Alex and Akhmed were recently reunited by our culturally sensitive leaders in Hollywood to star in a "fish out of water, bosom buddies type of buddy comedy." The very original storyline involves comical situations encountered by Akhmed and Alex when Akhmed comes to live with Alex and his family in America. The pilot is a hysterical look at what happens when Alex, his beautiful and funny wife, and 3 adorable and sarcastic children, suddenly find Akhmed sleeping on their porch swing one morning. After much argument, the wife wins and Alex is forced to take Akhmed in "temporarily," but we all know it will last many years. Great comedy will surely ensue!
The producers assure us this show is not a rip off of Bosom Buddies or Perfect Strangers, and I think we should believe them.
Your Hollywood insider with the scoop.
2007/08/27
Akhmed says he hates Alex
In a recent test to the president's new One Alex for every Akhmed program, Akhmed said today he wasn't really that fond of Alex and wishes he wouldn't stay in his house. On TV, Akhmed said, "I didn't invite him to stay, he can't communicate with us, and he sweats so much even the dogs won't go near him. He brought flowers to my wife, but since then, it has been nothing but tension! Alex must go."
Alex responds, "Akhmedis is an ok guy but we never really seemed to hit it off. He spent most of his time speaking gibberish and hiding his wife from me, while I was forced to shoot the shit, figuratively and literally, with my buddy Alex next store and my other buddy Alex next store. I'm staying because my president told me too, but I'm not sure I'm really helping. "
Responded the pentagon: "The fact that Akhmed is still alive and able to give his opinion on TV is a sign of the progress we are making in Iraq. God bless the troops."
Meanwhile, it appears the Iraqi government ceased to exist a few months ago but nobody noticed. A recent picture of the government headquarters showed two camels eating the drapes and another one in the corner spitting into a bucket from 12 feet away. Now that's a shot! The camels had no comment, although one spiteful camel did spit right on my nametag.
Meanwhile, ethnic violence has ceased as Sunni's, Shiites, and Kurds are uniting to fight the long overstaying house Alexes. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? This program could indeed unite the country!
And we all lived happily ever after. The end.
Alex responds, "Akhmedis is an ok guy but we never really seemed to hit it off. He spent most of his time speaking gibberish and hiding his wife from me, while I was forced to shoot the shit, figuratively and literally, with my buddy Alex next store and my other buddy Alex next store. I'm staying because my president told me too, but I'm not sure I'm really helping. "
Responded the pentagon: "The fact that Akhmed is still alive and able to give his opinion on TV is a sign of the progress we are making in Iraq. God bless the troops."
Meanwhile, it appears the Iraqi government ceased to exist a few months ago but nobody noticed. A recent picture of the government headquarters showed two camels eating the drapes and another one in the corner spitting into a bucket from 12 feet away. Now that's a shot! The camels had no comment, although one spiteful camel did spit right on my nametag.
Meanwhile, ethnic violence has ceased as Sunni's, Shiites, and Kurds are uniting to fight the long overstaying house Alexes. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? This program could indeed unite the country!
And we all lived happily ever after. The end.
One Alex for every Akmed under siege!
The wimpy left wing blogosphere has erupted with recent news that the US government is attempting to put one soldier in every Iraqi home in an attempt to end violence. The logic behind the program, called One Alex for every Akhmed, is based upon the recent success of the surge, which has reduced violence to the point where even normal citizens sometimes walk outside without big guns and flak jackets, is being pushed to it's logical conclusion by our president. America is seeking 1 million more dedicated troops to finally resolve the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi haters would prefer to pull out all our troops from Iraq instead of helping them, and this newspaper has no love for the weasely little cut-and-run camel hating left. America, the left wing wants you to live in fear of terrorism because we won't dedicate a mere 1,000,000 Americans and$1,000,000,000 a day to the cause of freedom. America, vote red! Red - the color of freedom, the color of love!
One Alex for every Akhmed
In an effort to draw attention away from the Alberto Gonzalels resignation, the administration will soon announce a new program to finally defeat terrorism in Iraq. Your loyal reporter only has a partial transcript of the new program, tentatively titled "One Alex for every Akhmed."
"... and based on the undeniable recent success of the surge, we have decided to end violence in Iraq once and for all. If 20,000 more troops can make Iraq as safe as an Indiana farm festival, a million more American volunteers can end violence indefinitely. Our new program, entitled One Alex for every Akhmed, will put an American volunteer in every Iraqi home. This cooperation between the free people of America and the free people of Iraq will guarantee continued love between our countries and further enable the Iraqi government to continue on their path of success. We used to say the man is the king of his castle, now we say the cooperation of our two great nations will be the king of your huts! Iraqi people, America has not forgotten nor forsaken you.
To our patriotic straight male citizens, if you believe in freedom and liberty, please show up at the nearest army recruitment office to receive your gun and your new family. If you speak Arabic, please let us know. I swear you will be sent to Iraq to join your new family, and not into a mysterious invisible prison somewhere underwater for potential terrorists..."
At this point, the transcript is lost, but I'm sure more details will be announced tomorrow.
Your humble reporter breaking the news before it's news.
"... and based on the undeniable recent success of the surge, we have decided to end violence in Iraq once and for all. If 20,000 more troops can make Iraq as safe as an Indiana farm festival, a million more American volunteers can end violence indefinitely. Our new program, entitled One Alex for every Akhmed, will put an American volunteer in every Iraqi home. This cooperation between the free people of America and the free people of Iraq will guarantee continued love between our countries and further enable the Iraqi government to continue on their path of success. We used to say the man is the king of his castle, now we say the cooperation of our two great nations will be the king of your huts! Iraqi people, America has not forgotten nor forsaken you.
To our patriotic straight male citizens, if you believe in freedom and liberty, please show up at the nearest army recruitment office to receive your gun and your new family. If you speak Arabic, please let us know. I swear you will be sent to Iraq to join your new family, and not into a mysterious invisible prison somewhere underwater for potential terrorists..."
At this point, the transcript is lost, but I'm sure more details will be announced tomorrow.
