|
| I just watched the Artist while on the plane back from Hong Kong. It was, in a word, superb. Craft. There are some things that one can recognize as a wonderful example of craftsmanship and artistry upon contact. The score emotes with a deft touch – lilting movements and playful strands of sound – at times waxing playful, pompous – at others threatening and violent. The music is from a time long gone – when the sounds of the score needed to tell the other part of what the motion did not. They worked together to complete the cycle of sight and sound. Talk. The word is used again and again, and expresses the critical conflict in the film, the revolution in technology that would redefine Hollywood, and the difficulties that the disruptive technology would inflict on the starts and heroes of the silent picture world. Out with the old, in with the new. The inexorable march of progress is unrelenting. As of now, I stand at the forefront of my field – not ahead, no, I wouldn’t dare say that – no, just with the others that work with new technologies, trying to learn how best to treat my patients with ever evolving devices, some revolutionary, some merely improvements. But already I can imagine the days where my ways are old, and outmoded. The female lead is Youth. She is the female talky film star that represents the wave of change that ends his stardom and his way of life. And in a way both bittersweet and beautiful, Youth is first aided by the Artist even as she deposes him. At the beginning of the film, at the height of his fame, he helps make her – subtly yet importantly crafting a piece of her that would help define her stardom. And, at the bottom of his descent, she finds him a new way forward by demanding that they work together for Kinograph films (Kino-move, graph-draw/picture/image). And then, the Artist must struggle with his Pride, for that hubris was the poison that barred him from riding the tide of Sound’s arrival. At a more general level, the Artist articulates something very profound about the male identity – even at age 24 I perceived something in my own heart – even then, I realized that the day would come when I wasn’t very useful anymore, when I had nothing left to offer the world, or those that I loved. If one day, I had the pleasure of being married, would a younger, brilliant woman have any use for the outmoded, irrelevant man that I would one day become? And that is a part of what the Artist struggles with in dealing with living and being loved by Youth. Grace and affection tendered by Youth to the Artist is a poignant, even devastating reminder of his own ineffectuality. When he discovers that everything he had sold had indeed been purchased by Youth (an act of her love and devotion – and worship), he finds that he cannot accept it – going home to his own, burnt out hovel. One of the scenes that really amazed me was his nightmare, where objects in the movie made sounds as they moved. It was such a clever portion – I almost wished they let the movie transition to a talky – but that wouldn’t be true to the films ethos. Whereas movies like Dreamsville moved from black and white to colour (to visibly show the change), this movie did not use such a trick, for which it should be applauded. In a sense, it kept true to the initial premise, only allowing sound and speech at the end, completing the Artist’s emergence into the age of Sound, and affirming the mutual affection that Youth and the Artist share for one another. As couple of final thoughts, I love the 20s – the dance, the fashion, the excess, the dizzying heights of capital and industrialization. It is very much what the PRC is going through now, we have yet to see whether a bust will follow the rapid expansion of the middle class and the capital intensive infrastructure projects that parallel the like developments in the US 20s. We forget so quickly that Rockefeller and his peers sponsored art that celebrated industry and development – a time when the smokestack represented progress and rapid urban expansion desirable. Statism may or may not be desirable, but it was not so long ago that N. America was, in effect, statist – and in that period, industry and government colluded – though at a personal level not in cross-ownership. Last thought – A different era without sound in movies – in capture – required actors and actresses to express nearly the whole of their persona through body language. There’s so much richness to body language – something that we sometimes forget in the midst of advanced camera techniques, CGI, speech and mood music, that the center of human drama is human. All the other dressing should enhance, not distract from the experience and sharing of humanity. I cannot give up Sound. As much as I adore visual beauty, sound still strikes me more deeply. I hope I never have to do without any of my senses – but sound is so beautiful to me. The voice of loved ones, the sound of my mother’s singing – I miss it… The Sound of humanity. It is a kind of grace to hear art. | | |
| Defining permanence
In the waves of variance
The art of stability
is the eye of tranquility
Vagaries and vortices
Buffet and batter
The circumstance and happenstance
Aside
One cannot control
One cannot rein
The things outside in the hands of the Divine
Peace within
Acceptance without
Grace in the grasp of His storms
His rivers
Streams
And
Vales
I want for nothing 03.24.2012 Hong Kong
| | |
| Aristocracy - Etymology Online Definition - Answers.com (ăr'ĭ-stŏk'rə-sē) 
n., pl., -cies. - A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
- Government by a ruling class.
