Unstoried People

Metropolis

The city which breathes like an organism
neon-bathed alleys, steel and concrete for skin
and still other creatures that crawl round within

And move silently through its veins like a cell
Through the hubs and the ports that with people do swell
like arteries from hearts to places unwell.

For dark are these corners where the diseases do dwell
and anything that anybody could want they will sell.
Inside each creature both a heaven and hell.


Unstoried People

In joy do we dance, and In anger do rage
In passion's fit burn the world, and dance round it's flames

And watch damned knowledge be lost
Before damned knowledge transferred
And all lessons cut short
Before anything learned
While the flames dance on high
While our heritage burns
While our hopes for new future in the same breath are birthed
For a legacy til now that's been nothing but cursed
Owes a fate secretly desired that's moreover been earned

Culture And All Its Compromises

From a memetic way of looking at things I sometimes wonder where culture lies. Does any one particular culture stand to gain anything by wiping out or minimizing other contenders, or do they, like genes, flourish from a diversity that whittles things down leaving only those which work well with others standing? Cultures most certainly contain a mixture of elements and are always changing in their make up, much as any organism does. But considering many cultures contain portions which people consider intrinsically linked, and as whole we've come to a point where so much care is taken to avoid offending one culture or another, I wonder sometimes if perhaps we have lost some form or another of valuable criticism. How are things ever to change if we really believe everything created by everyone is equal and are too polite to ever say when we see what might be a problem?

"Universal" Culture

The idea that all cultures are equal, that none is superior or inferior, but rather just different from one another is called "Cultural Relativism". The major problem with such a concept is, as I said earlier; that if every culture is equal, what right does anyone have to even suggest changes to let alone forcibly impose it? If, for example, the Nazis were a culture that was equal to all others, what right would anyone have had to intervene in their genocide of the Jews? Of course, one would most certainly argue that the Nazis clearly didn't believe all cultures were equal to be doing such a thing in the first place, but doesn't then considering every culture out there an equal become nothing more than a disadvantage to those who believe it? Classic nice guy dilemna, you finish last if others are willing to play mean and history's full of examples: the most influential cultures haven't just been wealthy, advanced, and powerful, but also willing to push others around. Kind of makes you wonder if in the end, nice cultures finish last too. The way things have changed in modern times, however, it's beginning to seem a bit like playing mean now carries the real consequence of others losing trust in you.

If there are any universal cultural traits out there, I really can think of only two. Every culture seems to have a problem with indiscriminate killing. This, for the obvious reason that people cannot perpetuate when there is no stability in life even continuing. Situations that resemble this one (The Reign of Terror, The Khmer Rouge Regime, and to some extent, China's Cultural Revolution) have generally not lasted long before some other, more stable system replaced them.

The other trait I mentioned is lying. We need to be able to believe what others are saying to us. Without some level of trust, even the smallest of societies looses cohesion and productivity. Completely outside of the religious reasons that it's "wrong" to do so, we castigate people who break these rules for a very good reason. They bring everybody else down.

It is of some small relief that every culture in the world recognizes these principles, and can never be made entirely of cheats who break these "rules", and yet very unsettling the idea that it's often those who do so that tend to rise to the peaks of their societies and then screw up others' as well.

In his book "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins at one point mentions a computer simulation repeatedly running different various strategies in a never ending loop of "prisoners dilemna". One surprising result was that very often the so-called "nice" strategies finished first. By "nice" we mean simply the programs which didn't do things like "attack" first unprovoked, break trust, screw over opponents/partners. Viewing the whole thing as not being a zero-sum game, where working with others, and not playing them false can get one ahead, it would seem, is actually a very sound strategy. Cheats have always gotten by in societies that are large enough to afford some, but not too many.

Now the world, it appears, has become like one giant society, one in which the different cultures interact with one another much as members in a small village do, and with technology increasing as it is, the village is getting smaller. When one person does something to another in a place this small, other people hear about it.

On "Policing" the World

Many people out there seem to view the current foreign policy of the U.S. as one of an unwanted watchdog to world. John McCain once said he felt that while everyone complains of the U.S. policing the world, he thought deep down inside people were really more afraid of the reverse: the idea that if no one did so, there would be all kinds of states ready to act greedily on their own behalf at the expense of others. In short: if america didn't do it, who would?

While I agree with the basic assumption that being a law enforcer is tough work, and sometimes a dirty job that someone has to do, I also have a major problem with the idea that those who do it can ever be considered truly altruistic. In many circumstances, law enforcers reap rewards by basically being above or beyond the law. They choose how and when they enforce it, and often times this leads to exemptions when faced with judging their own and every group of enforcers from knights and samurais all the way to our modern day cops has had its examples of corrupt members and bullies. Most every country out there wants to be the one to enforce things as they see fit but only those with power seem able to do so and once again we come to the disappointment that the most successful of countries is willing to push around others.

But the world is changing, as I said earlier, and with many a nation able to see what another one does, reputation on a world scale seems to be growing in importance in such a way that blatant flaunting will put the cheater behind. America's war in Iraq has been analyzed to death on moral grounds from both sides of the aisle (and it was idealogical reasons that needed to be used to gain approval), but the final result might just be a matter of the U.S. falling behind for what was merely a short term gain in the long run of things as many countries lost their trust in it.

Somehow I doubt that the use of force to get things will ever go out of style. Strength is, after all, admired in societies because it makes all other things possible, or rather the stability it provides does. It seems every culture out there that has become remotely successful on a world scale has some lingering legacy of a strong warrior caste somewhere in its ancestry. The world society at large has since become more connected, more educated, and more weary of violence and turmoil. No group seems able to dominate on the level possible before, the victors no longer kill the losers, and the perpetuation of the written word has left the idealogies of those defeated to persist long after they depart.

Threat of Violence

On December 10th, 2009 U.S. President Obama received the Noble Peace Prize on grounds many found fragile. While his message of hope had inspired many to take steps towards real and positive change, a common attitude of his detractors was that in terms of actual acheivement Obama had still yet to prove himself. Regardless of whether he deserved the award or not, one thing that struck me more than anything else was something he said in his speech, and has led me to a question I've had trouble coming to grips with. He mentioned at one point his admiration for men like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. with their non-violent approach to confrontation, but then (in what surely amounted to the most tension filled part of his acceptance speech) maintained that a strong leader for a country like the U.S. needed to know when to be strong and when to use force if necessary.

