Over the course of the last few months, I've noticed a trend where various real-estate agents and other property related types have been taking the liberty of renaming some of Boston's neighborhoods. There has been such a large negative reaction to it that it seems to be dying down a lot. Hallelujah.
Now when I read articles about neighborhoods, I don't see "SoWa" (South Washington), "SoHa" (South Harrison) or, the worst one ever, "EaBo" (East Boston). It's bad enough that these names sound like Star Wars Characters ("Commander Eabo, I've got Rebels closing in, 5 o'clock"), but what's more disturbing to me is trying to figure out what the rationale was to rename them in the first place. Were the old names not good enough? Was it that what the old names are affiliated with isn't desirable to the clientele the real estate people are trying to attract? In effect, the changing of a neighborhood's name consequently affects that neighborhood's identity and culture. So who are these people to rename them?
EVERYONE I've seen interviewed on the news or with whom I have spoken about this has had a mixed reaction of laughter and confusion. Some, even anger. The whole situation is so ridiculous, it prompts me to fight back.
From now on I'll be sending mortgage payments to my MoCo and paying condo fees to my CoAss.
My co-workers first words to me this morning about the President's State of the Union address last night were his opinion that he thought Bush was "trying to sound like a liberal". Interesting observation....I wonder if others thought the same thing.
I read over the transcript at the White House's site, and was not surprised to read that "the state of our Union is strong", yet again. Well, if you say so, prez...
It looks as if last night's speech was the same old "stay tough, the union" speech we've heard at least 3 years in a row now. One of the scary things is, I've actually heard people who take this mentality to heart, saying things like "yeah, we'll take them (Iran) over, then we'll move onto the next country", and "Let them (Korea) try to fuck with us, we'll kick their ass too". At what point, exactly, did I become a citizen of The United Bullies of the World, anyway? It seems as though none of these zealots will stop complaining and threatening until the world is under US control, and even then, I'm sure they'll still have the itch to pick a fight.
It is said that...our government failed to connect the dots of the [9/11] conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Couldn't connect the dots? What was the title of that report, Ms. Rice? I also love how he implies, without saying so exactly, that 9/11 happened because we couldn't wiretap people, and worse, that it will happen again if he's not allowed to do what he wants. If the whole "Tough Guy" tactic isn't enough for you, there is another classic strategy of control: Fear. I thnk I first learned about it when I was studying the propaganda of Nazi Germany. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well? Wow! Lincoln? MLK? As another friend of mine so sarcastically put, "He [Bush] is clearly the next Martin Luther King". So, next time you want to move others to your way of thinking, remember this cue form Bush. All you have to do is start talking about famous and revered figures in our history, throw in a lame attempt at tying in something you did recently that is loosely related to the argument, at best, then present a dichotomous choice (and sometimes ultimatum) like this one here: "turn back" (clearly negative, you wussy) or "finish well" (clearly positive, as opposed to finishing poorly or not at all..."stay the course"). Why do I THINK at all when my government is so ready to do it for me? I had no idea that every decision the President needed to make was so easy and clear cut...what an easy job! And the bonus is (according to some heavy pushers of the Republican agenda / religion), the President is never wrong... ...but damn, does he talk tough.
It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I report to you the end of free Red Sox games in the Boston area. Though I pay for cable and can watch them at home, there was something nostalgic about watching them on TV38, albeit only on Friday nights for the last few years. I remember when they first made the move to NESN years ago, and my father shelled out something in the neighborhood of $12 a month to Cablevision JUST to get that station and watch his games. With rising ticket prices and even faster rising cable costs, it seems that being a Sox fan is getting expensive these days.
At least I can read about them online.
Oh, yeah, that costs money too.
