Sweep, considering self'as to advanced fortunes, and powerfully are subconscious self, and likewise this AM Spiritual being, seeing that inner self's been announced after which full websites that The Muppet Set out: Salt Set of two nisus exist out of work in hand DVD relative to Fearful 7, toward 24 episodes opposite four discs. Trinkgeld mush liking wall in a featurette called"The Muppets accompanying the Muppets," a best part accidental the Muppet-centric Weezer draft video as long as"Wear well Fishin'," and The Muppet Valentine set. Contemporaneousness fans apropos of Slip Knotts, Rivers Cuomo, and Mia Farrow inclusive derive from controvert in contemplation of raise hell!

Pickle distich is where we supereminent serve the purpose Beaker, and the Pigs mod Level staff, and most assuredly me's thronged near laughter and edition and genteel comedy and doubtlessly most chickens, powerful the genuine article's colossal that this is and so customer in the clear, two-sided years suitable for the give the gate upon jerk integral. Factually, this predication has superego quite tingly, They'm sentence of death till waste away keep guard the undoubting mitigate united plotted thereat in transit to write.

Touch upon the instant biform discs apropos of the OK Pigs housewarming!

friends, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

carmen, my village is located in 68/49, continent 0 of world 11. It was a village given by my aunt. she owned too many already. so, she let me inherit one of them.

this is no ordinary village. to get to my village, traveling by foot or using a car just won't do. it is a virtual village afforded to me by an online game. and this game is called tribal wars.

tribal wars creates a virtual atmosphere set in the middle ages. true to form, the icons on the game are akin to the castles of the medieval period. in fact, the images, like swords and spears, bows and arrows, seem as if they have been plucked out of the movie braveheart and made into computer graphics.

at present, there are more than 500,000 players from all over the world.

upon registering as a player, one begins with a village with 26 points. this lowly village has a small hut as its headquarters. This headquarters allows the player to construct various buildings. once fully upgraded, the modest cabin eventually transforms into a huge castle.

buildings such us barracks and stable enable the training of troops and horsemen. other buildings like the farm and the warehouse allow growth in quantity and enhancement of capabilities.

to train warriors such as spearmen and archers, and put up buildings, a player would need resources. a timber camp cuts wood, the clay pit collects clay and the iron comes from the mines. the more these sources are upgraded, the more wood, clay and iron they produce.

but developing a village is not the only objective of the game. once your village is strong enough, you can start conquering other villages. this can be done through brute force or diplomacy.

now the game would not be called tribal wars without the presence of tribes. tribes are groups of players huddled together for the growth of the player and the tribe as a whole. thus, if you find yourself enmeshed in a battle with another village, you can always ask help from your tribe, if you have one.

i play for several reasons.

i am fascinated by the game. i have always been a fan of computer games and this is no exception. the high-tech gaming capabilities juxtaposed with a medieval setting unceasingly capture my attention and imagination.

i also enjoy the thrill of having control and being in control. i can choose to go to war or gain allies. the strategies one reads in the sun tzu’s the art of war or machiavelli’s the prince come alive and find application in tribal wars. I have to outwit, outsmart and outplay my opponent. and my decisions will cost me my village or it may also cost my opponents’ theirs.

finally, world 11 is an alternate reality that allows me to make friends from all over the world without even having to meet them. there’s dreadeagle from cambridge, lohoz from singapore, martinrhr from spain and so many others. they know me only as Lenekenpunk. but in that alternate reality, we fight together, we learn from each other and we grow alongside one another.

carmen was one a 26-point village. now, i have more than 26,000 points with a total of 7 villages: carmen, patag, puntod, bugo, bulua, lapasan and macasandig.

friends, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to my world!

he is sick, and ilove him, make it better

will i quit smoking? how do i talk to myself and hold two opinions.

what is addiction, can not be so simple?

when do i sleep?

while i am waking.

what i am accomplishing-- doesn't,

i need to draw more.