Your humble reporter breaking the news before it's news.
2007/08/26
All in
There is a line in an early Bob Dylan song, I think from a song called One To Many Mornings from his Freewheelin album, that goes, "There's a restless hungry feeling that don't mean noone no good...". That's what I feel in my life now, and that is what I have felt for some time, for some number of years maybe. I didn't feel it as much in Peace Corps until the end, but I have felt it fairly constantly otherwise. I don't know what it is, and I don't know how to get rid of it. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure it's bad. It's just not what I want to feel.
I'm moving to san francisco, that's where that came from. I'm moving in about 1 month. It just feels like it's time for me to try something else. I'm all in, no plan B on this one. Hopefully my job improves with new projects and I begin to see some sort of meaning in this little shared adventure we all live. I don't know what happens if I don't though. It's like one of my coworkers told another coworker, who of course told me, "he's never happy so it doesn't matter if he likes it or not" or something like that. He's right in a way too, and I don't know what to do about it. Keep running, maybe, even if you don't know from what. Most likely it's myself, and you can't ever run to far from that, and you can't really change who you are either. Not without a lot of effort, anyway, and not things that are you at the core. I don't think I really want to change those any how, which makes this all a bit stranger, perhaps a bit more existential or some other term, and ultimately, maybe I'm just bi-polar. Who knows.
I was taking a walk a bit ago to calm myself down after watching one heckuva good golf match and I got to thinking about some of my other travels. There was a situation down in Mexico that pops in my head from time to time, then flutters away, but always comes back at times like this. I was about 8 weeks into a 10 week trip, just backpacking around and taking some buses, hit the beach, etc. I was in a town called Zacatecas for a few days, an old silver town where they still make silver and sell it to wanderers and tourists and anyone else who will pay. The town is in the mountains, as all silver towns are I suppose, and I was staying in a hostel about 4 blocks up from the church. It was a nice town, where I met an old vietnam vet who kept getting me drunk on rum as he smoked something or other and told me stories. His wife used to be a squatter in seattle before that was trendy, and they were just winding through mexico themselves before heading back to their cottage in the oregan woods. He was probably crazy, and she was quiet and went to bed early so we could go out.
Anyway, he's not the guy I was talking about. The guy I met, the one who bobs and weaves into and out of my memory, was another man. We ended up in the same room in the hostel and had spoken a few times but nothing significant. One day, I'm reading what I think was a more or less true story by Hemingway where he is on an african safari. I was in the lounge in a chair, and he comes by drinking a beer and says, "Hemingway! I didn't think anyone read Hemingway anymore." I said I didn't know if other people did much, and I didn't a lot but I liked what I had read.
He gave me one of those weird looks and said it was his birthday. I wished him a happy birthday and asked if we were going out later to celebrate. He looked at his beer and said, "I used to be an alcoholic. I haven't had a drink in over 13 years. I think it's time for me to head back out." And he packed up and got ready to leave. As he was preparing to leave, I finished the book and offered it to him. He took it gladly and thanked me, and we sort of shared a moment. It was one of those moments when you wonder if it means anything, and think it has too at least for me, and then he disappears forever and you wonder about things. I don't know about him, but it must have meant something to me because I remember all these years later and I can still the look in his eyes as he walked out. I can't describe it, but I can still see it. Even more, I can still feel sometimes, mostly when I feel like this
When he said it was time for him to head out again, I pictured him just walking out of town and living in the mountains of mexico, walking in the desert, running from whatever it was made him that way. I still picture him there in Mexico, wandering and running, maybe reading here and there. It probably wasn't anything, but I felt like he had that restless feeling too. I feel like that's how he coped, he just took off and when he started to come back in, he took off again.
Coincidentally, this month marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of On the Road, which is arguably the greatest book for capturing that feeling and how the author dealt with it. Say what you want about that book creating an entire subculture of annoying hipsters reading poetry to jazz music, it does have some monumental writing in it. It's a little hit and miss sure, but so is life right and don't you think that is what Kerouac was trying to grab in that book anyway?
So to get back to the point at hand - I'm moving. I either won't be blogging much or i'll be blogging a lot, depending on how I feel. All in baby, all in.
I'm moving to san francisco, that's where that came from. I'm moving in about 1 month. It just feels like it's time for me to try something else. I'm all in, no plan B on this one. Hopefully my job improves with new projects and I begin to see some sort of meaning in this little shared adventure we all live. I don't know what happens if I don't though. It's like one of my coworkers told another coworker, who of course told me, "he's never happy so it doesn't matter if he likes it or not" or something like that. He's right in a way too, and I don't know what to do about it. Keep running, maybe, even if you don't know from what. Most likely it's myself, and you can't ever run to far from that, and you can't really change who you are either. Not without a lot of effort, anyway, and not things that are you at the core. I don't think I really want to change those any how, which makes this all a bit stranger, perhaps a bit more existential or some other term, and ultimately, maybe I'm just bi-polar. Who knows.
I was taking a walk a bit ago to calm myself down after watching one heckuva good golf match and I got to thinking about some of my other travels. There was a situation down in Mexico that pops in my head from time to time, then flutters away, but always comes back at times like this. I was about 8 weeks into a 10 week trip, just backpacking around and taking some buses, hit the beach, etc. I was in a town called Zacatecas for a few days, an old silver town where they still make silver and sell it to wanderers and tourists and anyone else who will pay. The town is in the mountains, as all silver towns are I suppose, and I was staying in a hostel about 4 blocks up from the church. It was a nice town, where I met an old vietnam vet who kept getting me drunk on rum as he smoked something or other and told me stories. His wife used to be a squatter in seattle before that was trendy, and they were just winding through mexico themselves before heading back to their cottage in the oregan woods. He was probably crazy, and she was quiet and went to bed early so we could go out.
Anyway, he's not the guy I was talking about. The guy I met, the one who bobs and weaves into and out of my memory, was another man. We ended up in the same room in the hostel and had spoken a few times but nothing significant. One day, I'm reading what I think was a more or less true story by Hemingway where he is on an african safari. I was in the lounge in a chair, and he comes by drinking a beer and says, "Hemingway! I didn't think anyone read Hemingway anymore." I said I didn't know if other people did much, and I didn't a lot but I liked what I had read.
