the ages distilled in convienent somewhat-daily posts'. You're selfishly just posting among eachother. As a sort of subcategory of this list, the people I'm currently around tend to be the posters. So this time around the blog's had a lot more Illinois posters than the last time, which was much more Texan (with the notable and valiant exception of Bam). And the posts from online people have definately slackened off since I quit that.

- As another aside: at this point someone might point out that if I actually wrote essays and the like, or tried to gather news with only some commentary (and a narrow focus), as every popular blog does, then people that aren't interested just in the minutia of Alex ('not that it isn't fascinating!', you assure me) might comment. But that's too hard. I want instant and easy gratification. -

Two: lots of my posts meander. You each tend to pick a specific thing and make a small comment on that. For instance, in this post, where I talk about pigs, Daria, California and Philip K Dick, there is one comment a piece for pigs, Daria, California and Philip K Dick. And three of the comments are from Bad Alex, which brings me to point three:

Three: A lot of comments are just one person talking over and over. This tends to be either Bad Alex or Bam. Hey that's love too. Way to go, you guys.

-aside in the spirit of number two: they're cheese sticks, not string cheese. Watch as every post is debating this very subject, which actually brings me to point number four...-

Four: Sometimes you people argue among yourselves about something only tangentially related to the subject at hand, or even not at all related, and that works too. All I'm concerned about is getting that Comments(#) up.

-Bam, Bad Alex called you a drunken whore behind your back the other night-

Five: I need to wake up earlier. I woke up at 1:30 or so today, so it's no surprise I'm not going to be getting to bed until 4:30. That's actually better than the previous day, when I woke up at 2. Also in retrospect cheese sticks vs. string cheese isn't a very good argument, as no one but me calls them cheese sticks. Like how I sing it 'John Jacob Jingleheimer Jake, that's my name too...'.

Six: the posts that get the most external compliments (such as the recent Squirrel post, or the earlier Scrabble one) are a) stories and b) poor at getting comments. You people

-My Mother hates it when we say 'you people'. She is not with the times.

you people don't like a comment just complimenting. Which I can't blame you for, I'm much the same way. Hopefully making the default comment 'omg alex u r0x0rz so much!!!11' will help out with that.

Well I should probably be getting off to bed. I actually have much real stuff to talk about on here, but it's too late to actually talk about real stuff right now.
4:33 AM

Katie has informed me that she will make her blog into a pro-Objectivist thing to argue with me. Frankly she has spoken rashly and will be destroyed. She doesn't actually support Objectivism as a social system, nor as a personal code of morals, so it'll be interesting to see where she goes with that.
10:23 PM

Sorry it's been so long since I updated, the great Ryan Faulkner, a way-back friend from Colorado was visiting, and we were so busy playing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City that I never had time to talk here. Speaking of Colorado, Beth Gilbert (there were two Gilbert twins, Beth and Jenny, and they were foils. I suspect one is good and one is evil, and Beth here is prolly the good one) has a blog. Of course, last time I saw her she promised she'd message me on AIM and she never did, so if you want to leave a comment on her blog along the lines of 'omg i cant blieeieive u nvr msgd alex he rulez so much' feel free. Ditto for Tom Gray, but he was smart enough not to include me in a mass e-mail that had his blog, so I can't give you anything there.

Anyway, last Friday our local theatre was showing Fight Club, so we went to see that, and that was as always just wonderful. I'd always had a problem with its attack on individualism (you are not a unique snowflake, you are trash, etc.), until I realised this:

The key message of consumerism is this: you are wonderful. beautiful. God's unique snowflake.

This of course is not true. Not everyone who watches an ad is a wonderful beautiful unique snowflake. Many are boring, stupid, ugly individuals.

To counter consumerism and to truly find themselves, folks had to be reduced to nothing. And paradoxically by surrendering themselves to this they were all the more individual. As Gary Winongrad said at this art exhibit we went to the other day "You have to realize you're nothing before you can be free."

Of course, this doesn't mean you're trash. And in the book this is made clear:

We are not special.
We are not crap or trash, either.
We just are.
We just are, and what happens just happens.

The movie had to totally warp the end to make it work cinematically though. A shame.

Anyway, other than seeing Fight Club we went to a lot of art things (Ryan, you see, is an artist), including: the Art Institute, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Terra Museum, the Chicago Cultural Centre and the Museum of Contemporary Photography. At the Chicago Cultral Centre we saw the Art-o-mat, which I originally disapproved of, but then I actually learned more about it and it seems cool. Contemporary starving artists get to sell cigarette-pack size art for 5 bucks. $2.50 goes to the artists, $1.50 goes to an arts council, and $1.00 goes to the creater. I figured it'd be some corporate thing that sold famous art for way too much, but it's not at all. So that's cool.

I realise this post has been in flagrant violation of the 'I promise to squeeze in an ounce of humour now and then' promise, but oh well.


*EDIT* Apparently it's unique snowflake, not special. Poot. Special snowflake has alliteration. Thanks to that Bad Alex person for RUINING MY LIFE.