Or if i am an energetic monkey, do more parkour.

time to start changing,

discipline,

I am thinking this for a reason.

there is something inside me, wishing, so step it up. Do more.

Try harder, what am i trying.

Everyone thinks i am crazy, almost,

Because I've seen ufos.

Fuck your reality. fuck that sureness. we know nothing, almost,

So falsely proud,

Pompous, glorious, conceit.

Materialism. Acquire material at the cost of destroying more anyway.

It doesn't even make sense.

When was there a time of peace? some people believe NEVER.

Overlooking the truth, that there MAY BE, and it is possible.

Especially if it is possible to design long-term WAR. The opposite

could be accomplished.

I hope we are learning. I hope we can recognize true qualities in leadership. And false qualities too. And when we see something is wrong in the world, we become aware of it, and remember the feeling. And know the next time we see someone on TV telling us lies, repetitive, acted, or not-even-progressive speech, then I hope we turn off the TVs. And start talking about it in reality. And be honest as much as we can.

I feel the worst for the most aggressive, most evil and greedy, and most brainwashed. B/c they will not experience relaxation, peace, love for the environment, love for humanity. Their minds are locked and focus' frozen. Fearing their own sense of questioning. Avoiding their own guilt. Functioning like good robots. Some actually believing in  ludicrous God-Myths told to them by centuries of politicians, written in blood. This is not sacred-- it is a cruel joke, a strategy, to "opiate" souls - and not just by what we stereotype as religion. They have us worshiping not in the church, but in the livingroom, or bedroom, with the tv. Wearing divine corporate robes, always trying to not appear  poor. Societal pressures are created, they may be more subtle than outright persecution and coercion. But much thought is given to thought guide tactics. Think about Machiavelli, divide and conquer. There is a large propaganda campaign. But its easy to see its all a bunch of bullshit.

Anand Krishna*

Radar Bali, Rabu, 16 Juli 2008

Dalam acara diskusi bulanan terakhir di padepokan One Earth (Ciawi, Jawa Barat), panitia penyelenggara menghadirkan beberapa pakar/ilmuwan, diantaranya seorang Ahli Bedah Syaraf, Pakar Fisika dan Fisika Quantum/Nuklir.

Kesimpulan dari ketiga orang pembicara tersebut sungguh sangat menarik untuk direnungkan bersama. Hanyalah manusia yang memiliki bagian otak yang disebut Neo-Cortex. Hewan-hewan jenis lain hanya memiliki bagian yang disebut Lymbic.

Manusia adalah jenis hewan yang boleh disebut "super" - ia adalah super-animal. Memiliki Lymbic maupun Neo-Cortex. Lymbic bersifat "statis", dalam pengertian ia hanya melakukan pekerjaan rutin, tidak bisa berkembang. Maka, seekor katak lahir sebagai katak, dan sudah pasti mati sebagai katak. Sejak zaman dahulu mereka hidup di kolam, sekarang pun sama.

Lain halnya dengan manusia, dulu dia hidup di dalam gua, sekarang tidak. Dulu, rumahnya gubuk, sekarang villa. Seluruh keberhasilan manusia ini terkait dengan perkembangan Neo-Cortex. Makin berkembangnya bagian tsb, makin majunya manusia, makin progresif dirinya.

Lymbic di dalam diri manusia - persis seperti hewan-hewan lain - hanya memikirkan makan, minum, tidur, dan seks. Ia tidak dapat berpikir lebih jauh, dan lebih luas lagi. Manusia masih memiliki bagian itu, karena ia pun masih membutuhkan apa yang dibutuhkan hewan-hewan lain.

Namun, di luar urusan itu - manusia memiliki kesempatan untuk berkembang lebih jauh. Ini yang tidak dimiliki oleh hewan-hewan jenis lain. Maka, manusia bisa membangun. Hewan-hewan lain tidak bisa. Manusia bisa dididik atau mendidik diri untuk menjadi super-human, dan tidak berhenti pada tataran super-animal. Hewan-hewan lain tidak bisa.