He gave me one of those weird looks and said it was his birthday. I wished him a happy birthday and asked if we were going out later to celebrate. He looked at his beer and said, "I used to be an alcoholic. I haven't had a drink in over 13 years. I think it's time for me to head back out." And he packed up and got ready to leave. As he was preparing to leave, I finished the book and offered it to him. He took it gladly and thanked me, and we sort of shared a moment. It was one of those moments when you wonder if it means anything, and think it has too at least for me, and then he disappears forever and you wonder about things. I don't know about him, but it must have meant something to me because I remember all these years later and I can still the look in his eyes as he walked out. I can't describe it, but I can still see it. Even more, I can still feel sometimes, mostly when I feel like this
When he said it was time for him to head out again, I pictured him just walking out of town and living in the mountains of mexico, walking in the desert, running from whatever it was made him that way. I still picture him there in Mexico, wandering and running, maybe reading here and there. It probably wasn't anything, but I felt like he had that restless feeling too. I feel like that's how he coped, he just took off and when he started to come back in, he took off again.
Coincidentally, this month marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of On the Road, which is arguably the greatest book for capturing that feeling and how the author dealt with it. Say what you want about that book creating an entire subculture of annoying hipsters reading poetry to jazz music, it does have some monumental writing in it. It's a little hit and miss sure, but so is life right and don't you think that is what Kerouac was trying to grab in that book anyway?
So to get back to the point at hand - I'm moving. I either won't be blogging much or i'll be blogging a lot, depending on how I feel. All in baby, all in.
2007/08/17
Doing the right thing
One of the crazy wacky things about our world is how often doing the easy thing isn't the right thing. We follow tradition and we fall prey to inertia and do what we have been doing. Just because it's not the right thing doesn't it's bad, it just means we could do better. This is an interesting little story that didn't receive a lot of press and you might have missed. However, the theory, the idea is important because it defines how america interacts with the world and how we view development - is it for us or them?
Recently, the non-profit group CARE (website: care.org) made a decision to change how they were receiving food support from the US government. Basically, the american model injects american food and food surplus into the local economy where, once sold, provides money for the NGO to fund local programs. Keep in mind these programs exist in developing countries, which may not have food security because of drought, poor management, lack of education, etc. For a group like CARE, which has a focus on food security, it seems counter-intuitive to flood the local market with American surplus food in order to develop programs that alleviate reliance on foreign food. This requirement is part of the farm subsidy bill being debated in Congress (once they take a month long vacation).
The farm subsidy bill receives a lot of negative press because it subsidies american farmers. In America we still cling to the dream of a small farmer, competing in the global marketplace against cheap foreign rice and wheat imports. The reality is more complex. Think in your head what a small farm is, and ask yourself how many of those are left. I grew up in a farming community, and I don't know how many small farms are left, but my guess is not many. Years ago these small farms were bought up by larger farms, who are receiving subsidies to stay in business. We value the free market, but we coddle farmers. We are an enigma, black and white unless it's better to be red.
Both the republicans and democrats support this because the farm lobby is strong, and the american dream is stronger. But ask yourself this: Does any group of small time workers anywhere in America have a strong voice or lobby? No, almost by definition, a strong voice or lobby requires money, or you aren't strong.
I don't know if Care's new idea will work, some of the analysis I read implies they may have trouble raising as much money as they had previously. That's too bad. Review their website and read the white paper here - it's interesting. I can almost guarantee you will learn something. There are also links on the webpage to some analysis. If you are so inclined, do what I did and donate a little something to Care for doing what seems to be the right thing for the world, not just for us. If we have starving farmers here in America, and we do, we have other means and resources to address that issue without foreign aid playing a part. Let's address that issue, not pass another bad farming bill that continues to support what we have always supported beacause it's easy, because the remains of the American dream are strong. Read up on the farm bill and contact your legislatures. It's a complex issue, but an important one. It's another way America interacts with the world. Everyone has an opinion on the war, it's the obvious american hand in the world, but there are a myriad of other ways America can and should lead.
Support the right thing, not the easy thing.
Recently, the non-profit group CARE (website: care.org) made a decision to change how they were receiving food support from the US government. Basically, the american model injects american food and food surplus into the local economy where, once sold, provides money for the NGO to fund local programs. Keep in mind these programs exist in developing countries, which may not have food security because of drought, poor management, lack of education, etc. For a group like CARE, which has a focus on food security, it seems counter-intuitive to flood the local market with American surplus food in order to develop programs that alleviate reliance on foreign food. This requirement is part of the farm subsidy bill being debated in Congress (once they take a month long vacation).
The farm subsidy bill receives a lot of negative press because it subsidies american farmers. In America we still cling to the dream of a small farmer, competing in the global marketplace against cheap foreign rice and wheat imports. The reality is more complex. Think in your head what a small farm is, and ask yourself how many of those are left. I grew up in a farming community, and I don't know how many small farms are left, but my guess is not many. Years ago these small farms were bought up by larger farms, who are receiving subsidies to stay in business. We value the free market, but we coddle farmers. We are an enigma, black and white unless it's better to be red.
Both the republicans and democrats support this because the farm lobby is strong, and the american dream is stronger. But ask yourself this: Does any group of small time workers anywhere in America have a strong voice or lobby? No, almost by definition, a strong voice or lobby requires money, or you aren't strong.
I don't know if Care's new idea will work, some of the analysis I read implies they may have trouble raising as much money as they had previously. That's too bad. Review their website and read the white paper here - it's interesting. I can almost guarantee you will learn something. There are also links on the webpage to some analysis. If you are so inclined, do what I did and donate a little something to Care for doing what seems to be the right thing for the world, not just for us. If we have starving farmers here in America, and we do, we have other means and resources to address that issue without foreign aid playing a part. Let's address that issue, not pass another bad farming bill that continues to support what we have always supported beacause it's easy, because the remains of the American dream are strong. Read up on the farm bill and contact your legislatures. It's a complex issue, but an important one. It's another way America interacts with the world. Everyone has an opinion on the war, it's the obvious american hand in the world, but there are a myriad of other ways America can and should lead.