- A state or country having this form of government.
- Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead.
- A state having such a government.
- A group or class considered superior to others.
[Late Latin aristocratia, government by the best, from Greek aristokratiā : aristos, best + -kratiā, -cracy..] ------- I think it's always useful to look back at how words are built to understand the underpinnings of the concept. So often, in modern speech, we forget origins of the word, and thus may not note the development of what the word describes. Aristocracy, in a sense, describes what very naturally happens everywhere. We select leaders because they seem better than "the rest of us", whether they were taller, smarter, stronger, more beautiful, more long lived or what have you. Heritence being what it is, it generally follows that the children of impressive people should have good genes - as well as the nepotism that's inherent in this thinking. Aristocracy then, typically evolves from the strong or best taking rule, and handing rule to their children under the auspices that the best have the best children, so to speak. And as long as your "best" stay "best", that's not a bad thing... except they get distracted, selfish, aloof, unmotivated, and forgetful of what leaders are supposed to do... which is to serve the people they are leading. So that's the ethos of aristocracy, but what of the substance? In most cultures, aristocrats primary power was the ownership of land and territory. In medieval europe, for instance, landowners got grants of land derived from monarchic power that allowed them to make money from use of the land, worked by serfs in a subsistence living arrangements. With serfs working the land, able to live, but unable to amass capital, there is semi-stability. So what is the New Aristocracy? It's not new really. With the growing clout of the merchant class post agrarian society, amassing capital apart from land and military rights became, for the first time, possible. When the amounts of capital were small to moderate, they already had clout. As time has gone on, it has become possible to amass gargantuan amounts of capital - and with the development of diverse and sophisticated investment vehicles, I'm arguing that investment capitalists are the new landowners - which is to say, the current equivalent of the aristocrat landowner. By investing capital into businesses, the middle class now works on behalf of capital to make a living, which may be significant gains for an individual, but not nearly enough to deplete capital... in fact, it isn't far removed from landowning rent-seeking behavior... now we have rent-seeking capital behavior. While death taxes are supposed to level the playing field a bit generation to generation, the creation of trust funds and circuitous transfers of ownership allows for preservation of capital across generations. Is it wrong? Not inherently. But one should ask is that what we want from a governmental philosophy that espouses equality before God? As in the French Republican "LIberte, Egalite, Fraternite" None of this is, in fact, shocking... but just like one had indolent, dilettantish nobility plaguing the latter days of the medieval age, and through the enlightenment, we have that now (I'm not naming names). It is in society's interest that capital is efficiently invested... and when capital is controlled by a disinterested, or even wasteful owner, it's a loss for society. Social contract asks the ruler to be accountable. In a sense, we now have a shadow ruling class that is not legally accountable via democratic checks and balances (this is true around the world with land owners, and capital owners). To me that's a broken feedback loop. In the long term, I would argue that having a large, vital, middle class helps development. Where they spend their assets tends to affect more people positively than when capital and conspicuous consumption is concentrated in the hands of the few. How do you fix this? As much as I want to help my theoretical kids, I think that there needs to be a death tax with teeth. And... I think we should have small govt... so that a big govt isn't present to waste that tax receipt... | | |
| Negging - XKCD - Urban Dictionary - Wikipedia I've actually not been very familiar with this concept and ran into it as of last week, courtesy of XKCD.com. Following a little reading and a couple of fun discussions, I'm writing this discussion on criticism. For the purposes of this entry, criticism will relate to criticism of another person, rather than the concept of art criticism or textual criticism or similar, where a critic evaluates the object of criticism, and renders an opinion or valuation. ------- What is the purpose of criticising another purpose? More often than not, we think of criticizing someone as a fault finding act, though the original eytmology simply relates to evaluation or judging. As would follow, critical analysis might actually yield favourable observations of another. Criticism, at its best, should