Space is Cold

There's no point in asking, you'll get no reply
Oh just remember I don't decide
I got no reason it's all too much
You'll always find us out to lunch

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
A vacant

Don't ask us to attend 'cos we're not all there
Oh don't pretend 'cos I don't care
I don't believe illusions 'cos too much is real
So stop you're cheap comment 'cos we know what we feel

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant ah
But now and we don't care

There's no point in asking you'll get no reply
Oh just remember a don't decide
I got no reason it's all too much
You'll always find me out to lunch
We're out on lunch

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty ah
But now and we don't care

We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant

And we don't care

I’ve had this blog going for over six years. In that time, I’ve done a pretty good job of not hinting at personal details that could identify who I am. This was done so that people would not get to know me and to protect the guilty. But I think it’s time to reveal who I am.

My name is Rick Marshall. I live in Needham, MA. I’m a civil engineer with a wide range of interests. I am 31 years old. I’m divorced and have no kids but one dog – Spark. You can e-mail me at RMarsh29@yahoo.com.

Why reveal myself now? Why not? No one read this and my friends and family don’t know about it but some day they might and they deserve to know who I am and what I was thinking about life and the universe and my interests and run-on sentences.

So if you know me, e-mail me or post comments – I’d love to hear them. Now off to watch the Bruins against their hated rival, the Canadiens.

I was born into a Catholic family. They were standard Italian Catholics. I have two brothers and two sisters, so I am five of five. My family went to Catholic mass every Sunday. When I was more of an adult I still went, if I remember, to late teens, maybe early 20s. We celebrated the standard Catholic holidays. I was baptized, received first communion, went to confession, and was confirmed. I did not go to Catholic school but did attend weekly CCD for religious education through tenth grade when I was confirmed. We did the Lenten thing of no meat on Fridays. I went to Ash Wednesday service and got the ashes on my head. We went to mass on those holy days of obligation outside of Sunday. We said grace before dinner at home. I even went to a couple of summer day camps for Christians (not Catholic churches) at nearby churches, mostly with friends.

Why am I telling you this? The Catholic church (and Christianity generally) had its shot at me. It had me from birth to about age 22 in some way, shape, or form. I did most of its rituals, practices, and activities. It had me at an impressionable age and worked through people I lived with daily, who raised me, and that I have an emotional bond with - that should have been a pretty powerful way to keep me. But it failed miserably - I’m pretty anti-religious. Not just anti-Catholic, or anti-organized religion, but anti-religious.

It all evaporated so easily. Now there were obvious signs I was not religious looking back (heck even at the time).

- I disliked going to mass. What squirming 5 to 10-year old wants to be forced to go to this boring event where people sing, stand, sit, kneel, and speak in words that really make no sense or have no relevance to the life of that 5 to 10-year old. Now this is not a religious argument – no 5 to 10-year old wants to go to concerts, lectures, or other stuffy event, secular or religious. But even when I got older, I had no interest. I have even gone in the decades since and I wonder, “What the hell are they talking about?” Pretty much most of what I hear at mass is either common sense, good general advice one can derive without religion, or religious mumbo jumbo. Mass bores me to tears. My best mass memory? When I was in grad school living out of town, I always came home for Christmas (still do). I indulge my parents by going to Christmas mass – there’s no reason for conflict over it. One year we decided to go Christmas Eve to a mass in the late afternoon that “counts” for Christmas day. The church we went to was jam-packed. There were only individual seats here and there and we could not sit together. So we split up. I lingered in the back while they stood in the aisles or found individual seats. I said to myself: “This is stupid. I’m at a jam packed mass that does nothing for me and I have to stand to listen to this jibberish?” So I went out for a walk. I knew what time mass would approximately end and timed my walk so that I would be back in time. I didn’t go for a spiritual journey – in fact I walked by a local chain restaurant and was sorely tempted to go in for a drink. But somehow blowing off that mass made me feel real good and stuck in my memory. The other times I remember mass is basically for getting in trouble with my brother when we got the giggles. Someone and for some reason every once in a while something would set us off – something religious or what not and we would start giggling. I would have to pinch myself to retain my composure. We might separate ourselves in the pew so we would not be next to each other to egg each other on and get the other to laugh, but often all it would take is shared eye contact and we would be working very hard to suppress our laughter. So you can see, I was very moved by mass and took it seriously. I took it so seriously that once I left home for grad school I did not go to mass (except the time I had to go to build “church cred” to get a letter so I could be the godfather of my nephew – which also meant donating money).