Support the right thing, not the easy thing.
2007/08/05
Why Google rocks
On a bit of a whim, I just found out if you do a search in Google for humenguins, which is a made up word that I used in one of my blogs, it actually shows you my blog. Somewhere in a computer index is the word humenguin linked directly to my blog. I don't know if that's the greatest thing ever, the scariest thing ever, or just so random I can't really even fathom it. Probably the latter.
Regardless, it seems like quite a waste of space, even if the space is just a long number consisting of 1s and 0s and my part of the machine doesnt' take up more physical space than a penny.
Regardless, it seems like quite a waste of space, even if the space is just a long number consisting of 1s and 0s and my part of the machine doesnt' take up more physical space than a penny.
Raising a robot
I just found out one of my best friends from college is quoted in a recent New York Times magazine on artificial intelligence. The article is long but can be viewed here, and it's quite interesting. My friend is Lijin Aryananda, and I've never really had someone I know quoted so extensively in anything important like the New York Times. Word on the alumni grapevine is she was angry with her portrayal and felt she was misquoted, but that's fame for you.
I point this out because I think one of the more paradigm shifts I have ever heard about is articulated in this article. Basically, when I typically think of a robot I think of a fully formed, thinking machine that does things, has superhuman strength, and will ultimately turn on humanity. It's just basic science that that is what will happen. As Jurassic Park showed (much better in the book than the movie), we can't possibly control all possibilities and ultimately, something will slip through that shouldn't have. Sort of like our president.
In this classic artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, we program robots everything through codes sequences that must be very long and complex, and we give robots certain rules they cannot break. Isaac Asimov had a list of 3 laws of robotics I think, including a robot cannot through action or inaction allow a human to be injured and some other theoretically good protection for us. This type of logic, built into an infinite number of coded sequences, should keep us safe and robots useful. As we all know from movies, short stories, and general reality, that won't work. In jurassic park, it had something to do with chaos theory. In other books, there are other ways the robots "reprogram" themselves. What to do? What to do?
If you look at life, fully functioning minds are generally dangerous, because if they desire, they remove obstacles and push their lives upon others. See most world leaders and other powerful people for signs of this. They aren't smarter, there is just a part of their brain that clicks with removing obstacles, even if they don't what to do once the obstacles are removed (although falling into paranoiac realms seems to be a common next step unfortunately). H0wever, children are generally harmless, and usually well raised children grow up to be normal, well adjusted, adults. The paradigm shift in AI that is so interesting was this, to develop child-like robots and see if they could learn. Basically, instead of programming a brain with so many sequential codes and rules for all sorts of situations, develop code for some basic situations and see if the robot can learn. This is how our mind develops. Can we recreate our own minds? And as importantly, if I had a robot child to raise, would it play well with my humenguin?
Well, it seems to be pretty early in the technology but so far we cannot recreate our own minds. We will at some point. Just like I believe we will at some point code full thinking robots for war and whatnot that will eventually either destroy us or live entirely separately from us, maybe on the moon because they won't need to breath and they can run and jump high and frolic on the moon, which might make an enemy robot race happy who knows.
I don't know enough to really comment on the facts around the article, but I wanted to say kudos to the clever paradigm shift and good luck developing cute child robots that learn. I figure developing an adaptable brain is much more interesting than a lot of code, which will be buggy anyway and probably require me to shake my human looking robot slave like an etch a sketch once a day to "refresh" it.
So for now, I say read the article and think about your own brain. Think about how complex and powerful our bodies actually are, and how amazing it is we work. Then think about recreating that! It's incredible! I say, "Good luck to the leaders of science!" and may the force be with you all.
I point this out because I think one of the more paradigm shifts I have ever heard about is articulated in this article. Basically, when I typically think of a robot I think of a fully formed, thinking machine that does things, has superhuman strength, and will ultimately turn on humanity. It's just basic science that that is what will happen. As Jurassic Park showed (much better in the book than the movie), we can't possibly control all possibilities and ultimately, something will slip through that shouldn't have. Sort of like our president.
In this classic artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, we program robots everything through codes sequences that must be very long and complex, and we give robots certain rules they cannot break. Isaac Asimov had a list of 3 laws of robotics I think, including a robot cannot through action or inaction allow a human to be injured and some other theoretically good protection for us. This type of logic, built into an infinite number of coded sequences, should keep us safe and robots useful. As we all know from movies, short stories, and general reality, that won't work. In jurassic park, it had something to do with chaos theory. In other books, there are other ways the robots "reprogram" themselves. What to do? What to do?
If you look at life, fully functioning minds are generally dangerous, because if they desire, they remove obstacles and push their lives upon others. See most world leaders and other powerful people for signs of this. They aren't smarter, there is just a part of their brain that clicks with removing obstacles, even if they don't what to do once the obstacles are removed (although falling into paranoiac realms seems to be a common next step unfortunately). H0wever, children are generally harmless, and usually well raised children grow up to be normal, well adjusted, adults. The paradigm shift in AI that is so interesting was this, to develop child-like robots and see if they could learn. Basically, instead of programming a brain with so many sequential codes and rules for all sorts of situations, develop code for some basic situations and see if the robot can learn. This is how our mind develops. Can we recreate our own minds? And as importantly, if I had a robot child to raise, would it play well with my humenguin?
Well, it seems to be pretty early in the technology but so far we cannot recreate our own minds. We will at some point. Just like I believe we will at some point code full thinking robots for war and whatnot that will eventually either destroy us or live entirely separately from us, maybe on the moon because they won't need to breath and they can run and jump high and frolic on the moon, which might make an enemy robot race happy who knows.
I don't know enough to really comment on the facts around the article, but I wanted to say kudos to the clever paradigm shift and good luck developing cute child robots that learn. I figure developing an adaptable brain is much more interesting than a lot of code, which will be buggy anyway and probably require me to shake my human looking robot slave like an etch a sketch once a day to "refresh" it.