help the recipient improve. Careful, objective, yet sympathetic assessment of another person can be very helpful for character development and so forth. At its best, it can be help another prune away debris from their lives and their habits... at its worst, it can be denigrating, debilitating and fully destructive. As a launching point, "negging" is predatory; because the intent of use is to destabilize and manipulate the recipient of criticism. In fact, the underlying premise of "negging" is to disturb the subconscious, rather than engage the analytical part of the recipient's psyche. This is plainly egregious. On the other hand, it's probable that some people engender insecurity by virtue of their accomplishments/positive qualities... but a truly great person should not seek to make others feel smaller - rather they should encourage growth and inspire by example. There is, thus, an art to constructive criticism, which is redundant, in a sense, as accurate criticism is neither good nor bad, per se, but it is the intent, the delivery, and the nature of the response that determines whether criticism is constructive or destructive. How does one constructively criticize? From a biblical perspective, Matthew 7:1-6 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. I think this perspective is invaluable. One should take care when one criticizes (recall, that the root for criticism is the Fr. Critique, and kritikos, Greek - to Judge, related to krinein - to separate.) as that may be applied to you in a karmic sort of way (and, in a judeo-christian point of view, in a personal way via God's judgment). Criticism blinded to its own hypocrisy is often inflammatory, rather than salutory to the listener. Verse 6 is interesting as well. First, if verse 6 is related to 1-5, it would suggest that criticism can be precious. Indeed, well considered criticism is valuable. It takes time to think through, for it examines the recipient, considers the problems, and should naturally provide solutions. It takes effort to really critique another person. Yet communication requires two parties. If the critic gives observations callously, it can be bloody hurtful and damaging. Thoughtless, ill considered words are like explosives - watch out for the blast. On the other hand, even the most assiduously prepared words may be delivered with perfect gentility to a person most adamently opposed to changing or growing. In that case, the words may be ill-received with no fault on the part of the critic, but wholly because of the stiff-necked attitude of the listener. Verse 6 suggests that this consideration should be on the mind of the critic as well. As a listener to criticism, sometimes the words may be rash, ill-considered, cruel, or even maligning. Yet: Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9 ESV) A truly wise person notes the truth of criticism, even when it is ill-conceived and ill-delivered. A discerning person can extract areas for growth even in malignant criticism - but best of all when both giver and receiver's aim is to grow and mature and develop. Indeed, well received reproof can be construed as a form of love... The last comment on this topic pertains to this - well fashioned and well aimed criticism can be a very attractive thing to receive. Being built up is a good thing. In a way, it's a form of mercy! | | |
| My fellow Americans, As we approach this election year, we face a slow burning crisis that threatens the fabric of who we are, and the people we remember ourselves to be. It is a crisis of confidence, of integrity, and of purpose – and it is this crisis that I wish to address today. What is the purpose of government? Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that government is for the people and by the people. Governments serve people by taking the resources of that people to apply them for the people. Governments, made of people, cannot, by nature, have all the answers. To make that mistake makes us believe that governments are an ultimate power – but they are not. No, governments cannot summate all the creativity and industry that a people can be… Governments should not even try. What governments should do is clear the field so that the people can be a people of industry, and they channel their hearts, dreams, strengths and aptitudes towards productive goals while keeping the peace between those citizens, and defending those citizens against foreign interlopers. What have we become? America, you were built by the sweat and labour of men and women brought from afar – from England, from Germany, from Europe… from Africa. You were built by those from the Indian subcontinent, from East Asia and Southeast Asia. On the plains where once Native Americans once roamed, America built its cities, now mighty and sprawling. We have made mistakes, we have murdered innocents. We have fought, died on foreign soil, and toiled to build a better nation for ourselves and our posterity. By some mercy, we have become a great nation. And now, as we face increasing foreign