To be fair, Obama was (and still is iat the time of this writing) involved in two wars (in Afganistan and Iraq) which certainly could not be ignored as he received a prize for peace. Still, the whole idea of it all, at first seemed very much a contradiction to me. Gandhi and King Jr. were both willing to die as martyrs for their causes and more or less unwilling to take lives in doing so. I've thought quite a bit about this and realized that while their messages preached peace, brutality raged all around them, and that at least some of it was coming from people on their own side. They preached against this destructiveness on their behalf, of course, but the danger of it was still always there. Both men did indeed die for their causes, and upon their deaths tensions boiled over in a tide of violence that rocked their societies to their cores. I don't mean to criticize these men or their methods, but never before did I realize that despite what is a message of peace is carried a threat of violence should the other side ever go too far. I shudder to think of what might happen to America if Obama were ever assassinated, not only for the loss of a message and symbol but also of what backlash might occur. Something tells me the Tea Partyers would count themselves lucky to still have the skin on their backs let alone get off with mere reprimands in such a situation.

So whose memes are the strongest?

I remember hearing once that an ancient king whose lands stretched far and wide and encompassed many peoples decided one day that he wanted to learn more about the customs of those different groups within his borders. He sent out envoys and ambassadors on what might be described as an early type of anthropolgy project and discovered to his surprise that some of his subjects, of a small and remote group, ate their ancestors when they died as a sign of respect. This ran contrary to the practice of burning the dead which was common in the king's main territories, and true enough, when these people heard the notion of burning their dead, they were shocked and appalled. "Why would you burn your dead?!!" they cried, "How horrible and disrespectful can you be to leave your loved ones uneaten when they die!" The point, I suppose, was that looking through the prism of another culture almost anything could be seen as either ok or barbaric depending on whose point of view you started with.

It strikes me that today there are no groups out I can think of that eat their dead, despite the sort of ambiguity of the above tale. Indeed, a genetic study a few years back, delving into the causes of mad cow disease, revealed that cannibalization of almost any sort begins to set in motion a sort of mutation that causes the sickness. Makes sense from a genetic point of view. When there's nothing left to eat but your own kind, the body begins to believe something is wrong out there and begins mutation as a defense mechanism hoping to survive. Eating one's dead as a custom didn't make it to the modern age because there was something wrong with it, something incompatible, unworkable.

Cultures and societies have a habit of dropping the parts that don't work, much as most creatures do (to re-use an earlier analogy) with genes that bog them down. The major difference of course is that social groups have a choice in what to let go, and it doesn't take a specimen dying per say to put an end to detrimental memes as it does with genes. There are plenty of examples aside from those major ones I mentioned eariler: killing and lying, though I'm of the thought that most have ties to these two. Falsehoods and half-truths have a habit of slowing down and screwing up the groups which hold onto them, especially those that advocate the taking of lives.

Many Muslims in the world today do their best to disassociate themselves with Islamic Jihadists. It might not simply be that they find the acts they commit reprehensible, there just doesn't seem to be much at the end of the road for violent extremists; they rarely get what they want in this world because people stop listening to them.

Somehow I doubt that the use of force to get things will ever go out of style. Strength is, after all, admired in societies because it makes all other things possible, or rather the stability it provides does. It seems every culture out there that has become remotely successful on a world scale has some lingering legacy of a strong warrior caste somewhere in its ancestry.
Within every society lies the abilty to drop the contents which do not work. To survive is to change, to improve is let go the things which do more harm than good. No part of our culture is completely unremovable. The strength that traditions have lies within the cohesion they create as much as the lessons they provide. Their detraction lies in inflexibility when change demands it. Within the history of any group comes the time to compromise what we've grown accustomed to in the past, with what is necessary for the future. In these times of incredible change it might all seem to be happening too fast, but time has a habit seperating what can survive from what can't, and only it will tell which of our traits make it to the next round.

Traveling, Moving, Standing

It hard not to marvel about it all, watching the scenery pass by from the window of a moving vehicle. The mind just wanders from here to there the same way the vehicle does, and there's something about being in motion that just makes you feel like you're making forward progress; moving forward through time and through life just like your car or train or airplane is.

I'm reminded of the end of "Michael Clayton", a recent movie, where after everything that happens to the guy, he just gets into a taxi cab and when asked by the driver, "What are we doing here?", gives the guy a bill and simply says, "Here's 50 bucks worth, just drive." It's a sentiment I can understand, though I've found myself wondering about it recently. Thinking of why a person would do such a thing, the only idea I have is that the guy simply wanted to get as far away from it all as he could (both literally and figuratively), and barring the actual ability to just fly away from it he did the next best thing he could and hopped in a cab.

It's a strange thing to consider, but sometimes we just want to be moving, want to be in motion, want to feel like we're leaving the past behind us. When we cross a new threshold in life, the feeling of motion can just put a person at ease in a way nothing else can. I've recently begun to think about this more and more. Especially when I travel. But what in my past do I want to get away from? And what future am I moving towards?

It's useful at different periods in our lives to have some indicator of how much time is going by. When we're young it's easy. Not only have we lived for much shorter a period of time, making it easier to keep track of it all, but every year is a new grade at school, and often we have a new teacher and different classmates to help us differentiate from the last. As we get older and leave school behind, it becomes a little more difficult. We now have longer personal histories to remember and the years begin to add up and trail into one another. I often have trouble remembering how old I was when I did one thing or another and it's only after some thought about the other crucial events in my life that I'm able to figure it out. Generally I have to ask myself a question like: Where was I living when that happened? (since I've moved generally every 1-3 years), or Who was I dating?, or Where was I working? In some way or another, I think we all use some sort of an important event in our lives as an indicator of time within our personal histories. One set of indicators I realize I don't have that many others do has to do with what children they have, and in keeping track of their kids' ages or grades in school they find themselves anchored a bit more. Looking at the last three questions which I have a habit of asking myself has made me think that up to this point, my life has really not been all that stable considering my girlfriend, job, and place of residence all seem to change within about 1-3 years.

Now I've begun to think, as well, that the trips I take abroad are beginning to occupy that same function, and I sometimes find myself asking if I'd travelled to this place or that before event A or B or whatever occurred. When I went to Australia for the first time, I felt like a burden had been lifted off me. It was the first time I travelled since I had left Parkside House. Since moving, since Rich and everything else. Those were low times. I felt like I was moving away from it all then, leaving it all behind me. I've never realized before how cathartic an effect it all has for just this reason.