- I disliked going to CCD. To this day, I don’t know what the acronym CCD stood for, but it’s essentially Sunday school for kids who go to public school. It was Saturday morning for me through about 7th grade and then it became a weekly night event through 10th grade when you are confirmed and made an adult in the eyes of the church and presumably have completed your formal training. But again, what 5 to 15-year old wants to get up on a Saturday morning to go to CCD? I remember distinctly being pissed off that from Monday through Friday I had to get up early for public school. Then I had to get up early on Saturday for CCD and then early on Sunday for church. Seven days of the week and no sleeping in! And then there was the content of CCD – I don’t even remember! I’m sure we were taught Catholic teachings but I can’t remember all that much, I’m sure we learned Catholic processes and procedures. I’m sure we learned about their theology – but it never really interested me. And then there was the social component. The kids in my cohort were not really my friends. None were living on my block, which was my daily existence. A few were in my schools, but most were not. So I saw these people once per week, they weren’t my daily friends and they weren’t all that interesting and they were each other’s friends from their schools so there was an established network I was not part of. One more reason not to be interesting. It didn’t get better when I moved to the weeknight version. Same thing – kids from a high school I didn’t go to and who were not part of my daily life.

- I loathed confession. What 5 to 15-year old wants to confess his wrong doings to an old man? In the Catholic church you can take confession either face-to-face or through a screen so the priest may not know who you are. The details are fuzzy, but I think initially we were given the choice to do the screen (which I always chose) but my recollection was later we had no choice – we had to do face-to-face. In either event, confession was always part of CCD. My parents never took us or told us to go and I certainly never sought it out. So every once in a while as part of CCD they would march us into the main part of the church to wait in line for confession. What did I do? I spent most of my time in line waiting to see the priest by trying to think of generally innocuous sins I had actually committed or think up some that were plausible. I sure as hell wasn’t going to tell this guy deep secrets about my life – who the fuck was he? I usually fessed up to disrespecting parents, fighting with siblings, not praying enough, swearing, or some such nonsense. There was almost no greater relief than finishing confession – not because I felt my sins were relieved but that this forced event where I was supposed to tell all my deep secrets and failings was over and I escaped successfully. I can’t imagine why anyone goes to confession. And I thought this not as a 30 year old man, but a 5 to 15-year old.

- Rudimentary studying of history and philosophy made Catholic teachings and claims of universal and unique truths crumble within weeks. I don’t really remember what I thought of Catholic teachings or the existence of god prior to college. Maybe I believed, maybe I didn’t really give it much thought. I specifically remember taking a class on Greek Civilization in the first year of college. There we learned that many of the pre-cursor beliefs, language and imagery of Christianity were straight from those “pagan” Greeks. You learn that the Christians and the Catholic church are one in a line of philosophical thought that borrow and develop on the other. You can take the stand that the Catholics just stole this and its not unique or you can take the stand that Christianity has a lot of interesting things to say and one should consider them, but it has no claim on absolute truth. Call it relativism, but Christianity and Catholicism as a philosophy is interesting and worth considering (and in true philosophical tradition, some of it should be accepted and some should be rejected). Its dogmatic claims (along with other religions) on matters that really are philosophical undermines it. On what basis are Catholic beliefs universal and ever true? Why is this the way to live life? Because of evidence and rationality or dogmatic insistence that this-is-the-way-don’t-ask-why? When the answer to the question of why I should live a certain way, act a certain way or believe a certain thing is god wills it, it’s in the Bible, or some other childish claim, then you’ve lost me and you’ve lost the argument. Given that religion is based on this, they have lost the argument with me.

- I don’t feel it. Related to the mass thing – I just don’t get it. I sit in mass and I just don’t understand what is really being said. Maybe I have a faith problem, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t feel god or faith in the way I presume these believers do.

In the end, Catholicism specifically, and religion generally, is irrelevant to my life. Having said that, I find religion fascinating as philosophy and like it for that element – but it’s not dogmatic truth – it must compete in the “marketplace of ideas.” I think it has influenced history and it’s definitely part of history and its very interesting to me. It’s relevant to my life in that others give it importance in their lives so I must face it, hear about it, have my politics and laws influenced by it.