competition, deficits that exceed an easy ability to pay – unemployment, income inequality, pernicious poverty, and serious differences in our opinions of morality – we face a question of what is it that we should do? Blaming others is not the way. We were once the factory of the nations. Our arms and hands labored longer and harder, and we built more, built better. We were productive and industrious, even when we fought and bled and died for others. Our scientists, hailing from a host of other nations, came to think and discover – and our engineers designed and built and innovated. Perhaps we still lead, but our leadership is now in question. There is no harangue or diatribe that we can employ to reassert dominance, nor should we try to find one. No, I say the way forward is humility and strength. How can we say that our work should be paid more because we live in America? How can we say that our sweat, is somehow more precious? If hands in Brazil makes something better and cheaper than what we make, why should it not sell more popularly? If arms in some dark corner southeast Asia is willing to work longer and harder, and learn faster and pay more attention to detail, why should they not be paid more? There is no law that guarantees that America should be great, nor any law of nature that guarantees that every citizen of America can attain happiness. If we are a nation of persons that would like to watch TV, enjoy a sports game, sing, dance, drink and be merry – we should not expect to be the most industrious. Nothing is free, my fellow Americans. Someone must labour to allow us to buy those tickets and dance in those dance halls. China won’t buy us dinner, Brazil won’t pay our way to prosperity. America has to work, and the buck stops here. We have to work harder and diligently and not simply wait for a free lunch. That includes those that own businesses, and those that work for those businesses. That includes those in government offices, and those that consult. It includes our agriculture and our entertainment community. We have lived decades of excess, believing that there wasn’t an end to the party, and easy credit and fast money are addictive. Today, the party’s over, and the hangover is on. We can, as a society, look for the next drink… but I say, we’re better than that. We can tighten our belts, and get our house in order. Balance the checkbooks, and get ourselves out of debt. It won’t be easy, nor will it be fun. But we can do it. How are we going to do it? I will simply the tax code. Loopholes help those who take them – and those that take them are perfectly legal, but they possess an advantage that many others will never take. The tax code shouldn’t provide advantages for those with the connections or the wiliness to take advantage of that code. Simplify it, and make it predictable. I’m happy with a progressive tax that taxes the wealthy more than the poor – but not so much that there is not incentive to accumulate wealth. I will simplify regulation. There are too many laws on the books trying to protect the citizen, but ultimately hurt society. If it’s too hard to start a business, the government is harming society. I will reform finance. Finance should make capital available to growing businesses and promising ideas – not about moving large sums of money back and forth, for a price. Excessive rent-seeking behavior is not okay. The people that should be rewarded most in society, should be the ones that build society most. I would like the brightest in our society to know that they will be rewarded for building businesses and creating meaningful jobs more than simply trading on differential odds. If I have a second term, I will reform healthcare and tort. We have neither a public nor private system, but rather have a system that has the inefficiencies of both. We lack the price signaling mechanisms in a true capitalistic system, and we lack the cost control mechanisms present in a true public system. We want the best doctors, but we don’t have the system that will both employ them gainfully, yet align their interests with the patient. Less is often more, and prevention is better than cure – that’s how we should incentivize physicians. Law and justice are bedrock ideals upon which our nation was founded. We have mistaken legality for justice, allowing the mechanics of the legal system to replace good common sense and civic responsibility. If it is only the threat of a law suit that will compel good behavior, we live in dark times. If acts can occur that allow injustices to be legal, we live in dark times. Jefferson said that revolution was good for a nation, for it clears the air. Tacitus wrote, “korruptisima re publicae, plurimae leges.” We need a revolution – perhaps not with arms, but with our laws and our government. If you elect me as President, I will strive to simplify our laws, reduce our corruption, and level the playing field so that more Americans may, through the sweat of their brow, advance their interests, and pursue happiness. Thank you. | | |
|
Lifetime