So for now, I say read the article and think about your own brain. Think about how complex and powerful our bodies actually are, and how amazing it is we work. Then think about recreating that! It's incredible! I say, "Good luck to the leaders of science!" and may the force be with you all.
2007/08/04
Avoiding decisions
After spending most of last night debating whether or not to go to san fran or wait and maybe go to London, I took some time today to just blow off some steam. I watched a movie, finished my book, and surfed the internet. One mildly interesting thing I found somewhere talked about directors using the same actors in their most recent films, about the bond they shared. One of the people was Scorcese and DiCaprio. Then I thought about how earlier in their careers, Scorcese made a few movies with DeNiro. I would argue two of these, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, are classics and a third, Mean Streets, is very good. Anyway, then I got to thinking about other Scorcese movies and The Last Temptation of Christ popped into my head. I never saw this movie, so I'll be referring to the book.
Anyway, I remember a whole lot of negative press about the movie when it was released because it has an unorthodox view of the Christ mythology. Basically, Judas is often vilified for having sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver (quick aside, but I never got the purpose of 30 pieces of silver. There were 40 days in the flood, 12 disciples, some number of generations between I think abraham and Jesus, etc - 30 never comes up. It's like in science when a weird number arises, and it doesn't mean anything but sometimes you see a formula and it equates to 0, infinite, pi, or something else and you just believe it has to be correct, that the order of the universe is defined. I always believed the number 30 was made up in the Bible. I base that on nothing really, it just feels like it doesn't fit). I believe the Bible says Judas actually feels so much guilt he actually hangs himself. I asked my pastor when I was being confirmed whether Judas went to Heaven or Hell because without him, rather without Christ and the cross and dying "for us," there is no Christianity. My pastor said he chose hell. Very clean, very simple.
However, Kazantzakis, who wrote the novel Last Temptation sees it a bit differently. In the book, building up to the betrayal, Jesus and Judas are the most intimate of the disciples, the closest confidants. Jesus has chosen Judas to betray him because Judas is the strongest and most likely to actually follow through and do it. I suppose this is one of Kazantzakis major sins, although earlier in the novel Jesus was in love with Mary Magdeline but never does anything. The other major, very major, issue is that Jesus has sex in the book and bears children. That, as you might imagine, made a lot of christians very angry because without the crosswhat is catholicism? I think it's judeism. The problem is, even in the book, Jesus doesn't actually have sex or produce children.
What happens in the book is this (and this isn't a spoiler since you probably already sort of know the story. It's a great book, even though I am giving away the ending, and I highly recommend it): Jesus is on the cross, and it is hot and he passes out. This I believe happens in the bible, at least one of the gospels, because vinegar or something is placed under his nose to revive him and shortly after, he passes away. During the time he is passed out, Kazantzakis imagines another temptation. The Bible talks of a first temptation, when Jesus is alone in the desert or on a mountian and was tempted by the Devil. He resists temptations of power and such, casts off the devil, and has at that moment, for all intents and purpsoses, chosen his path. In the hallucination, he is not crucified. Instead, he saves himself. He frees himself off the burdon of the cross and our sins, ultimately living with Mary Magdelene and her sister (or cousin maybe), procreating with both of them!, and living what we would consider a fairly normal life and growing old. There is another child who always lives with them, who is an obvious representation of the devil. I would think this obvious representation of the devil (they speak of it's presence and how it never ages) and having lived with this jesus throughout his life would be sign enough that Kazantzakis doesn't think it would have been a good idea. At some point, the disciples come by where Jesus is living and they hate him. They hate him for leaving the cross and forsaking his destiny, which ultimately is their destiny and if you are so inclined, all of our destinies. Judas hates him for running away, for being the coward. Jesus, again, in this hallucination, wonders if he has done the right thing by following the devil, abondoning the cross, and living like us.
Ultimately, he is given the vinegar, wakes up on the cross and realizes he was strong enough to withstand the final temptation, and he dies. His soul goes to his father in heaven and the prophesy of the redeemer comes true. I never understood why people were so angry about the book and the movie. True, the Christ of Kazantzakis is more tortured than normal depictions of Jesus. He is unsure of what he should do, what his role is, what the world is looking for from him. Ultimately, he is portrayed as human, and doubts as we all doubt. But finally, this Jesus chooses sacrifice and condemns himself to death on the cross for us. I would think a realistic portrait of what he might have gone through to become our saviour would be powerful, relatable. But we like things clear and simple. If he was truly here as a man, why not portray him as such? Christ was the son of god, always understood what that meant, knew Judas would betray him and be punished, and now we can all live forever. That will be 15% off the top and no letting your mind drift down there unless you are married! Nature, His creation, be damned. It never made any sense to me.
Do you think people in London know the answer?
Anyway, I remember a whole lot of negative press about the movie when it was released because it has an unorthodox view of the Christ mythology. Basically, Judas is often vilified for having sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver (quick aside, but I never got the purpose of 30 pieces of silver. There were 40 days in the flood, 12 disciples, some number of generations between I think abraham and Jesus, etc - 30 never comes up. It's like in science when a weird number arises, and it doesn't mean anything but sometimes you see a formula and it equates to 0, infinite, pi, or something else and you just believe it has to be correct, that the order of the universe is defined. I always believed the number 30 was made up in the Bible. I base that on nothing really, it just feels like it doesn't fit). I believe the Bible says Judas actually feels so much guilt he actually hangs himself. I asked my pastor when I was being confirmed whether Judas went to Heaven or Hell because without him, rather without Christ and the cross and dying "for us," there is no Christianity. My pastor said he chose hell. Very clean, very simple.
