McCain: Dumber, Not Tougher

Here's a good clip with Bill Maher on Hardball. I was talking earlier about the the anti-Idiot talk; and I really don't like calling people dumb. But there is a 'culture' in the US that revels in and respects a certain brand of idiocy and ignorance. Bush is the epitome of this; and why Bush as punk rock is so stupid (I'm referring to the Right Brothers, and my half-assed, sloppy critique.) And maybe that guy with the anti-idiot bumpersticker, and people like my idol Bill Hicks, and his entertaining rip-off Lewis Black, are just responding to the anti-intellectual climate of the US. It is reactionary, and bars and cable comedy is rarely subtle. It is a necessary reaction, like my reaction to call people fascists. Anyhow, Bill Maher's point about McCain being dumber, not tougher is what has become evident. Of course, all along, being tough has seemed to many of us as just a form of being dumb.

An uncharacteristically crystalline thought formed in my foggy brain today. I thought the fundamental problem with The War on Terror is that there is a fundamental block to understanding the world that cannot be trespassed in normative discourse. I generally feel I cannot discuss it unless I am among close friends, or those who I know who are generally politically sympathetic. The thought was, well, why did 9/11 happen? Well, it's because we are in a War. People die in wars. What do you expect? Was 9/11 the START of the war? I don't know. Some say it is an age-old clash of civilizations; I guess another way to look at it would be to say it is a clash of East and West. The chickens coming home to roost? Well, these views are merely interpretations. What thought came to me, which I believed the morning of 9/11 up to the present--only I was not able to articulate it--was that there is a PROBLEM. That is why 9/11 occured, it was a message telling the US that there is a problem. We chose to interpret this as an act of WAR. So, what do you do in a WAR, you send the military somewhere. Or, that's what tough guys do. This particular war was not initiated by a nation-state. It was initiated by suicide bombers associated with an underground worldwide movement. In the framework of the idea of war, there are multiples sides. We decided that there were two sides, the terrorists and US. In a war with two sides, both have power and advantages, and they both utilize them to effect a defeat on the other. But how would a defeat of a non-Nation actualize? Can a non-nation sign a treaty? Like the IRA, can Al-qaeda agree to turn in all their weapons? Well, it's more complicated than that. Al-qaeda is a large, amorphous political and militant movement with a number of goals. How does it operate? It's fed by young desperate men from a pool of countries, mostly Arabic. Who do we bomb? How do we win this war? Now I'm coming to my specific thought: This is a war of two sides, but one has clear advantages over the other. The US has the advantage. Nobody would argue with that point. So, can I say to a war-supporter: Do you agree with me that the US has the upperhand, overall, in the War Against Terror, that is, the war against so called Islamic Radicals? That would tell me that if we were smart, we could neutralize the "threat" to US "interests." But ostensibly, if our goal is to remove the threat of violence against the US and US-allied nations, we could utilize our problem-solving skills, use basic critical thinking, to objectively examine the situation, find root causes and see how we can manage the situation. And "manage" it we could, if we indeed have greater power than the "terrorists." Finding a humane solution to the problem of undue carnage caused by discontented people on this planet would attest to our nation's greatness. If we have to resort to brutality in order to contain the threat, then it should be considered a disaster; it would show us to be people with low esteem for the value for human life, as well as a people with little imagination. This is all hypothetical. This is what I imagine what people who value the intellect, the inherent worth of human life, those who believe in the great capacities of our fellow human beings, despite appearances of ignorance, stupidity, or menace, would believe. I believe that the term "idealist" is destructively reductionist, but this idea of mine is an ideal. And one I would like to bring up to a war supporter. It seems so clear to me now; it took me 7 years to articulate this idea. But the main point is that even now that I can articulate it, it seems like something that I could not bring up in a conversation with a war supporter. I fear I would be called naive and idealist. Not serious, in parlance of the Washington pundit. But it seems stupid not to bring it up, so I will try the next time I have an opportunity.

One last thing. I had mentioned to a friend about this idea of Idealism. I have believed since my teens that so-called "realists" are as much idealists as so-called "idealists." What else is Bush but a foggy-brained idealist? McCain would be branded an absolute realist by his supporters. But so-called "realism" is an "idealist" philosophy because it has this ideal of the "real;" in other words, a self-described realist would say that this or that "ideal" is not achievable in the "real" world. But what exactly this "real" world is is never described by self-described realists; if it is, it is in only essentialist terms of men and war and power: The Way Things Work. This view is exactly an ideal of how the world works. It is merely a framework of viewing the world: of WHAT can be achieved; what is possible. That's exactly what an idealist is, a person who has a view about WHAT can be achieved; what is possible. We will bring Democracy to Iraq. We won't stop the war until we have achieved (WHAT) in Iraq. So if you're going to knock me about being an "idealist," I would like to knock you back down. My idealism is my outfit and bearing that I wear to the party of ideas. Everybody wants to be cool at the party. Everybody wants slink in the room sly and cool. But something that is out of style will be marked. A party of self-described "realists" calls something out of style an idealist. But we idealists have to come in strutting our stuff. Eventually we will be the new cool.