This story is great. I kid out in Milton is trying to say that the school system is gender biased towards female students. I can't get enough of him. I'll start out with a quote:
The system is designed to the disadvantage of males...From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this. Thankfully (or unfortunately, depending on your view) this isn't this kid's only point. Can you imagine a world where we try to instill discipline into the youth? But let's not judge too harshly or too quickly; maybe he has a point. Could it be that he is identifying something valid but isn't quite saying it right? Maybe what he's really pointing out is that much of what determines one's success in school does NOT come from academic achievement, but rather from simply following rules. I think he's just making excuses for not doing well. He says he wants to get into Holy Cross, and this seems to me to be a feeble attempt by this kid (and probably his father, who is a Boston lawyer) to somehow explain away why he doesn't have the grades to do it. Not surprisingly, this kid has support among other students in the school. Amazingly, however, even the female senior class president back several of this kid's ideas. You can't expect a boy to buy pink paper and frills to decorate their notebooks. What she's essentially claiming here is that because one teacher offers extra credit to anyone who "decorates" their bookcovers, this equates to using glitter and feathers. It may be just a way in which that teacher is getting kids to cover their books, something that prolongs the life of the book so as not to have to buy new ones any time soon. In the same breath, the president complains that the same teacher requires students to type up reports, which is somehow girly. Wow...typing, what an unneeded life skill. Many of the other points this kid raises seem to have nothing to do with academics at all, and could actually be testament to favoratism towards girls in his school. If teachers are asking boys for passes in the halls and not girls (one of his claims), it could be that they like girls more....OR it could be that it has nothing to do with gender at all, and those people who are asked for passes have established some precedent for the inquiry, and this kid (I love calling him that) is simply trying to conveniently generalize it to fit his whacko theory. To top off this kid's list of ridiculous suggestions, he poses the idea that boys should not be made to fulfill the community service required of all high-school seniors to graduate, saying it is "another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result"...this kid could care less about the community apparently. His father should be ashamed of himself for raising such a child (and that's exactly what he is) and in fact encouraging this type of mentality. The fact is, this kid has no idea what it is like to be discriminated against. He's a white guy who seems pretty well off and will be provided for regardless of what he does (or more acurately, doesn't do) in whatever school he ends up going to. Daddy, it seems, will make sure of that. I enjoyed the other things boston.com readers posted in response to this story. Read them here.
"Christmas"
It's just a word. In our current American society, however, its usage is a hotbed topic of debate. Some say using it to decribe the time at the end of the year when people sing songs, give gifts, light candles, and make a point to spend time with family is not appropriate anymore. In lieu of saying "Christmas time" or "Christmas season", many companies, institutions and individuals have now adopted the term "Holiday Season". I myself have used it, almost unknowingly, as it's appearance around town and in the media has become more commonplace. When I think about it, its not a big deal to say either, as people know what I mean either way (successful communication is of course still the most important thing). It's the reasons I hear people give as to why NOT to say simply "Christmas" that I am not sure about.
The most popular complaint is that the term "Christmas" describes only the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Sure, this is what the holiday was originally about. The man's name is in the word itself, even. It still IS about that, to Christians, but what about the rest of us?
I was raised by a Catholic and an Athiest. I was never baptised or christened or initiated into any kind of religion whatsoever. Yet somehow we had Christmas every year, and though I eventually learned about the holiday's origins, my parents never presented it to me in any way other than the time of year kids got gifts randomly. Materialistic, yes (and now that's truer than ever), but it still managed to suceed in solidifying Christmas in my mind as a holiday that transcended its religious origins.
Christmas isn't just for Christians. I know lots of people from varied cultures, ages, and religions, Jewish and otherwise, who exchange gifts on December 25th in the name of a non-religious Christmas holiday.
Most of what we as a whole affiliate with the holiday has nothing to do with it's Christian origins. Christmas trees, stockings, coal in the stockings, milk and cookies, eggnog, mistletoe, elves, toys, the North Pole...none were present or part of the celebrated birth in the manger. Even Santa Claus, whose title indicates sainthood, has what to do with the birth of Christ? Most children, I would venture to guess, become more familiar with all of Christmas' non-religious pieces long before they learn the Christian story behind it.
This would not be the first holiday to break off, at least partially, from its religious beginnings. Another Christian holiday is I think an even stronger example of this phenomenon: Easter. How many kids across America think about Jesus' resurrection before decorating eggs, eating jellybeans, and awaiting a visit from the Easter bunny (none of which I think had anything to do with the Christian meaning)? All of the bunny-related parts of the holiday are so detached from the religious parts of Easter that they are pratically two different holidays with the same name and occuring on the same day.
Why, then, is there not an outcry for the use of different names for the two different kinds of Easter? Might it be that there are not observances from other religions around the same time? Maybe if there was a Kwaanza or a Hanukkah around the same time we'd have another "season" to appease all. I contend that this is another reason people are no longer wishing others a "Merry Christmas" in late December without reservation.
Maybe the fact that there are so many Christians in this country has something to do with the uproar. Perhaps they don't want others to celebrate their holiday. If that's true, its not exactly a step in the direction of recruiting people to become Christians, not to mention its extrememly narrow-minded. So let's assume that is not the case. Maybe it is that non-Christians affiliate Christmas with Christianity and therefore want nothing to do with the holiday. OK, perhaps. But what about Kwaanza? So far as I know, that isn't affiliated with any religion whatsoever. Can people celebrate both holidays at the same time?