However, Kazantzakis, who wrote the novel Last Temptation sees it a bit differently. In the book, building up to the betrayal, Jesus and Judas are the most intimate of the disciples, the closest confidants. Jesus has chosen Judas to betray him because Judas is the strongest and most likely to actually follow through and do it. I suppose this is one of Kazantzakis major sins, although earlier in the novel Jesus was in love with Mary Magdeline but never does anything. The other major, very major, issue is that Jesus has sex in the book and bears children. That, as you might imagine, made a lot of christians very angry because without the crosswhat is catholicism? I think it's judeism. The problem is, even in the book, Jesus doesn't actually have sex or produce children.
What happens in the book is this (and this isn't a spoiler since you probably already sort of know the story. It's a great book, even though I am giving away the ending, and I highly recommend it): Jesus is on the cross, and it is hot and he passes out. This I believe happens in the bible, at least one of the gospels, because vinegar or something is placed under his nose to revive him and shortly after, he passes away. During the time he is passed out, Kazantzakis imagines another temptation. The Bible talks of a first temptation, when Jesus is alone in the desert or on a mountian and was tempted by the Devil. He resists temptations of power and such, casts off the devil, and has at that moment, for all intents and purpsoses, chosen his path. In the hallucination, he is not crucified. Instead, he saves himself. He frees himself off the burdon of the cross and our sins, ultimately living with Mary Magdelene and her sister (or cousin maybe), procreating with both of them!, and living what we would consider a fairly normal life and growing old. There is another child who always lives with them, who is an obvious representation of the devil. I would think this obvious representation of the devil (they speak of it's presence and how it never ages) and having lived with this jesus throughout his life would be sign enough that Kazantzakis doesn't think it would have been a good idea. At some point, the disciples come by where Jesus is living and they hate him. They hate him for leaving the cross and forsaking his destiny, which ultimately is their destiny and if you are so inclined, all of our destinies. Judas hates him for running away, for being the coward. Jesus, again, in this hallucination, wonders if he has done the right thing by following the devil, abondoning the cross, and living like us.
Ultimately, he is given the vinegar, wakes up on the cross and realizes he was strong enough to withstand the final temptation, and he dies. His soul goes to his father in heaven and the prophesy of the redeemer comes true. I never understood why people were so angry about the book and the movie. True, the Christ of Kazantzakis is more tortured than normal depictions of Jesus. He is unsure of what he should do, what his role is, what the world is looking for from him. Ultimately, he is portrayed as human, and doubts as we all doubt. But finally, this Jesus chooses sacrifice and condemns himself to death on the cross for us. I would think a realistic portrait of what he might have gone through to become our saviour would be powerful, relatable. But we like things clear and simple. If he was truly here as a man, why not portray him as such? Christ was the son of god, always understood what that meant, knew Judas would betray him and be punished, and now we can all live forever. That will be 15% off the top and no letting your mind drift down there unless you are married! Nature, His creation, be damned. It never made any sense to me.
Do you think people in London know the answer?
Decisions
I have come to an intriguing point in my life, which I believe I mentioned in a recent blog. My current company, which I'm not particularly fond of, has offered to relocate me from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Although I am not truly engaged in the company, it's a good opportunity. Staying with the same company lowers my risk because I at least know the corporate issues. The move potentially gives me an opportunity to do more consulting, which they won't currently let me do for a variety of reasons. After 2 years at the company, I have not really gained much actual experience and according to my boss I am probably still 2 years away from being promoted.
However, I have another opportunity to possibly get a job offer in London. This would be a new company, a very large company, a new city, a new country, and work that I might not be particularly interested in as it is basically the same job I left 4 years ago. However, moving to London is another great opportunity, a once in a lifetime sort of thing, and I would probably manage people again, which is a career step I do not have at my current company. I would also have to wear suits to work, which I find a bit quaint and old fashioned. To pursue this job, I probably need to turn down San Francisco and if, after the interview process, I don't get a job offer I won't have anything because I already committed to leaving my company or moving to san fran at the end of September.
I'm in a bit of a pickle, and not sure where I'm going. I have been weighing the pros and cons of both, including risks, career development, corporate climates, and just interest in the jobs and lifestyles. I never had a strong desire to live in London, but I would love to be closer to Europe. However, it is farther from family and friends, even more so than San Fran I think. If not further, it is a larger trip.
I realized I have a very different view of where my current company is going than the current management team. The CEO said at a lunch the other day our director of development was doing an excellent job. Our last software was so bad sales wouldn't even demo it, and the latest release was delayed 1 month because of issues. I found out about the 1 month delay, and keep in mind it's a 50 person company which should facilitate communication, the day it was supposed to be released. That type of delay doesn't pop up, it is known. So the release came out within 4 days of the delayed timeline, and my boss sent a corporate email about how great it is and how great the team did and how great the software is. I have seen the software, it is not getting better. Anyway, I am going to ask him if I can run a project where I can blow off timelines, not communicate them, and still be congratulated and have everyone think I'm doing a great job. The problem is nobody in my company is accounatable for anything, which is odd because accountability is probably 1/4 of what we tell clients they need to build into their management framework.
Recently, I have been unloading all my projects, per my boss' orders, so I could work on our online training classes, which is a new product we are releasing. Basically, I am responsible for writing all the consulting methodology courses for the portal, even though I am not permitted to give them. We have a consulting team that is generally useless and "to busy" to be involved. I sent an email a few weeks back asking for input on a specific area beyond our 1 powerpoint. Our CEO said I could talk to him if i had questions on the presentation, 1 guys said we should brainstorm, and none of the other 4 people responded. To busy to be involved, fine. Anyway, I figured our largest client must have had to do this at some point so I called one of our contacts for advice or any information they had. It turns out they did a presentation on exactly this at our last conference, which I didn't attend because I was almost on paternity leave. All of the people I asked for advice did attend the conference, but nobody mentioned to check those presentations. Nobody mentioned anything really. I am only considering moving to San Fran because it's a lower risk option than finding a job anywhere else. Now that london could happen, San Fran is much less appealing. But it's still low risk, and appealing in that way.
The decision is open. I'll ask around on Monday and see what people say. I am scheduled to look for an apartment in sf next weekend, so this week is go-no go. Will I go? The more I consider it, the worse it seems...