I was reading a NY Times article about Rick Santorum's "faith journey." One of the premises is that he has deepened his Catholic faith due to the influence of his wife. The article describes how his wife is from a Pittsburgh family of some note due to her father's medical practice. It describes the family's Catholic upbringing but also notes that in her early 20s, Santorum's wife was having a relationship with an abortion-providing doctor and this caused tensions. Ok, standard sounding stuff.

The doctor she was having a relationship with was in his 60s. He delivered her. Do I need to say more about what issues this might be raising?

It also turns out that the doctor she was involved with was heavily into liberal politics in the area and she joined him in fundraisers and what-not.

Then the article states she met Rick Santorum, a conservative politician.

Those are the facts. Someone does assert that her change from liberal politics to conservative politics was "a total 180. Her change could not be more extreme.” That's an assertion but I have no facts.

What am I trying to say here? I know, Mrs. Santorum is not running for office and should not the subject of our scrutiny (unless there is something illegal - which there is not). But just reading this, I get a sense that she has daddy-issues. She comes from a large family. She probably didn't get all the attention she wanted. She rebelled against her daddy by rejecting her Catholic faith, shacked up with another doctor, an older doctor, an older abortion-providing doctor, an older, abortion-providing, liberal activitst doctor. Who gave birth to her. I smell daddy issues. She either outgrew them or Rick is her new daddy.

Yes, this is completely practicing psychology from a distance and without a license. But I also hear stories like this all the time in politics, where these personal issues drive people rather than any rational thought. How does one go from conservative to liberal to whatever and back so quickly and completely? Can people change - certainly. Do I trust those who change so radically and so quickly, regardless of their stripes? Hell no. This is either them working out identity or other issues and not public policy, or they had no core beliefs in the first place that they can simply discard one set for a completely opposed set. This offends me as someone who studied political science and is interested in political philosophy and ideology. This shows me people who aren't thinking about things, but emoting or having knee-jerk reactions.

The discussion about what Democrat comes after Obama will become relevant to planners and strategists. If Obama wins re-election in November 2012, he will have two years before his lame duckness really kicks in. Traditionally, people start thinking about this successor after the off-year elections of second term, which in this case is November 2014. The race to succeed him, on both sides, will start in earnest in early 2015.

If Obama fails to win re-election, then Democrats, besides having to do some soul-searching, will begin thinking about who will challenge the new Republican president in November 2016. In this scenario, Democrats will likely begin to be identified in 2014 – following the new President’s first year in 2013 and potential Democratic leaders shaping a message and supporting candidates to help Democrats in the November 2014 congressional elections.

Who are these Democrats? Perhaps its personal anecdote and bias, perhaps it’s the current search for a Republican nominee and the several articles I’ve read and discussions I’ve heard, I know who are potential Republicans in 2012 (we can see them now) and 2016 if Obama wins (they are mentioned as “in the wings”). The former are on stage: Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum. The latter include Senators (Rubio) and Governors (Scott Walker-WI, Chris Christie-NJ, Nikki Haley-SC, Bobby Jindal-LA, Mitch Daniels-IN). Of the 2012 nominees, I only see life for Santorum post-2012, so far. Gingrich is done if he doesn’t win this time. Romney is done if he loses either the nomination or the general election. This (I assume) is Paul’s highwater mark and therefore he can run again but he will not be any more competitive than 2012. Cain, Bachman, and Palin are out. Perry will have to do some major re-tooling to be competitive in a 2016 nomination fight. I know there is the thought that you get experience the first time and become a better candidate, but I just don’t see it here. Romney had legs for 2012 from 2008 because he had some success. Perry had no success – his best day was the day he announced – it was all downhill from there. Pawlenty may have something still in him but he did not benefit in 2012 from getting any candidate experience because he dropped out too soon. So in 2016 if he were to run, he’d essentially be starting from scratch.

From the Senate, the Republican’s have Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Thune (R-SD). Graham bucks the party a bit so that’s a bit problematic. Thune is young and good looking and articulate. But I don’t know much else about him.