While many people have a habit of taking a vacation back to their favorite place, I've generally always looked to try and go to new ones, usually as different as possible. I like the element of discovery and exploration which doesn't tend to come so often when you've already been to a place. Being in a familiar place puts one at ease, but while you might be sacrificing that ease for a sort of tension in a new environ, you also sometimes gain surprise and delight. But all this isn't to say that you can't also feel free and relieved anyways. Regardless of if you're going to a familiar place or a new one, you're still miles away from your problems and from all the trappings of your regular, everyday life.

I've been trying to write about what realizations I've had with each new travel, and one other thing that's come to mind on my recent trip to India is how seeing so much more of this world has left me wondering just where I stand in all of it now. For a long time now I've had a different sense of morality than many others might, but sometimes I've really gotta wonder: Just what sort of sense of right and wrong am I even left with?

Sometimes when a person travels, they'll see things that would absolutely repulse other people. India actually has quite a few things I can think of right off the bat; It has the highest number of truly "arranged marriages" in the world; It is pretty much the only country to industrialize to some degree and still remain polytheistic (on the whole, nearly every other culture on the planet believes in only one god though they differ on which -Yaweh, Buddha, Allah, the Christian God); Impoverished people are looked down upon, reduced to begging, and roam the streets with animals that do the same yet are considered sacred; The children of the impoverished are slaved to an extent that rivals any other country out there -including perhaps China. And yet, all I can think sometimes is: This is how they live, and it's been this way for untold amounts of time, who the hell are we to pass judgement on another's culture? Perhaps it really is true that seeing India will change a person. And it really only becomes more difficult when I think of the other places I've seen as well, more than a few of them have shown me something or another to put me at unease. Sometimes I really do feel like the more I see the less I know, and seeing more of this world is simply giving counterpoint to everything I thought I knew.

Best Films of the Decade 2000-2009

It wasn't always a great decade, but at least it produced some incredible films. I missed a lot of great ones over the years, but I caught a lot of them as well. These are the ones that left the biggest impression on me between 2000-2009. Time sure does fly. Quite a few of these I saw in college and that was ages ago. Almost as difficult as choosing, is ordering. I just can't seem to do either properly. At any rate, here goes:

1. City of God

I thought this movie was better than any other I saw this decade. Watching it we see in detail, how in the corruption or absence of law enforcement, crime lords provide stability, urban warfare destroys communities, and that even in a world without rules there's a strange sort of justice or karma to it all. Casted using almost entirely non-actors who really lived the life, there's raw, realistic energy in the portrayals. It's the underworld of Rio De Janeiro's slums in all its harsh and gritty violence, but also its vibrance and liveliness. And at the end of it all a surprisingly uplifting message of hope. If someone can emerge out of this environment safely maybe there's hope for all of us.

2. Y Tu Mama Tambien

Two young guys embark on a road trip through Mexico with the company of a Spanish woman they just met recently and some less than pure intentions toward her. They don't let the fact that they're young, inexperienced, and don't really have a clue what they're doing slow them down, they only know what they want. In then end, however, they're absolutely no match for this woman who's not only experienced, but has nothing to lose. There are three main themes explored over the course of this film. The first one, sex, is very obvious. The second, Mexico, is seen more and more as the characters travel. The final, death, is explored intermittently throughout. A film that's dramatic and often very humorous as well, with a quiet revelation at it's ending that incredibly enough, turns everything you've already seen on its side for repeat viewings.

"Life is like the surf, so give yourself away like the sea..."

3. The 40 Year Old Virgin

Seems like comedy is the hardest thing to get people to agree on. So much seems to depend on a viewer's expectations and the ability to surprise them, to keep them unable to predict what will come next. While a lot of people I've met liked some other comedy better, I've met few who didn't like this one, and perhaps what was most surprising of all was just how thoughtful and heartfelt this movie is for a comedy. There's a lot more to it than just a bunch of jokes about sex (or some people's lack there-of), and I really couldn't name a comedy I liked more than this one.

4. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

A new classic is born. This is one that'll really stand the test of time, the same way the books have, and just as Star Wars did. Decades from now people will still be watching it and talking about it. From it, high-fantasy returned to the cinemas like never before. The first movie in the series was also the first block-buster to come after 9/11, and I sometimes wonder if traditional storytelling was what America wanted when it came. Regardless, it's an achievement of special effects, of performances, and literary adaptation.

5. Sideways

Two guys, Jack and Miles, head out to California's wine country for some final celebration before Jack's wedding. Miles just wants to relax, Jack just wants to chase women for one last time before getting married. They meet two women, drama and comedy ensue. It's strange to me that for all the drama in this film, it's not a chick-flick at all, if anything it's actually a guy movie. The central characters are two guys, and this movie certainly understands their way of thinking. For all of Miles's rationality, he's getting nowhere. For all of Jack's bad qualities, his cockiness pulls Miles out of his moping and into taking the chances he needs to. I was also surprised by just how humorous this film was, funnier than most of the so-called comedies out there.

6. Wall-E

Pixar has been turning out great films pretty much since it's inception and directly because of their influence, children's animated fare has largely become standard. "Traditional animation" is now in the minority. Other companies have emulated their style, but they remain unmatched. With Wall-E, it seems they've reached their pinnacle... for now at least. Aside from being full of new sights and wonderment it also has a very timely environmental message lingering in the background.

7. Gangs of New York

A lot of people didn't consider this a great movie, but I sure did. Perhaps the only epic Martin Scorcese will ever make, it's a film that really is unlike any other I've seen, with a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis that has become my favorite. The New York of the mid-1800's was more a collection tribes imported from other countries who brought their old rituals and hostilities from the old country to America with them. The streets and neighborhoods more like little kingdoms constantly at war with each other, and towering over them all is Day-Lewis's Bill the Butcher, who rules them with a cold, iron fist like a ruthless old monarch. It's a uniquely American story, although the America it portrays -one not yet transformed by time- is one completely alien to the one we know.

8. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

A martial arts film that transcends all others and understands the inner heart and soul of the warrior at it's poetic best. Other attempts have been made to mimic what Ang Lee accomplished here -most notably Zhang Yimou's Hero- but Crouching Tiger remains at the precipice. Few movies have ever made fighting look this beautiful.