However, I have another opportunity to possibly get a job offer in London. This would be a new company, a very large company, a new city, a new country, and work that I might not be particularly interested in as it is basically the same job I left 4 years ago. However, moving to London is another great opportunity, a once in a lifetime sort of thing, and I would probably manage people again, which is a career step I do not have at my current company. I would also have to wear suits to work, which I find a bit quaint and old fashioned. To pursue this job, I probably need to turn down San Francisco and if, after the interview process, I don't get a job offer I won't have anything because I already committed to leaving my company or moving to san fran at the end of September.
I'm in a bit of a pickle, and not sure where I'm going. I have been weighing the pros and cons of both, including risks, career development, corporate climates, and just interest in the jobs and lifestyles. I never had a strong desire to live in London, but I would love to be closer to Europe. However, it is farther from family and friends, even more so than San Fran I think. If not further, it is a larger trip.
I realized I have a very different view of where my current company is going than the current management team. The CEO said at a lunch the other day our director of development was doing an excellent job. Our last software was so bad sales wouldn't even demo it, and the latest release was delayed 1 month because of issues. I found out about the 1 month delay, and keep in mind it's a 50 person company which should facilitate communication, the day it was supposed to be released. That type of delay doesn't pop up, it is known. So the release came out within 4 days of the delayed timeline, and my boss sent a corporate email about how great it is and how great the team did and how great the software is. I have seen the software, it is not getting better. Anyway, I am going to ask him if I can run a project where I can blow off timelines, not communicate them, and still be congratulated and have everyone think I'm doing a great job. The problem is nobody in my company is accounatable for anything, which is odd because accountability is probably 1/4 of what we tell clients they need to build into their management framework.
Recently, I have been unloading all my projects, per my boss' orders, so I could work on our online training classes, which is a new product we are releasing. Basically, I am responsible for writing all the consulting methodology courses for the portal, even though I am not permitted to give them. We have a consulting team that is generally useless and "to busy" to be involved. I sent an email a few weeks back asking for input on a specific area beyond our 1 powerpoint. Our CEO said I could talk to him if i had questions on the presentation, 1 guys said we should brainstorm, and none of the other 4 people responded. To busy to be involved, fine. Anyway, I figured our largest client must have had to do this at some point so I called one of our contacts for advice or any information they had. It turns out they did a presentation on exactly this at our last conference, which I didn't attend because I was almost on paternity leave. All of the people I asked for advice did attend the conference, but nobody mentioned to check those presentations. Nobody mentioned anything really. I am only considering moving to San Fran because it's a lower risk option than finding a job anywhere else. Now that london could happen, San Fran is much less appealing. But it's still low risk, and appealing in that way.
The decision is open. I'll ask around on Monday and see what people say. I am scheduled to look for an apartment in sf next weekend, so this week is go-no go. Will I go? The more I consider it, the worse it seems...
2007/08/01
Random wednesday thoughts
It's a random wednesday here, and before I settle into a good book and call it a night, I figured I would update this blog with some of the things that have happened recently.
The first is I started listening to a podcast by Bill Simmons, also known as the Sports Guy on ESPN Page 2. In my opinion, he is the funniest, possibly most insightful sports commentator writing right now. Part of the reason is he writes sports editorials, so he is entirely biased to his hometown Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. However, he writes with a love of the game, all the games, and I think he's great. Anyway, he is the kind of pal we all want, knows the sports and the stats and has interesting ideas. So I started listening to his podcast and I thought, hmm, that's not what i thought he would sound like. It's interesting. I met someone who started with our company a while back and he is a great guy but he's about 5'5" and I remember thinking to myself, hmm, he seemed taller on his resume. I don't know if those are the same mind faults, but they seem the same to me.
The best line I have heard in a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out where I read it, was something like this: Seeing the two of them together was weird. It was sort of like meeting both Dorian Gray and the picture of Dorian Gray at the same time. You have to read the story by Oscar Wilde to get that, but I thought it was clever. You would think it was clever enough to make me remember what the reference was, but it wasn't. My memory for things like that has always been terrible, but I can figure things out well enough to keep myself employed. Anyway, Dorian Grey is the only Oscar Wilde I have ever read and although it's a bit overdone at time, I liked the story. I don't know that I liked it enough to pursue more Wilde, but maybe sometime. Reading a list of his best, wittiest remarks online is quite interesting. He seems like someone I should like if I made the effort.
I have this weird love/hate relationship with the Iraq war. Obviously, I don't love it but i have this horrible sinking feeling that if this somehow works, and I can't figure out how it can, but if it does then G W goes down as a great president. It's horrifying. The man is incompetent and, quite frankly, he has surrounded himself with paranoid, incompetent, egocentric, psychos and/or liars. But what if he gets lucky? I certainly want a stable, free Iraq. What if it works? How do I feel then? Would I have to admit the ends justify the means? No, probably not. That guy is still a jerk.
I decided today after more than a month of agonizing over it to move to San Francisco in about 2 months. it was a brutal decision, and I'm going to miss a lot of great people here in Philadelphia. but it just felt like it was time for me to do something. I am notoriously bad at making decisions. I agonized about peace corps for years, I agonized about leaving peace corps for months, I don't know if San Fran will make me happy but I have to give it a try. To many ghosts in Philly, to much stagnation. It's my own fault really, I'll admit that, but I need to try to kickstart myself somehow. Catalyst for change or something like that. Anyway, I was delaying a bit to see if I could work my way into a job in London, but my friend took to long to respond and I had to give notice on my apartment etc. 2 hours after I said yes to my company, he emailed me and said his company wanted to talk to me and would consider sponsoring me to work in london. That's why i agonize over decisions. I have lousy timing. My sister told me not to be to moral and do what I want (ie go to london if I want, and she is a better person than I am), so I'm going to agonize over what I should do and end up in San Fran because I'm afraid to piss people off and do what I want. Sometimes I hate myself. But I'll like a new city. What the hell, right? Right?
Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics and I love the move. I don't watch many sports anymore, not like I used to, but I love Garnett and hope he does well. Now, moving to the West Coast, maybe I can actually stay up late enough to watch the world series and NBA finals because they will end at 9 PM, not midnight. Go Tigers! Go Pistons! Go Lions (ahh, what's the point)...