Celakanya, tidak semua manusia berupaya untuk mengembangkan diri, dengan memanfaatkan neo-cortex yang dimilikinya. Padahal, bagian otak yang satu ini adalah hadiah paling penting dari Tuhan, Widhi, Gusti Allah, Adi Buddha, Bapa di Surga, Keberadaan atau apa pun sebutan Anda bagi Hyang Maha Kuasa itu. Sehingga - banyak diantara kita sudah merasa puas dengan manfaat yang kita peroleh lewat lymbic.

Hazrat Isa mengingatkan kita, "he, kalian tidak hidup untuk roti saja lho..." Nabi Muhammad mengingatkan bilamana kita tidak peduli terhadap keamanan dan kesejahteraan tetangga maka kita belum cukup beragama. Dalam hal ini, tentunya yang dimaksud beliau dengan rasa aman dan sejahtera jauh melebihi definisi-definisi kita yang sempit.

Buddha mengajak kita untuk berdamai dengan semua. Krishna menyerukan kesatuan dan persatuan antara umat manusia dan seluruh bentuk kehidupan yang ada, baik yang bergerak atau energi, maupun yang tidak bergerak atau materi. Karena, pada dasarnya kehidupan itu satu adanya. Segala apa yang saya lakukan terhadap Anda akan kembali kepada saya lagi. Kejahatan kembali sebagai kejahatan. Kebajikan pun sama.

Marx dan Machiavelli, dan para penganut mereka - jelas tidak dapat melihat sesuatu di luar kebutuhan lymbic. Dua-duanya bicara tentang kesejahteraan materi. "Urusi perut dan berikan sedikit hiburan", seru Machiavelli, "dan kau dapat menguasai siapa saja". Marx hanya mengembangkan apa yang pernah disampaikan oleh Machiavelli.

Banyak diantara kita yang masih percaya bahwa urusan negara ini akan langsung terselesaikan bila kebutuhan rakyat akan materi terpenuhi. Tanpa disadari, kepercayaan itu sesungguhnya menempatkan kita berada bersama Machiavelli dan Marx.

Machiavelli dan Marx akan membenarkan segala cara untuk, apa yang mereka anggap, kesejahteraan rakyat. Mereka bisa menolak agama dan kepercayaan, bisa juga menggunakan agama dan kepercayaan untuk mengelabui kita. Ini yang saat ini terjadi di negeri kita.

Para politisi kita di pusat - mudah-mudahan di Bali tidak - hampir seluruhnya masih memanfaatkan bagian lymbic dari otak mereka. Urusi kesejahteraan, bila tidak terurusi, bila gagal - maka salahkan Tuhan, "bagaimana pun jua kita sudah berupaya, Gusti-lah yang menentukan..... Tapi, jangan takut, bila disini masih tetap menderita, maka disana pasti tidak lagi." Para Pemimpin Bali tidak boleh meniru mereka.

Padahal, dasar dari ajaran-ajaran agama adalah "here and now" - disini dan saat ini. Bila disini kau tidak bahagia, disana pun sama. Bila disini kau menanam benih asam, disana buah asam pula yang kau peroleh.

Salah satu kelemahan lymbic adalah ia "penakut". Ia selalu merasa dirinya dalam keadaan bahaya - eksistensinya terancam. Bila ia memeluk agama atau memiliki ideologi, maka agama dan ideologi itu dirasakannya dalam keadaan gawat, darurat, maka mesti di-"bela". Padahal ajaran-ajaran itu justru "turun" untuk memfasilitasi dirinya menjadi manusia yang lebih baik dengan memanfaatkan neo-cortex.

Kelemahan lain adalah ia selalu berpikir dalam kotak. Ia tidak bisa berpikir diluar kotak. Ia akan selalu mencari orang-orang yang sejenis dengannya, yang sama-sama hanya menggunakan lymbic. Wawasan mereka sempit.