9. The Dark Knight

In a decade where movies based on comic books enjoyed unbridled success, one of them stood head and shoulders above the rest. It continues what started with Batman Begins, showing the masked vigilante optimistic that he might not be needed soon, and perhaps can even hang up his mantle (a notion foreign to any anyone familiar with the character). That is until he's challenged by a sociopath with no conscience, and slowly begins to come to the sad conclusion that his Batman persona won't ever cease to be needed. The movie featured a performance by Heath Ledger as the Joker which has already become legend. What dark depths of his psyche Ledger reached into in order to create his portrayal of this character will never be known due to his untimely demise.

10. Okuribito (Departures)

For some reason death is a topic the Japanese have been able to do well for a very long time (Ikiru and Tokyo Story both come to mind). The sadness of loss, the lingering regret, and ultimate finality of it all. They're all in this movie, along with an anger and redemption that you don't always see in movies of this sort. As it drew to its close, I actually wanted to shout at the screen, tell the guy not to let it end the way he intended to, to just let it go. Perhaps it's because a few things have happened recently that changed me, or perhaps it's because me living in Japan makes it hit closer to home, but this film brought me closer to tears than any other I've seen.

11. Requiem for a Dream

Lyrical beauty, heart-wrenching sadness. This movie shocked me more than any other I've ever seen. The horrors which occur to characters we've come to care about leaves a hole inside and it's viewers changed forever. I can't think of anyone who'd want to get much deeper into drugs after seeing this film. The last 30 minutes of it will haunt me to end of my days.

12. Spirited Away

The best "traditionally animated" film of the decade, with all the wonder that Miyazaki has come to be known for in his works. His message is so subtle it's hard to see it; a deriding of the apathy of the young, and the triumph of personal improvement that comes of being challenged.

13. Closer

There isn't a single "good" character in this film, and the fates they get, they earn. Incredible performances, and a script with some fucking teeth on it, this movie was emotionally violent the way many others are physically. Truly difficult to watch. Like Kids and Requiem for a Dream, at the conclusion of this story, there is no catharsis whatsoever. The end result of all that selfishness is just the bittersweet knowledge that it's done.

14. The Matrix

It's hard to gauge the cultural significance of this movie, its importance is such that the word itself has entered our widespread cultural lexicon. It challenged our perceptions about reality and forced us yet again to question our relationship with machines. Like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon it made action beautiful and poetic. On a side note, I liked the second film a lot as well, though it's hard not to consider the second and third films to really be two parts to the same film, whereas the first stood alone. As such it lacked an ending and put everything on the third movie. We all know how that turned out.

15. There Will Be Blood

A movie that despite its taking place in the past carries a very relevant message for today. From the beginning, oil has been a dirty business, and we can begin to see the mess we've gotten ourselves into by becoming dependent on it and the people who run it. Another great performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, this time as a cruel and unethical oil man. Religion is of no interest to him and in the end no match for him, even though ironically enough, he does at one point need it order to gain the support of the very people he's cheating (shades of George W. Bush perhaps?) Eric Schlosser once said that there is nothing crueler than the free market unchecked, and this film shows us why. Only the most merciless seem capable of climbing to the top.

16. Munich

Few other movies -save maybe for The Good Shepherd- present the reality and bleakness of this subject matter. Revenge is seldom ever satisfying, it only teaches you that you can do to others the things that hurt you. The very existence of the spy is one with no soul and little joy. The whole profession of information gathering means ruthlessness and deception. There's no room for friends when somewhere down the line, either the people you know or the ones they know are going to be betrayed. And that's if you win. At the end of it all is the profound conclusion that in hunting terrorists we've become more like them, and the unanswered question of whether or not we're still just for doing so.

17. Avatar

More than a movie, this has become a cultural event, and as of this writing, one still going on. We haven't seen the last of James Cameron or filmmaking using the techniques and effects he's created here. Like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, the world he created was so well-imagined that reality just melts away watching it. The story resembles a lot of others that came before it, but is compelling and well-told nonetheless.

18. Syriana

Another trend to come about recently is the so-called "hyperlink movie". Traffic, Crash, and even Love Actually all come to mind as examples. This was my favorite. By surrounding the viewer with the plot we come to see how the characters' actions affect one another even though most never meet. It's very much like real life is in this regard. The central theme is oil, a macguffin that rather than being pursued the whole time by the characters, is actually surrounding them and so must be fought for with distraction and covert ways. It also shows us very clearly how America purposely tampers with and destabilizes other countries simply to get it cheaper.

19. Children of Men

"The whole world lost some of its laughter when the echoing of playgrounds ceased...", uttered one of the characters late in this film. By then the idea has already been hammered home. What would happen to us if suddenly we couldn't bear children? How would we react if the notion that humanity has no future became very real over-night? How many of us would try to burn everything, dance around the flames, and of those who didn't, how many would only be clinging on desperately because we didn't know how much longer we all have left? The world portrayed by this film is indeed decaying and nearly hopeless. That is until a woman is found who is pregnant. Suddenly there are those stepping up with renewed hope and purpose, and still others looking to take advantage of what might be humankind's final hope.

20. The Passion of the Christ

I've got to give it to Mel Gibson, he makes the movies he wants to make, the way he wants to make them, even if others aren't willing to back him. Along with Apocalypto, he showed the world very brutal, visceral images and heightened the authenticity by filming in rare languages (some of which are extinct). With The Passion he managed to create an experience unlike any other, and regardless of the man or his views, that's an amazing achievement.

Some other films I felt were runners up. I just can't seem to limit myself in the end. Probably shouldn't take the ordering of this all too seriously, beyond the first ten or so I liked most of them about the same.

Tropa de Elite

Another film from Brazil depicting the urban war-zone its slums have become. This time centering on a hard-to-the-teeth captain who leads the "Elite Squad" (Tropa de Elite) that goes into the places and situations the normal cops are too afraid to. With his own pending retirement soon to come, the story follows two younger soldiers who he feels might be worthy to take his position.

The Proposition

A western unlike any other I've ever seen, including Unforvgiven. It has many of the elements of other westerns -corrupt lawmen, bloodthirsty outlaws, hostile natives- but it doesn't take place the American old west, but rather the Australian outback during it's own "Old West" sort of period. Its idea: That Australia's outback, among the most savage of natural environments for man to survive in, produced equally savage men. A very brutal movie indeed.

Shotgun Stories

This movie captured the feeling and pace of life in the South like few others ever have. It's story, about bitterness and revenge erupting into violence between stepbrothers in a small town, is told so subtly that the tension becomes incredible by the conclusion.