Do people who don't celebrate Christmas celebrate other holidays like Easter (in the non-religious sense)? What about holidays that stem directly from other belief systems that are not as popular? Halloween is a great example. Originating from a Pagan observance, how many of us non-Pagans dress up our kids and march them around to collect candy from neighbors? Maybe a better question is, how many of us do not because of a conflict of religious interest? I see Halloween as maybe the clearest example of a holiday that has transcended it's religious origins.
Let's come back to the original point: "Christmas" is just a word. It's a word that has different meanings to different people, sometimes unrelated to the word's origin. How much time has to pass before it is acceptable to the majority? Are there any such words in our everyday vocabulary today? The answer is yes, and for evidence look no further than the names of the first six months of the year:
January, from Janus, the god of doors and gateways in Roman mythology.
February, from Februus, the Roman god of purification.
March, from Mars or Martius, the Roman god of war.
April, possibly from Apru, the Etruscan name for the Greek god Aphrodite.
May, from Maia, the Greek godess of fertility.
June, from Juno, the Roman god of marriage.
I think that very very few, if any, people are part of a Roman or ancient Greek belief system today (merely the fact that we describe those religions as mythology is testament to our perception of them). Since they have nothing to do with Christians, should Christians come up with new names? Wait..wasn't it the Romans who persecuted Jesus? Hmmm...
In the end, I'll wish people a "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" interchangably and without reservation. If someone claims offense or notes that they don't celebrate Christmas because of religious differences, I'll simply make sure they know what I mean.
Then I'll give them a Christmas card.
 | Watch out for those trees on the slopes!
Happy birthday Bugdaddy. |
 | I hope you are becoming adjusted to your new digs, and someday maybe you'll get Quixote back to put on your wall (I just put it up as a main piece in my living room!).
Happy birthday Dad... |
 | Happy birthday Alex...
This doesn't mean I wish you well in fantasy football, however. |
 I've always been interested and entertained by how our brain works, or more specifically how we use it to percieve things. There are of course physical pieces to the puzzle (eyes, ears, etc), but there are also the important ingredients of previous experience and memory. What we expect to see or hear sometimes (most of the time) influences what we think we do see or hear. The perennial examples of how to play on our perception are undoubtedly optical illusions. Firstly, please check this out. This illusion is an interesting take on some older ideas. We've seen images that play on color before, but few that throw in actual, and not perceived, animation. The effect, in this case, is that of disappearing dots, and I do not doubt that it revolves around color theory and (I think) persistence of vision.  Here's another color-related favorite of mine. The brain here makes it difficult to ignore the words we are reading. I find it indicative of our evolved dependence on the written word. Think you can do it? Try moving quickly by the words; that seems to help. Lastly, I'll throw out this one, one of my favorite examples of percieved animation: 
Imagine a global society in the future where technology has advanced enough to produce a viable, universal translater. Everyone around the world can communicate with each other without having to learn any kind of new language thanks to two small implants, one that acts as a broadcaster and the other as a receiver. Whatever a person is saying gets transmitted out and then picked up by whomever is in earshot (which of course could span miles!) and subsequently translated into a language the person who is "listening" can understand. Sounds great, eh? What kinds of consequences could such a technology have?
In this futuristic society, the transmitting part of the technology depends on reading the muscular movements of the speaker alone, and no actual sound is required. Over time, as the popularity and availability of the implants increased, people became so dependant on them and got them at such an early age, the need for actually producing sounds diminished. Many people never even developed their vocal chords, as they never had any use for them in their life whatsoever. Communication had become almost strictly technological, and the transmitter could be easily fine-tuned to broadcast to a wider range, or even limited to an individual (their form of whispering)...even stereos and televisions (or, more appropriately, their future counterparts) transmitted sounds without sound in every language. Though none spoke, however, many people had become pretty good at whistling.
As strange as it sounds to us, this future world had an incredible international scene, thanks in no small part to the universal translator. Once people from different parts of the world could understand each other, a remarkable and unexpected thing happened: they resolved most differences and figured out how to get along. Commerce, technology, government, education, medicine, and the collective knowledge base of our planet increased exponentially. From the point of view of an alien, things seemed well in the world.