10:21 PM

I've been reading all about pot-bellied pigs. Pigs are like super dogs: they're smarter so it takes less time to train them, they're naturally clean animals, they don't shed, require less vet visits, etc. And if you get tired of them you can always cook and eat them. I checked and Austin doesn't seem to mind if you have pet pigs, so someday-a while off, I think, have to adjust to taking care of myself before I'm taking care of walking bacon-but someday I shall get a cute little pig.

Jane is really tolerant. She puts up with Daria despite the fact that Daria is an extremely unpleasant human being, who steals her boyfriend. Well, Tom is really the one to blame there, but nevertheless.

I'm currently reading Ted Chiang's Story of Your Life (and Others), which actually is a collection of short stories, one of which is named 'Story of Your Life'...I think that's rather clever. Anyway, they're the best stuff I've read in ages. I like this guy as much as Philip K. Dick, but Mr. Dick is dead whereas this guy is just starting his career. His first story won a Nebula Award.

Samia told me to read Everything is Illuminated, but they didn't have it. It's a pity, she got me excited about it, too...the main character is named Alex. That's something right there. In the same protagonist-named-Alex genre, I wanted to get Clockwork Orange, but Bam had already checked it out (yes, that's my subtle way of linking to Bam's new blog, Donnie Dorko. Now as you all know I'm a modest person who doesn't like to toot his own horn, but I thought of the name. t00t).

This blog has no small political sway, particularly in the Great Bear Republic or Loonyland or whatever they call themselves. So I want to officially endorse Jack Grisham for Governor. Jack Grisham is the former lead singer of some band named TSOL or something, but his true panache is shown when answering questions:



"Well, never convicted." And they say punk is dead. Actually this whole election thing is interesting. The only unified party is the Greens, so they actually have a chance. In some polls they're showing 10%. Of course now that Ms. Huffington has entered the race I suppose the left is a bit split. They said if she has a good run they'd wave all their voters on to her. Anyway, the point is, no one really cares what happens to California and if it split off and crashed into Red China I don't really think anyone would mind.*

Well, I'm a bit unfocused, as it were, so I'm going to stop writing**

*Sorry, Uncle Mike. Another incentive to get down to Texas.
**rambling.
12:50 AM

Once upon a time, there was a squirrel. His name was El Dorado. One time he was frolicking in the golf course. His arch-nemesis, Sir Galahad The Golfkeeper, worked in the golf course, and he liked to eat squirrels and babies. He was a very bad man. Besides his squirrel and baby eating activity, which was really just natural selection, he also defended ninjas on a Pirate Messageboard. So one day he and El Dorado decided to end their war and so they decided to settle their differences in a duel. They stood back to tail and stepped back 20 paces. What El Dorado didn't know was that Sir Galahad stepped in just the right place that after 20 paces, El Dorado fell in the lake!

The lake had been artifically colored, so now El Dorado was a blue squirrel! That's no colour for a squirrel to be. Sir Galahad laughed and laughed as El Dorado crawled wet and blue out of the lake. With as much dignity as he could muster El Dorado scampered away. But his wife, Ms. Burnt Sienna the Squirrel, refused to be associated with a blue squirrel. 'What will the neighbours (King and Queen Syphillis) think!?' cried his wife in her shrill squirrel voice. The kids, of which there were ten, all cried in unison 'Oh Daddy, why oh why did you duel with Sir Galahad? Your hubris has destroyed you!'.

So El Dorado left his home, crying blue tears. Then he got run over by a truck. The next day Professor Wickstenstein, a convict who had been arrested for, ironically, eating roadkill, was on road duty and he was mystified why there was a blue splotch on the ground. But when the guard wasn't looking he ate it off the ground anyway.



If it has not been made clear by the above story, I'm sort of bored. The other day my chair and I actually merged and were one briefly, but broke up again over a disagreement on how many legs to have. I think I'm going to try to levitate stuff with my mind now.
7:34 PM

that I have titles!
11:41 PM

Samia has a cogent update on consumption. Frankly, I'm not 100% sure what cogent means, but I'm pretty sure it's the adjective to use when describing essays or maybe candy. That's some cogent taffy!, you might say.

This well be the first update to typed entirely in dvorak. I've been using dvorak for a while now, but I've always had the little switchy thing on the top so I can easily switch back and forth. It was my hope in getting rid of Mr. Switch that I would be forced to become better at dvorak. This has not been the case. In fact, contrary to all logic, I've been getting slowly worse at it. I actually had to switch back to qwerty to argue with Katie about Objectivism after just about every line was a typo.

But, gentle reader, don't let this turn you off of dvorak! Dvorak is far superior to Qwerty in many different ways which the virile Jared Diamond outlines in this article. Type faster (in theory), fewer typos (in theory), and less tiring on your hands (in theory).

Wow! I was looking for that article, right, and I came across this page that included links to typing tutors. So I tried one, and it was just stellar! First I did the thing where you type random letters and words, and that was fun (I've about a 40 wpm average in dvorak), then I did this game where words fall down and you have to type them before they hit the bottom! What fun! I had to type 'whore', which reduced me so to giggles that the city I was protecting was devestated (by encephalitical or something like that) and I left.

But the point is, this has dramatically helped my dvorak skills. And I only did it for maybe half an hour at the most. So if you plan on learning dvorak I highly recommend you try the tutor. However, my hands are starting to get tired, so I'm going to go read.
4:15 PM