Renaissance

Like Waking Life, it uses the same roto-scoping technique of painting cells to achieve it's realistic animation, though it didn't get quite the attention that movie did. Purposely done in black and white, to achieve a very slick, futuristic, sci-fi noir effect. Right up there with Blade Runner and Minority Report. The story has not been neglected either, and its questions of ethics with an emerging technology of immortality left me deep in thought.

Persepolis

An animated film that takes a personal and humorous look at the life of a spunky young girl from Iran who watches her whole world start to fall apart as its government begins to deteriorate from a free democracy into a conservative, repressive regime. An important film because it shows how the process of a democracy crumbling is slow and gradual, and before you know it, gone.

Harry Potter Series

Along with the Lord of the Rings, this series helped establish that fantasy literature could be a bankable commodity at the box office. Its long, drawn out story (7 books and 8 films when it finishes) is truly epic and starts with a main character who is young and watches them grow like no single movie every was able to. Another future classic for certain.

Documentaries:

American Drug War

A closer look at the toll America's "War on Drugs" has taken on the country. Over-packed jails, CIA smuggling and corruption, and no end in sight. It's discouraging to watch, as many of the documentaries are, and though this one swept its share of festivals, it is practically unknown to the mainstream because its subject matter puts it up against such powerful interests and people who wave flags and shout in louder voices.

Collapse

An alarming look at some of the things happening in the world right now with Michael Ruppert. Some of the things he points out are very frightening, in terms of simple math, supply and demand, we're using up our planet at an unsustainable rate and in the midst of a revolution we can only hope will proceed without much pain.

"If your camp gets attacked by a bear, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you only have to be faster than the slowest camper."

An Inconvenient Truth

A documentary that's proven to be very important and might actually end up making a difference in what's become a global problem.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Another important documentary which attacked a president who up until that point had almost complete immunity due to 9/11 and U.S. public perception of his importance.

Zeitgeist

Let the conspiracy theories begin. How much of this was true, and how much can really be taken seriously, I don't know. For an amateur-made expose, which found itself an audience willing to listen on the internet, however, it certainly was a piece of work.

Notable Mentions:

Babel

Minority Report

Pan's Labyrinth

Waking Life

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Almost Famous

No Country for Old Men

A History of Violence

The Departed

Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2

Eastern Promises

Michael Clayton

Tsotsi

Changing Lanes

American Gangster

Collateral

Amores Perros

Open Range

The First Genocide

Whatever happened to all the Neanderthals? The question is asked again and again by those who study or even have just a passing interest in those who simultaneously preceded and took a different path than the ancestors of modern humans. The ideas that we desecnded from them directly or interbreeded with them are slowly being eroded by newer evidence, both archealogical and genetic, and slowly a grim truth is being accepted as to why their disappearance coincides with a territorial expansion of our ancestors that enveloped land once theirs. I wrote earlier about the recent book, "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade, but some thoughts have been lingering with me regarding a particularly unnerving mid-portion of that book which dealt with some of man's darker behaviors, as well as some thoughts on the final fate of the Neanderthals.

The Neanderthals

The Neanderthals were very much like us, but also very different. Based on skeletonal remains that have been found, they were generally between five and five and a half feet tall, slightly shorter than average by today's standards, but a bit taller than the anatomically modern humans (or cro-magnon) living at the time. It is believed they had low, sloping foreheads, no chins -same as chimps today- and a good deal more muscle, weight, and strength than even we do today, despite their stature being lower than our own is now. Dressing an ancient, anatomically modern human in the clothing we have today would allow them to blend into a crowd, but doing so for a Neanderthal wouldn't keep them from drawing stares, or so the saying goes.

The Neanderthals used stone tools about the same as those of our ancestors up until about 50,000 years ago. These included axes, cleavers, and other cutting implements made of flaked stone, and probably a good deal other tools made of more perishable materials like wood, and animal hides which haven't survived into modern times. On the topic of perishability, they also almost certainly built shelters, but because of this quality, little remains and mostly they have been associated as being "cavemen" due to this type of place being the most common residence their settements have been found intact.

They were able to control fire, a big technological advantage of the ancient world unique only man and his close cousins. Also, some primitive works of art have been found in their dwellings, though it is open to debate as to whether they themselves were the creators of it or not. Like many tribes living in foraging or limited farming societies today, it is possible that much of what they made would not survive the ravages of time leaving us with limited information in this regard, to say nothing of the immaterial artifacts; their culture, language, and knowledge of the plants and animals on the land they inhabited. All of this we lack true evidence of and can only infer. In a similar way, stone-age tribes living today would not leave much behind to be analyzed.

In terms of other qualities that we generally associate with humans, they appear to have lived in small groups, stored up food as a safeguard against lean times (though not to the extent of the cro-magnons living at the time), buried their dead, and cared for their injured. The burials are inferred from what seem to be grave sites dug in the earth, in some cases with flowers or even jewelry that appear to have been placed there purposely. Their caring for their injured comes from skeletons showing very bad injuries that would've crippled or likely meant death for their victim had they been alone, but have instead healed over, implying that other, healthy members took care of them while incapacitated.

One of the most important unknowns is what type of linguistic ability they had. Much conjecture has been made based on what skeletal remains have been found. Most believe their ability to make sounds would have been greater than that of modern day primates, but not of the same level as our own, though Neanderthal bones for specifically the purpose of creating many sounds have been discovered, and again new genetic tests have shown they possess some of the same genes for language that we do. If they had lacked even the ability to use a language as complex as our own, it most certainly would've been a detriment towards the interbreeding of the two species, being a large obstacle to effective communication between two groups who would've almost certainly already had different languages to begin with.

Judging from where their remains have been found, they lived mostly in Europe but also in parts of the middle east, Isreal and the like. The middle east sites even suggest Neanderthal populations "moving in" after earlier settlements of cro-magnon, which in turn hints at early conflicts between the two ending with the retreat and displacement of the cro-magnons back into northern Africa by about 100,000 years ago.

The Cro-magnons

Recent genetic testing has led many to believe that by about 50,000 years ago, the early forerunners of modern man, the cro-magnon, appear to have whithered to mere 5,000. From this small number, it seems all humans today emerged. That those alive today are desended from Neanderthals or a hybrid mixing of them and cro-magnon has also been more or less put to rest by genetic tests on Neanderthal DNA extracted from old samples revealing a distinctly different genetic signature. If Neanderthal and cro-magnon mixed at all, it certainly wasn't widespread.