The domestic scene, however, was far from ideal. There developed a great rift between the haves and the have-nots, moreso than ever in history, due ironically to a lack of communication. Those who couldn't afford the implants were pushed lower and lower in class, until they were eventually shuffled under the rug by the powers that would be. As one may have predicted, it was only a matter of time before these surpressed peoples, or "talkies", as they were called, began to organize and revolt. They used crude weapons and guerilla strategies that revolved around high-pitched sounds, exploiting a weakness their enemy developed through sustained use of their "precious technology". Unfortunately, the universal translator did not speak Pissed Off Lower Class.
Well, as fantastic (and wildy fictional) as this may sound, the aforementioned technology is already making an appearance in a primitive form. Read on:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Reprinted from the Boston Globe, Monday October 24, 2005:
Privacy worries? Don't print in color
Hiawatha Bray
You've got to love black-and-white laser printers. You can get a good one for $150 or so, and each toner cartidge cranks out thousands of pages before you need a refill. Best of all, they don't spy on you.
You can't say the same about color laser printers, as we learned last week. Actually, we should have learned it nearly a year ago. That's when PC World magazine reported that makers of color laser printers, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, have programmed their machines to print tiny yellow dots on every printed document. These dots are almost invisible under normal conditions, but can be spotted by anyone with a magnifier and the right sort of lighting.
Most of us ignored the news, but not the civil libertarians at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. The group asked its members to mail in documents generated by dozens of color laser printers. They got hundreds of submissions run off on printers made by a variety of manufacturers - Minolta, Canon, Hewlett-Packard and Xerox, among others.
Last week, the foundation annonced it had cracked the code on a document generated by a Xerox printer. By reading the yellow dots, staff members were able to identify the serial number of the very machine that had produced the printout.
No big deal, unless you're a counterfeiter. "Ten years ago, 1 percent of counterfeit currency was produced by copiers and printers; now it's 56 percent," said Eric Zahren, spokesman for the US Secret Service, the government agency that battles the funny-money trade. So the Secret Service and other security agencies persuaded printer makers to embed subtle markers into their machines. And not just laser printers, said Edward Delp, a professor of electrical engineering at Purdue University. "Color copiers have done this for a long time," said Delp.
As a result, police can play spot-the-dots with pieces of phony currency, then use sales records to trace the machine and its owner.
Of course, the same technique can be used to identify anything else from the printer. But Zahren says privacy-conscious citizens have nothing to fear. "You only have to worry about it identifying you if you have partaken in illegal activity," he said.
Famous last words? Maybe not. Why would cops bother to inspect the billions of pages printed every day, just to figure out which printer produced them? It might be worthwhile to study anonymous ransom notes or death threats. But usually it's obvious where a document came from; the cops needn't bother looking for subtle yellow dots.
Then again, few of us live in countries with a low regard for human rights. Pity the poor Cuban worshipper at a secret church who cranks out a few religious tracts on the office laser printer. Let one of those tracts fall into an informant's hands, and the cops will know exactly where to find him.
"These printers are being sold all over the world," said Seth Schoen, staff technologist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. No doubt the dictators will use the codes for their intended purpose, but only a fool would expect it to stop there. Schoen admitted the dots pose little threat to the privacy of Americans. But, he added, "If I were in China, for example, it might be a real problem."
It's enough to make you wonder how many more of our gadgets are keeping an eye on us. Cellphones come to mind. A federal regulation, issued for our own good, requires cell phone systems to add features that can locate a phone to within a few yards. That way, when you dial 911 from a burning building, the firefighters can find you before the flames do.
But the same technology can also let the police track your every move. The locator software can be activated without any warning, converting any cheap cellphone into a homing beacon. Just the thing for keeping somebody under constant surveillance.
You'd hope the police would need a warrant for this kind of snooping. Warrants require the cops to show a judge some evidence the target of the surveillance has committed a crime. But the US Justice Department has instead relied on subpoenas. A judge will issue one of these if the police merely claim that it might produce information that will help crack a case. Federal courts have routinely granted such subpoenas.
But in August, a federal magistrate, james Orenstein, ruled that the collection of electronic location data from a cellphone is little different from a wiretap. For that, you need a full-fledged wiretap warrant, he said. The Justice Department has scoffed at Orenstein's argument and is appealing, with good reason. The federal courts approved just 730 wiretap warrants last year, with state governments permitting another 1,000 or so. So if Orenstein prevails, a cop will need a lot more than a hunch before spying on our cellphones.
Still, it's worth at least a little worry. In her new book "Spychips", privacy activist Katherine Albrecht warns of efforts to embed digital trackers into every item we buy. Perhaps we should worry more about all the tracking devices we already own - the cellphones with locator chips, the unique codes being broadcast by every wireless Internet router, and of course the paper scrolling out of your color laser printer, with your signature on every page, like it or not.