About 1 week ago I wrote a blog about Harry Potter (I read it in about 14 hours the Saturday it came out), but I lost it. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and maybe I'll get back to that blog at some point. Anyway, I would like to first off thank J. K. Rowling for sharing her world with me. I appreciate it. Secondly, I would like to state what is a great line from the end of the book, and probably the greatest line of the entire series. Harry is in some sort of imaginary place speaking with someone (vagueness in case anyone hasn't read it, which leads me to ask - why?). Anyway, Harry and this person converse and Harry asks something like, "Is this real? Or is this all in my head?" And the other person responds, "Of course this is all in your head, but why would that mean it isn't real." Something like that, I loaned my book out. Regardless, the actual line is quite clever and a comment i wish I had written. And you should all read the book. 12 million people can't be wrong. Well, yes they can but I can't...
I saw a documentary on groucho marx the other night. He was quite a character, and quite amusing. I enjoyed it, sounds like him and his brothers had quite the strange relationships with each other, but Duck Soup is always good for a laugh. I just started watching the Wire on Netflix and I'm hooked. Love it so far. I have also watched all 3 seasons of Little Britain, a british sketch show and let me tell you, if you like mildly offensive sketch comedy, this is brilliant! Highly recommended, 5 stars, 2 thumbs, the whole thing. It's fantastic. Maybe I should go to London...
The first is I started listening to a podcast by Bill Simmons, also known as the Sports Guy on ESPN Page 2. In my opinion, he is the funniest, possibly most insightful sports commentator writing right now. Part of the reason is he writes sports editorials, so he is entirely biased to his hometown Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. However, he writes with a love of the game, all the games, and I think he's great. Anyway, he is the kind of pal we all want, knows the sports and the stats and has interesting ideas. So I started listening to his podcast and I thought, hmm, that's not what i thought he would sound like. It's interesting. I met someone who started with our company a while back and he is a great guy but he's about 5'5" and I remember thinking to myself, hmm, he seemed taller on his resume. I don't know if those are the same mind faults, but they seem the same to me.
The best line I have heard in a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out where I read it, was something like this: Seeing the two of them together was weird. It was sort of like meeting both Dorian Gray and the picture of Dorian Gray at the same time. You have to read the story by Oscar Wilde to get that, but I thought it was clever. You would think it was clever enough to make me remember what the reference was, but it wasn't. My memory for things like that has always been terrible, but I can figure things out well enough to keep myself employed. Anyway, Dorian Grey is the only Oscar Wilde I have ever read and although it's a bit overdone at time, I liked the story. I don't know that I liked it enough to pursue more Wilde, but maybe sometime. Reading a list of his best, wittiest remarks online is quite interesting. He seems like someone I should like if I made the effort.
I have this weird love/hate relationship with the Iraq war. Obviously, I don't love it but i have this horrible sinking feeling that if this somehow works, and I can't figure out how it can, but if it does then G W goes down as a great president. It's horrifying. The man is incompetent and, quite frankly, he has surrounded himself with paranoid, incompetent, egocentric, psychos and/or liars. But what if he gets lucky? I certainly want a stable, free Iraq. What if it works? How do I feel then? Would I have to admit the ends justify the means? No, probably not. That guy is still a jerk.
I decided today after more than a month of agonizing over it to move to San Francisco in about 2 months. it was a brutal decision, and I'm going to miss a lot of great people here in Philadelphia. but it just felt like it was time for me to do something. I am notoriously bad at making decisions. I agonized about peace corps for years, I agonized about leaving peace corps for months, I don't know if San Fran will make me happy but I have to give it a try. To many ghosts in Philly, to much stagnation. It's my own fault really, I'll admit that, but I need to try to kickstart myself somehow. Catalyst for change or something like that. Anyway, I was delaying a bit to see if I could work my way into a job in London, but my friend took to long to respond and I had to give notice on my apartment etc. 2 hours after I said yes to my company, he emailed me and said his company wanted to talk to me and would consider sponsoring me to work in london. That's why i agonize over decisions. I have lousy timing. My sister told me not to be to moral and do what I want (ie go to london if I want, and she is a better person than I am), so I'm going to agonize over what I should do and end up in San Fran because I'm afraid to piss people off and do what I want. Sometimes I hate myself. But I'll like a new city. What the hell, right? Right?
Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics and I love the move. I don't watch many sports anymore, not like I used to, but I love Garnett and hope he does well. Now, moving to the West Coast, maybe I can actually stay up late enough to watch the world series and NBA finals because they will end at 9 PM, not midnight. Go Tigers! Go Pistons! Go Lions (ahh, what's the point)...
About 1 week ago I wrote a blog about Harry Potter (I read it in about 14 hours the Saturday it came out), but I lost it. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and maybe I'll get back to that blog at some point. Anyway, I would like to first off thank J. K. Rowling for sharing her world with me. I appreciate it. Secondly, I would like to state what is a great line from the end of the book, and probably the greatest line of the entire series. Harry is in some sort of imaginary place speaking with someone (vagueness in case anyone hasn't read it, which leads me to ask - why?). Anyway, Harry and this person converse and Harry asks something like, "Is this real? Or is this all in my head?" And the other person responds, "Of course this is all in your head, but why would that mean it isn't real." Something like that, I loaned my book out. Regardless, the actual line is quite clever and a comment i wish I had written. And you should all read the book. 12 million people can't be wrong. Well, yes they can but I can't...
I saw a documentary on groucho marx the other night. He was quite a character, and quite amusing. I enjoyed it, sounds like him and his brothers had quite the strange relationships with each other, but Duck Soup is always good for a laugh. I just started watching the Wire on Netflix and I'm hooked. Love it so far. I have also watched all 3 seasons of Little Britain, a british sketch show and let me tell you, if you like mildly offensive sketch comedy, this is brilliant! Highly recommended, 5 stars, 2 thumbs, the whole thing. It's fantastic. Maybe I should go to London...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)