Because they were using roughly the same set of tools, techniques, and technologies as the Neanderthals, and because they were smaller in size and strength, it appears they were at the time being boxed in by the Neaderthals, unable to get out of Africa. When they finally escaped Africa, their likely point of exit was the Gate of Grief in the southern part of the Red Sea which would've had a much lower water level at that time, thus allowing them a release from Africa without having to go through territory occupied by the Neanderthals.

This wandering of people into unknown land was no expedition out looking for adventure, but rather a slow expansion with people striking further into the unknown only as they managed to safely populate a new area not far away from land they already knew. After crossing the Gate of Grief, they appear to have spread along the southern part of the Arabian penninsula until they reached India, at which point different groups would've split ways, some going into Asia, some south into the areas of modern day Indonesia and Australia which were connected largely by a landbridge at the time, and some going back northwest towards Europe, once more re-igniting the the conflict with the Neanderthals.

If there's one thing which can be proven without much doubt, it's that Neanderthals did very little innovating to the set of technologies they had. Progress and improvement were almost non-existent. The cro-magnon, by contrast, began making better tools, including barbed arrowheads, fishhooks (implying advancing fishing techniques), sewing needles, and art that was unequivocally their own. Most of the Neanderthals would have had none of these things.

In addition to this, the cro-magnon were better able to adapt and exploit their environments, (as mentioned before) stored more food for lean seasons, and lived together in generally larger groups than did the Neanderthals. The latter of these is of particular importance, because it would now mean that the groups of cro-magnons would outnumber the Neanderthals they encountered.

Warfare on a "small and primitive" scale

In pondering how conflict between the two species went down, it's instructive to look for a second at how the so called "primitive" societies of today do so. Hunter gatherer groups such as the !Kung San of Africa, the Dani of New Guinea, and low-stage gardeners such as the Yanomamo who live in the jungles of South America all practice nearly constant warfare. Though in the past, the concept of the "noble savage" who lives at peace with himself, with nature, and with other tribes similar to his own was generally accepted, a more realistic portrait of such peoples has recently emerged. Tribal peoples can be very brutal, and some very often engage in warfare.

While what occurred between the cro-magnon and Neanderthals would've been a conflict between two different species, it strikes me that the territorial qualities of different animals tends to come when they have more to fear from their own kind than of others. In addition to the tribal societies that have remained into modern times, there is one other animal that practices a very similar style of warfare to tribal men; the chimpanzee.

Like the anthropologists who first observed many of the tribal societies after their first-contacts in the 20th century, those who first observed chimps thought them to be peaceful, unassuming, and non-violent. These preconceptions were shattered by the research of Jane Goodall who witnessed and recorded some chilling altercations between rival bands of chimps.

Though they often stick to their own territory, chimps occassionally will band together and move silently into that of opposing camps. Their behavior is described as being strange while they do it, different than normal, tense, nervous, very alert. They spend a lot of time listening for calls from individuals of the rival band, sniff around a lot, and otherwise pay very close attention for anything that might lead them to isolated members of the opposing camp. They generally only attack if they're able to find opponents whom they out-number by about three to one or more (two to hold down the opponent, one to bite, hit, smack, and otherwise beat as closely to death as possible before retreating).

Though many animals fight with one another, chimps and humans seem to be the only ones who have decided that it's smarter to annihilate your opponent rather than risk their recovery and retaliation, and consequently adopt this as a strategy. Tribal humans engage in warfare similar to chimps. They engage in raids into enemy territory, though the manner in which they do so certainly involves more organization. They generally do so at night, often times right before dawn perhaps so their opponents will not be able to retaliate while it still is dark. The goal in the end is roughly the same, kill only a few of the enemy and then escape before they can mount a counter attack. While tribal people do occassionally fight in the open at scheduled times, and some have pointed out that fighting can at times seem more like a sport which can get called off due to rain, the overall facts that they fight regularly, and fight specifically to kill, mean that even though the casualties might be low in given encounters, they add up. The end result is devastating. In some tribes, warfare accounts for 30% of all deaths in their population. Imagine putting numbers like that to our own civilizations of millions and billions and just how destructive constant and deadly such warfare is to peoples of such small numbers comes much more clearly into focus.

The First Genocide

So what exactly was it like when the cro-magnons met the Neanderthal in a conflict that ended with the latter's death? We'll never know for certain, but while it's not impossible that tribes of the time could've rallied others to fight with them against outside aggressors, it also isn't entirely likely either. Like modern day tribes who engage in warfare, it probably often took the form of silent raids conducted in the dark. It was most likely fought between primarily those on the furthest outposts of their respective groups.

In addition to the violent way some tribal groups resolve problems amongst themselves and rival groups, another common way to do so is to simply get up and leave, taking those along who want to go with you. As larger groups would've had more disputes, and the land and subsequent ability to live on it at the time could only sustain so many, people of given tribes probably had to split off and strike into the unknown whenever a group became too large and unmanageable, and the land no longer able to sustain such a large number. "Pioneers" so to speak, who were living on the fringes may not have been able to retreat back without facing hostility from their own kind. The first Neanderthals to encounter cro-magnon settlers might likely have been living in the same kind of situation.

Imagine going into unexplored territory only to discover that a group of Neanderthals is already living there. Afraid to go forward, but unable to go back because behind you, those of your own kind are a more formidable foe. Cro-magnons did in the end have better weapons and higher numbers. All in all, the conflict was probably very one-sided, just as is almost every conflict documented when one group of people which has superior numbers and technology encounters another group whose land they want. One thing it wasn't, was rapid. The process took about 15,000 years with the end result being no more Neanderthals in Europe only by 34,000 years ago. Considering how long it took europeans to completely spread into Australia and North America, 15,000 years is glacial-speed.

The size and strength of the Neanderthals served them well against the ancestors of modern man for quite some time, but in the end cro-magnon persisted. In addition to higher intelligence, and better technology, cro-magnon was able to out-live and out-breed the Neanderthal. That cro-magnon could live to the age of 60 years compared to Neanderthal's 40, meant a lot more accumulated knowledge to serve their kind. The Neanderthal's greater size in the end meant it required more food to survive when compared to cro-magnon who could subsist on less.