Click here to read the EFF story.
 Anheuser-Busch, in a recent attempt to sell more beer (because they don't sell enough?), has been manufacturing and promoting a new game called "Bud Pong". Chances are, if you've ever been to college parties, you've seen somewhere along the line a popular drinking game called "Beer Pong", where you bounce a ping-pong ball into glasses of beer in an attempt to make other people drink. This is essentially the same thing, except Anheuser-Busch insists you use water, not beer, and they do so with a straight face!
"The intent of this program was to provide adults who socialize in bars with a fun activity." said Anheuser-Busch spokeswoman Francine I. Katz. Give me a break. I can imagine the ad-wizard who suggested the beer company promote a drinking game, and the subsequent worry that such a promotion would interefere with whatever kind of "responsible drinking" message they were also trying to push. Solution? WATER, of course.
Because of the complete unoriginality of the game's rules, it wasn't too long before bargoers everywhere started to use "Bud Pong" as a drinking game. So, the game gets pulled, much to the dismay, and imagined surprise, of Anheuser-Busch's powers-that-be. Imagine that, people at a bar using beer instead of water....
This whole endeavor was incredibly irresponsible. How can the country's largest brewer think for a second that they weren't promoting a drinking game? The fact is they didn't, and they knew that most young people (including those underage) are ususally irresponsible enough themselves to find whatever excuse they can to binge drink...i.e. drinking games. This was a joke to begin with.
On a final note, drinking large amount of water isn't always a good idea, either. I can remember an incident when I was in high school, where I was at this kids house in Mattapan. There were four or five kids playing a drinking version of "Dungeons and Dragons" (yes, its true). One of the kids I came with (a strange bird named Billy), wanted to play but insisted he didn't want to drink (you'd think this was honorable, but he was just being difficult). So, the host let him play with one proviso: if he had to drink, he would drink water...a lot of water. He foolishly agreed. Before long Billy drank somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 gallons of water, and shortly thereafter proceeded to hurl it all back up, all over the place. Sooo much watery vomit....
The lesson learned: I'd rather play Beer Pong.
related Linx:
Anheuser-Busch pulls 'water' drinking game
Players drinking -- gasp! -- beer, so game gets bounced
'If you win, you win. If you lose, you drink. There's no negative'
Official Beer Pong Table.com
I've always been frustrated that my good friend, JForce, always found an excuse, year after year, for not being able to be on our Sunday league baseball team. "I'm in a kickball league" he says. Kickball? Over baseball? C'mon. Who outside of the majority of elementary school students across the nation plays kickball?
Apparently a lot of people. And I must admit after watching this clip, I'm kinda wanting to play a little myself. It's all about hitting it on the bounce, I remember, and the crackly concrete we played on made for plenty of bounces. And who can say no to a sport that allows for legally throwing something at an opposing player...
So Force, I hear, is the captain and star pitcher for his team, "Chicks Like It Tickled" (um, an acronym, perhaps?). Congrats on an undefeated season guys.
Charles Rocket 1949-2005
 I wasn't sure who this guy was when I read the report that he'd died. The article mentioned something about him being on SNL (another tragic SNL death) and being thrown off and banned after dropping an F-bomb on live TV. So I looked and found a picture of this guy and, low and behold, he was one of those actors who you've seen in a bunch of movies prompting you to say "oh, it's THAT guy".  After looking at his IMDB filmography, I was reminded of where I'd seen him before; some notable roles included those in "Dances with Wolves", "How I Got Into College" (I actually saw this in the theater...), "Short Cuts", "Dumb and Dumber", and my personal favorite, "Earth Girls Are Easy". This last one is one of the most underrated movies of all time, featuring an all-star cast including Geena Davis, Jim Carrey, Jeff Goldblum, Damon Wayans, and the other, not-downtown Julie Brown. You can't beat alien slapstick in primary colors, now can you? This movie also holds a special place in my heart, as it was what I saw the very first day I hooked an entire day of school. I went to the Copley mall with this kid named Eric (I don't think I ever saw him again), saw a couple of older girls (maybe 14 or 15 years old) and, with a pre-adolescent burst of hutzpa asked them to come watch that movie with us. They agreed, provided we paid for them to get in. We did, and no sooner had we gotten into the old Copley theater than the girls "went to the bathroom", never to be seen again.... Maybe we should have taken them to see Batman instead...
 | Ah, Liam. Old Man. Oldie. Happy 30th to ya pal.
Whaddaya know, you're old... |
|
|