Former AR Governor Huckabee is an interesting possibility. He seems like he had his shot and skipped 2012, but probably has some life in a GOP nomination battle in 2016.

The fact that I could write the preceding with little research indicates I know and pay attention to future Republicans. But what about Democrats? Can I off the top of my head, write about their future prospects? Maybe because President Obama is still in office I’m less aware of who potential Democratic successors are and they are not being publically discussed or the field is weak.

Let’s look at some old timers from 2008:

Dennis Kucinich – Forget it and he may lose his House seat.

Hillary Clinton – She swears she’s done but she’s an obvious person to discuss.

Joe Biden – I think he’s done and may have said so.

Joe Lieberman – He’s not even a Democrat.

John Edwards – Dead man walking. I don’t think even he thinks he can get into this.

Ok, as we look for fresh(ish) faces in the Democratic party let’s go over the list from the top of my head.

Governors – uh…I got almost nothing.

- Andrew Cuomo – Ok, I can see him attempting a 2016. He will have been in office four years (?) and it’s traditional to consider the New York Governor to be a possible Democratic contender, especially with a pedigree.

Senators – uh…I got nothing.

- Harry Reid - No way

- Joe Manchin (D-WV) – Too conservative – the Rick Perry of Democrats?

- Dianne Feinstein – Only I think she would be good – why is she not in contention?

Others – uh…I got almost nothing.

- Tim Kane, former VA Governor – Assuming he wins the Senate seat, he might be the mix of moderate and progressive Dems might believe can win. If he loses the Senate, some luster comes off, but doesn’t kill him.

- Russ Feingold, former WI Senator – Too liberal? Not doing enough post-Senate defeat (lost 2010). I put him in because he considered running in 2004 and 2008.

Ok, now let’s do some research:

Democratic Governors

On first blush, looking at the list of the 20 current Democratic Governors, only a couple stick out as names I know. They sure may be doing great work but they have no name recognition. I’ve heard of Jerry Brown (CA) (long history), Hickenlooper (CO) (sort of), Abercrombie (HI) (because he’s a former House member), O’Malley (MD) (local), Patrick (MA) (long standing), Dayton (MN) (personal interest), Nixon (MO) (barely), Cuomo (NY) (legitimate). None of them are known to me for stirring speeches, bold actions, national recognition that would make them Presidential buzz, EXCEPT Cuomo (for reasons above), Patrick (I’m stretching here but his longevity in job has to count for something), Nixon (no basis in accomplishment except he won a swing state).

Democratic Senators:

Mark Begich (D–AR) – Only because you figure if he can win in AR, maybe he has some qualities for national appeal

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) – Only because I’ve heard his name before

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – Likely too liberal – He’s a labor Democrat that could excite the party but his appeal is limited; but he did win OH.

Christopher Coons (D-DE) – Only because he had a high profile Senate contest

Jeff Merkley (D-OR) – I dunno why I put him on the list

Mark Udall (D-CO) – He and his brother are in Western, purple states and have a famous father who ran for president.

Tom Udall (D-NM) – See above.

None of these guys jumps out at me for speeches, active national profile, actions taken etc.

So in sum, who do I have for possible runners in a 2016 Democratic presidential nomination race?

Hillary Clinton: Still possible until she doesn’t run in my opinion. The other problem is by 2016 she will have been on the scene since 1991 – nearly 25 years! I presume the Republicans will have a younger, fresher face from their ranks (unless it’s Romney) – the contrast of “here are the old Democrats again” could be an issue for her.

Andrew Cuomo: Although not at popular as his father was in 1991, we may have the case where he decides to run to show that a Cuomo can make a decision. I don’t think it hurts him to explore and even if he does ok, he can look at 2020 (assuming there’s not a Democrat already there).

Tim Kane: I think he has to win the Senate seat. He also can afford to wait because he’s still relatively young. But being in the Senate too long gives you an easy record to pick on (votes, speeches, compromise) and leads to the usual – too legislative to be an executive

Russ Feingold: He will run but won’t make it into the primaries before he drops out.

Martin O’Malley: Interesting prospect and will have been office quite a while by then. I think he thinks about it.

A Udall – One of them will try and probably not make it to the primaries but could establish a name for a future run.