* * *

I remember a friend telling me once that he thought some Neanderthals might've managed to eck it out much longer, that some even made it to the middle ages, and that stories of beast-men and grendels killed by Beowulf weren't just fantastical tales, but might simply have been exaggerated ones of creatures that were real but whom they couldn't understand. While it's interesting, given the dates we know for certain, this doesn't seem too likely, and surviving the onslaught of primitive man only to be killed by the steel of medeval Europe doesn't sound too appetizing either. Another group of hominids representing a different branch from cro-magnon and Neanderthal managed to live safely in the remote isolation of an island called Flores in Indonesia up until about 13,000. Considering that this group only managed to survive so long by being far removed from our ancestors, some of whom were just beginning to domesticate crops and create agriculture at that time, and that Neanderthals in general were unable to even withstand people without this advancement, makes it seem a bit far-fetched to think they made it to the middle ages.

Depending in how human one considers them to be, the fate of the Neanderthals could very well be considered the first genocide, the intentional destruction of an entire species. Humankind destroyed its closest relatives long before we ever existed. In defense of ancient man, he probably did so out of some degree of survival, and perhaps lacked the ability or foresight to empathize with an intelligence such as the Neanderthals, however similar it was to his own. As for the Neanderthals, I'm sometimes left wondering how close to us they actually were. They almost certainly were aware of themselves and their existence, but I wonder if they knew what was happening to them as it did. Did they realize they were dying, and eventually would cease to exist? In another way, what happened to them represents a very grim portent of how human history would play out again and again as societies and civilizations would exterminate each other for future millenia to come.

Drunken Warrior Poet

Drunken Warrior Poet

To learn about life through struggles and fights,
blinding revelations from over-medication
the mad ecstasy of chaos and battle
life's Gordian Knot elegantly unravelled

Brain full of bong resin and barely hops
and answers to life found in the bottoms of cups
mind being forged by the all-seering blaze
of unending nights spent in unending raves

I see the world crystal through five times distilled
drunken comprehension clarity unfiltered.
If life is drug then I'm drunk all the time
quick write down before I regain my mind.

Till the thoughts bleed straight to my pen from the head
Till my thoughts lay spilt out on the paper instead
Till it's all flowed out stream of consciousness
Till the voice floating round in my mind abets

Mad with Knowledge...

It's often been said that ignorance is bliss, but if this is true, does that mean knowledge is pain? If one were to follow things through to their natural conclusion, wouldn't knowledge then be corrosive to our happiness? It's certainly been the subject of many jokes, that those who don't try to set their sights any higher, suffice by aiming low, hit their targets more often, and can find themselves entertained by things so simple that others regard it as absolute nonsense. Isn't it the simple things in life after all that give us the most satisfaction? Sometimes by learning more and more, the only thing we come to really know is just how screwed up everything is. Could we really be any better off in the dark?

A Nostalgia of Youth and Past Alike

I can't help but think that the conception of the unintelligent being more content than others comes in part from an idea that children are the least educated, and at the same time the least burdened. As the years pile their knowledge upon us, the weight of it all begins to slowly crush many of our dreams, and with it usually, our gentle and childish spirit. Of course this analogy can only be taken so far because of the fact that someone out there has to take care of the child, and consequently, take responsibilty. We can't return to our childhood ways of thinking, not simply because we can't just forget or unlearn the things and push the difficult parts out, but also because we've taken on responsibilities that cannot be pushed back onto our parents or someone else. There is, however, another major defect to this way of thinking lying beneath it all: we often continue to look back at our childhoods with an idealized perfection that goes beyond a simple longing or nostalgia.

While we generally think of our youth as being the best part of our lives it isn't always simply because we were free of obligation and responsibilty. We have a habit of sanitizing our own pasts within our memories if for no other reason than to make the future bearable. Even thinking back a short period ago in one's life provides an interesting example. Thinking for only a moment where were you just six months or one year ago, generally a very clean, sterile version of events springs to mind. Often we remember the things that made us happy first, but once you really begin to question how you felt while you went about your everyday life, the full picture comes to focus. It's easier to remember the good times you had throughout the years, laughing with friends, rather than the times you spent crying alone in your own room.

How often do parents tell their children that things were so much better when they were young? That things have changed and it's mostly been for the worse, that even the things which make our lives easier have robbed us of the building of character which those difficulties provide. It's nothing new that members of the older generation will complain about how the young lack responsibility, motivation, and morality. About how they're just different, really.

In considering the generational divide, I've felt for some time that the young and old feel angry at the world for entirely different reasons. The young (especially teenagers) tend to be upset because they want the freedoms and other advantages of being treated as adults, but the world still sees them as children. They often rebel and as they age they change the world wanting to make it different than the one they feel held them down as they grew up. The old, on the other hand, tend to be upset because they view the world as having changed and that they are no longer the ones harnessing that change, it's all been taken from them, life's passing them by, and now it's all changing so fast they can't keep up. Sometimes I wonder if what the aged are really complaining about when they do it, is just being old themselves, and that what made things so much better in the past they remember, is that they were young when it happened.

The past was not sparkling and perfect in anyone's life, but we all look back on our own with nostalgia, even though there were of course problems we all had growing up, as well as struggles unique to each generation. When you apply this idea of sanitizing one's past, you begin to see examples of it extend even further to whole periods of time. The old sitcoms from the 50's present a very idealized version of the era they portray (the movie Pleasantville did an excellent job of demonstrating and deconstructing this point), and if you apply this concept even further, so too is many conservative americans' view of Victorian America, and many americans' view in general of the founding fathers and colonial era. In the U.S. we often have a habit of putting the ancient Greeks on a pedestal as if they were the forerunners of our democracy so to speak. The ancient Greeks themselves believed they had descended from an even greater culture that preceded their own, which in turn believed the same thing. In his book "The Third Chimpanzee", Jared Diamond dubbed this phenomenon quite appropriately as, "The Golden Age that never was".

Truth, Lies, Reality

I've understood for quite some time that the past was not the perfect, idyllic vision I once held of it, and yet the question which now confronts me is: Has any of this made me any happier? Doesn't life keep on kicking you when you're down anyways, and can you really blame a person for wanting to escape reality when everything is just so fucked up? The people who break the rules and cheat tend to get their way, the people who are honorable get screwed. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, those with the most will always be on top and never stop wanting more. I've sometimes wondered if perhaps all that's actually happened by realizing something like the concept behind our nostalgia of the past, is that I've robbed myself of what is a natural defense for us to duck into the bliss of ignorance. There are certain things we'd rather not know, aren't there also some things we're just better off not knowing?