Virtual Rock Bands: Good or Evil?

Apparently there are all sorts of Virtual Rock Bands springing into existence. Mainly through the various Xbox and Playstation games. And these virtual rockbands getting all sorts of hacks and add-ons and what not. Then I wonder about what this means to music. First off, I would say that music has always been an important part of playing video games. A good video game score sets the tone and enhances play--no doubt. There is some video game music which I find deeply moving and beautiful, particularly from the old Squaresoft games. And I have rediscovered the beauty of the 8bit sounds through tweakbench--as I've discussed before.

I tried playing one of these Guitar Hero games in Korea, and it just sort of confused me. It is much about reflexes (of which mine are TERRIBLE) as the music. Of course, one could say that about a classical musician in a normative orchestra of today. The musician is a sort of gamer following the notes, using reflexes refined by intensive practice (sight reading) or are just naturally very able at hitting the notes and shaping each one according to their training or intuition. I studied both classical and jazz piano and I appreciate the depth of skill and dedication needed to operate at the professional or even semi-professional level.

Personally, I look for video games that are a little bit different, allow for some exploration, lots of chance encounters--virtual worlds. Grand Theft Auto is the greatest video game I have ever played. It has missions, but you are free to do anything you want, within a certain number of parameters. Since returning from Korea, I have almost exclusively played a video game called Tokyo Xtreme Racer 2, on my dreamcast. It's not a great racer, but the best one available for Dreamcast. The options are limited, but you have many choices of vehicles, and you can greatly modify their options. The races are exciting, but much of the time you are driving the streets of Tokyo looking for big shot racers to test your mettle with. There is a certain atmospheric appeal to me. And, it should be noted, that I usually turn the music off, leave the sound effects on and listen to internet radio or something else. (That's when I started really getting into WFMU.

The idea of music and gaming merging is not immediately discouraging to me. There was that South Park episode where Stan's dad was aghast with his son's fixation with the Guitar Hero game--and he pointed out that in his day people actually took the time to learn how to play guitars and be there own heroes--not to mention electric jugs! Music, it's context in our lives, and the means of its creation are always changing. Just like language itself. There is lots of creative potential in this field, as evident by the 8bit festivals and the possibilities of live synthesis from programs such as Ableton Live. I'm not discouraged. And when we make music, we are playing. Play is a funny word, as one can "play" a sport or guitar or Super Mario Brothers extremely seriously. Some of the more cerebral, or at least static-seeming genres out there, such as pure revivalist garage-punk, or mainstream classical or Academic Jazz could use some infusions of this serious play. (And I'm sure there is a world of teeming examples and counter-examples out there.)

I watched a documentary a couple nights ago, Speaking in String, about the violinist Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg which was both enlightening and harrowing; much of what she said I could perfectly relate to. And I'm sure others who have had some conservatory experience can relate to. Mainly, that the American classical world is exceedingly conservative, and certain things are expected. This woman is a live-wire. She lives her music and is not a "lady-like", reserved performer. To reach the level of intensity that she needs to perform, she abandons all reserve and flails and, quite simply, rocks. The performance footage didn't really give me the sense of the quality of her playing. People seem to either love her or hate her. I think because she is such a virtuoso and a spectacle and a legendary figure, she can survive. But not without consequence. The woman gets into great depressions. One time, alone and utterly depressed, she took a gun loaned to her and pointed it to her skull and squeezed the trigger, but was unable, thank the gods, to pull it, simply because the gun was so new that it's interlocking parts were too freshly made and therefore not "broken in," it was too stiff, and the she was unable to squeeze the trigger in consequence! My God! Obviously, there are manic-depressive people everywhere with internal conflict and irresolvable pain; and Salerno-Sonnenberg deals with this quite explicitly in her performances. Is this what music's for? Is there some Finnish dude in rural obscurity thrashing out comparable demons from his soul by mere air-guitar play?

I don't know. But proficiency, and the idea of music are indefinable. At least for me. When I set up sounds on my various virtual synths in my mom's basement and I start setting up sequences that are pleasing to me, am I a performer? Am I a composer? Am a game player? I imagine it's a combination of the three.

Pretty soon we'll be able to jam with people all over the world. I mean, it's already happening. But it'd be cool to have a jam session with strangers over the internet. Get some tabla master in North India, a bouzouki freak in Greece, some free-dub basement recluse in South Wales--a mixmaster in a basement in Aurora (or in central Seoul.)