That gives me six Democrats that I think have something but only a couple may excite the party and who know what the general electorate would think. So things aren’t as bad as I thought but these people need to step up a bit if they are to be potential nominees (except Clinton – she runs and its tough for others).

The NSA is scary enough - who knows what they are doing - but they have an element with the creepy title "Central Security Service." What is that? If that isn't Orwellian then what is?

I recently struggled a bit with a few movies. I struggled in the sense of “Did I like them?”, “Are they good movies?”, and “How does one decide?” I saw them for free on recent long airplane rides. The first was “Thor,” the second was “Inglourious Basterds,” and the third was “Gran Torino.”

Now the first item might have been my mood. That could have affected my ultimate judgement of each. Harder to judge.

The second is it could be based on expectation. For Thor, I generally enjoyed it as a movie without much thinking involved. I knew it would be an action movie based on a comic book and all the expectations for those. I knew it was generally well received but not great. It did the job of entertaining me, but I would neither have sought it out nor will I choose to watch it again. It was entertaining and had its moments but ultimately followed a formula and is forgettable.

Inglourious Basterds was a bit different. I heard it was good and knew it was Tarantino, so I had some expectation. The separate elements of the story were very well done and entertaining, but overall I felt that the approach was not the right one for the material (WWII, Nazis, and the Holocaust tangentially). The material was more important and was mis-handled for the tone and theme. Maybe I’m just being overly sensitive and prudish. I realize it’s a cartoon and should not be taken seriously. But I guess I’m afraid its cowboy approach will infect the minds of the youth who will think of WWII and the Nazis in this way – too simplistically and the celebration of moral ambiguity (rather than its recognition). That the allies committed acts that are immoral and likely against the Geneva Conventions is likely true (so the killing of unarmed, captured Nazis is wrong but to the audience, emotionally satisfying that evil gets its due, damn the niceties of the legal world). I don’t doubt that tough moral choices had to be made. But to show the celebration of it is just cruelty and torture. Did this happen on the allied side? I don’t doubt it. But to show it in a light, comical, no consequence world doesn’t work for me. I guess it’s all right to kill people in this manner because they are pre-supposed to be evil. It’s tough to do the right thing and treating prisoners humanely, regardless of how the adversary does, so why bother. In addition, the Nazis are shown to be cartoonish, except the SS Colonel (who ultimately is a bit cartoonish himself). Should I defend Nazis? No. Should they be portrayed more realistically? I guess my answer is yes. This is not a total comedy but attempts to have some serious elements of moral choices. Making it a cartoon cheapens it. But did I like the movie? In many ways yes. Tarantino has absorbing scenes, dialogue and situations. The set pieces are entertaining (the farm house, the beer garden, etc). But the material of WWII and Nazis and the Holocaust is not the venue given his approach. I’m sure I sound like an old fuddy duddy for putting these topics on a pedestal and saying they need to be treated differently. So be it. So I had a hard time. In most ways this is a better movie than Thor – more engaging and entertaining and crafted. Yet the approach to the material left a bad taste in my mouth which makes me question whether I liked it.

The third movie in this recent series, Gran Torino, fits the same category. I was absorbed into the movie and found it entertaining. But the story was fairly well predictable (ok, maybe not the ending per se, but I could guess the three ways it could go). We knew he was a grumpy Gus who would eventually have his heart melt (while maintaining a tough exterior) and “do the right thing.” The one positive, from a storyline perspective, was the protagonist’s strained relationship with his real family that was not resolved in a Hollywood ending of reconciliation. The bad part was the cartoonish way it was portrayed along the way – the gold digging granddaughter with her simplistic reactions, for example. Also, he may be a racist, but his implication that everyone talks the way he does was just silly – most especially the interaction he has with his barber and his former co-worker. I don’t doubt people of a certain age think and speak in terms of derogatory ways about other ethnic and racial groups, but having been around some of these people, it is not the only way they talk or address each other, even in jest among friends. Unrealistic. But again the movie entertained me even if it was generally predictable and the characters’ changes were generally unrealistic in the timeframe shown. So is it better than Thor? It was and yet, I judge it more harshly.

So are reviews based on the movie itself and its relationship to artistic standards or is it relative to expectations of genre? I guess the proof is that I would not watch Thor again, not watch Gran Torino again, but might watch Inglourious Basterds again (but not likely a third time).