When the truth feels unbearable, many of us resort to telling lies to spare others what we feel will just hurt or burden them. The so-called "white lies" we tell others, because we're trying to be merciful and not malicious. When everything is wrong with your life and you're sad and hurt beyond words, and then pass someone in the hall at work who asks you how you're doing and you simply reply, "Fine" you're already doing this starting to do this. When you believe another person's similar reply even though there is clearly something wrong, you're accepting the relief that comes without probing further. We all have our own problems we have to deal with in our own way, but some problems belong to us all and we simply believe things that cannot be true as means of escape.

The ignorant are not immune to misfortune, even children find themselves unhappy and reduced to tears, and even people who avoid the harsher truths of life have to deal with some sorts of hardship when it come right down to it. Accidents, injuries, sickness, taxes, arguments with other people, rotten luck, life. These things are everyone's problems and they happen to the ignorant as well as the wise, the ignorant just don't understand how and why and are left more confused than others. We can choose the comfort of believing lies or we can confront the pain of the awful truth. White lies may ease our discomfort for as long as we can believe them, but therein lies the risk not only of learning the painful truth, but also the added agony of discovering you've been lied to. Lies may indeed be necessary, but the advantages they hold are illusion, the advantages the truth holds are of reality.

What we are learning now

There is one final implication of knowledge I'd like to to address, an idea that has been lingering in my head for the past few days. It pertains to some of the possible dangers of knowledge. While the whole argument of "knowledge is power" and "power corrupts" could be easily linked and fuel much more discussion, I don't want to dwell too much on that for what I had in mind has also to do with what we are (and aren't) learning on the whole today.

The term "specialization", when used in an evolutionary sense, refers to certain species becoming so specifically adapted to one particular aspect of their environment that they often end up becoming dependent on it. Pandas and koalas, for example, have developed very specialized digestive systems for bamboo and eucalyptus respectively, and both species are now at a point where neither can live without their particular source of food. Specialization is generally viewed as a disadvantage in an evolutionary sense because in addition to the multitude of other things that can kill off a species (i.e. predators, natural disasters, etc...) a simple thing that merely threatens what they are dependent on (a famine or disease affecting bamboo or eucalyptus for the case of pandas and koalas) has the potential to devastate their population and the risk of extinction is therefore much higher. Humans, with our ability to eat many types of plants as well as meat and survive in hot as well as cold climates are considered to be very generalized (or unspecialized), and hold an advantage by being able to change food sources when one runs out or move to a new area if one becomes unstable.

I watched "Gorillas in the Mist" a short while ago, became interested in the basis of the events and poked around Wikipedia until I ended up reading about Louis Leakey, a famous archaeologist, and important figure in the field of human evolution. He helped set up and guide the initial placement of Dian Fossey, as well as Jane Goodall, into positions where they'd observe primates in a natural setting. One quote of his that I read, in particular, has stuck with me for the past few days:

"We know from the study of evolution that, again and again, various branches of animal stock have become over-specialized, and that over-specialization has led to their extinction. Present-day Homo sapiens is in many physical respects still very unspecialized− ... But in one thing man, as we know him today, is over-specialized. His brain power is very over-specialized compared to the rest of his physical make-up, and it may well be that this over-specialization will lead, just as surely, to his extinction. ... if we are to control our future, we must first understand the past better."

-From L.S.B. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors, Fourth Edition, final page.

I've been thinking to myself recently of just what could possibly cause humankind's noticeably high brain power to be any kind of a detriment, let alone one which could lead to his downfall. It's hard to believe it could have any negative potential when considering all the accomplishments we now enjoy that are based upon it, things such as technology, logic, increased food production, science, transportation, communication, etc...

When I look to the future, it's difficult not to be excited by the seemingly limitless potential of humankind. Maybe I'm just getting older, but recently I've also been left with a sense of unease at times at just how uncertain it all is. I heard recently that the most in-demand jobs of today, didn't even exist 10 years ago, and that most of the students of today are basically going to school to prepare for jobs that don't yet exist, to fix problems we don't even know about yet.

Given our propensity to kill one another, it could be said that knowledge has indeed become a very dangerous thing. We are now far more efficient at doing so than ever before, nuclear weapons alone could destroy the planet many times over. It's no exaggeration to say that society stands balanced on a razor's edge and could tip over at any time. Robert E. Howard once observed coldly through one of his characters that: "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind, Civilization is unnatural, a whim of circumstances." It's difficult not to be pessimistic when littered throughout history are examples of mankind's savage nature to kill others. Society as we know it could fall. We could turn on one another, or we could create the means for our destruction by tampering too much with mother nature. In either event, many of us could die very suddenly.

But what of the aftermath should the apocalypse ever come? The skills it would take to survive (hunting, farming, other ways of acquiring food and building shelter), aren't too widespread within the common people of today, and such an event would certainly take most of us completely by surprise. In today's society nearly all centers around the sea of information. Those who can navigate it successfully thrive, those who can swim it survive, those who cannot sink to the bottom. The fact that we now all seem to be learning things for jobs and problems which might not even yet exist might just be another way of saying we lack the skills to survive in the following turmoil of a cataclysm. I'm not saying that our priorities aren't straight, but our knowledge could very well prove to not only be the proximate source of our own extermination, but the final nail in the coffin in the form of our own unpreparedness.

The stance of the cautious optimist really seems best. We cannot negatively dwell only on the harsher aspects of the past and hope to still remain optimistic and boldly move into the future. To do so is to remain in darkness. But the mixed consequences of knowledge should not be underestimated as well. Knowledge does have the capability to do us harm as well as enlighten and improve. It strikes me that in many ways, we do fear certain types of knowledge; we fear to know more about the things and people we find despicable, even though such things can sometimes be helpful. It makes sense to some degree, why would any decent person want to understand the mind of a psychopath unless we wanted to try and stop them? By learning of things we hate or fear we become afraid that we'll grow to be more like that which we study. It amazes and frightens us that while in the beginning we can't help but turn away, after a while we can't stop looking.

"I was just guessin’, At numbers and figures, Pullin’ the puzzles apart
Questions of science, Science and progress, Do not speak as loud as my heart"

- Coldplay, The Scientist

"Write page after page of analysis
Looking for the final score
We're no closer than we were before"

- Keane, Perfect Symmetry

Looking at the way our artists view things I sometimes wonder if they represent the caution and skepticism present in us all everytime a new discovery is made. Sometimes I feel like the words of our poets and singers simply tear away at those of our great thinkers and inventors. As if to say the mind of humankind will never be a match for our hearts, that despite all our realizations we can't conquer misery or hardship, that for all of our knowledge it in the end brings us no happiness.