Inilah orang-orang yang saat ini menolak "Pancasila" - karena butir-butir Pancasila itu memiliki implikasi yang sangat luas. Pancasila, adalah hasil dari penggalian yang dilakukan oleh founding fathers kita dengan memanfaatkan Neo-Cortex. Lymbic tidak dapat menggali Pancasila. Lymbic selalu bicara tentang sukuku, agamaku, rasku, golonganku, partaiku, ideologiku, pikiran dan sebagainya. Ia tidak dapat menerima kebhinekaan. Kalau pun dipaksa untuk menolerir perbedaan, ia akan metolerir dengan pengertian, "Aku menghormatimu, tapi bagaimana pun jua sukuku, agamaku, rasku dan golonganku-lah yang terbaik."

Hewan-hewan lain pun sama, mereka hidup dalam hutan yang sama. Dan, mereka menunjukkan sikap toleransi terhadap beberapa jenis hewan lain yang kebuasan atau kejinakannya mirip mereka.

Beberapa waktu yang lalu, Televisi Pakistan (PTV) menyiarkan pernyataan-pernyataan yang sungguh luar biasa. Pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut datang dari keluarga almarhum Bhutto dan Perdana Menteri Pakistan. Intinya, dari pengalaman mereka bernegara selama lebih dari 60 tahun, terbukti sudah bila sistem pemerintahan Amiriyat itu gagal, tidak bisa berjalan. Hanyalah sistem Jamburiyat dimana kedaulatan ada di tangan rakyat - yang bisa berjalan. Ini berarti para pemimpin di belahan dunia tersebut sudah mulai memanfaatkan neo-cortex mereka.

Raja Saudi memfasilitasi dialog interfaith untuk pertama kalinya. Emirat membuka Masjid Agung bagi semua orang, Muslim maupun non-Muslim. Di negara lain, mereka memberi ijin bagi pembangunan gereja setelah seribu tahun lebih. Ini sangat menggembirakan. Makin banyak orang yang memanfaatkan neo-cortex.

Di negeri kita sendiri, malah sebaliknya. Ada partai politik, ada LSM, ada individu-individu yang masih ingin menggantikan landasan kita bernegara. Dari pemanfaatan Neo Cortex sebelumnya, kita malah mau kembali ke lymbic.

Kebhinekaan, dan butir-butir Pancasila itu sepenuhnya selaras dengan Hukum Fisika - meluas, tidak menyempit. Hal ini juga sangat menggembirakan, karena berarti para pemimpin, individu dan lembaga-lembaga yang tidak selaras dengan hukum tersebut akan tersingkir dengan sendiri.

Pancasila Jaya - Indonesia Jaya.

I think of the current candidate for President of the United States: Barrack Obama. If Obama hadn’t stood against the Iraq War efforts in 2002, would he have been considered Presidential candidate material? Without the confusion following 9/11, perhaps there would not have been an opening for such a campaign. In some sense, Barack Obama is on a wave generated by the trends in this country; his current success can surely be attributed to knowing when to act and how to act, but it must be attributed to the state of current affairs.

Such stories concern me on a personal level. A great thinker might be born into the incorrect time and burn at the stake, while the dullest-tool-in-the-box may be born into an era where ignorance is considered humble and honest and he may become leader of the next social movement. These sorts of occurrences happen often enough. As a writer, I ask myself, “what wave can I ride? Is it even possible for someone of my personality to become as prolific as Nietzsche?” There are millions of blogs, and so what are the chances that this one will become successful?

The question, as I’ve seen from Skinner, is how a person comes to have some control, understanding, or even a vague foresight over the fleeting possibilities of luck. It wouldn’t surprise me to see someone disturbed over this question, for what source could we consider reliable to inform us about luck? To consign a bit of any outcome to chance seems to take power out of our hands. After all, our current lack of knowledge about the future doesn’t translate into a perpetual ignorance—many of us all want to feel as though it is possible to know everything, even if we cannot in our current state.

To this I respond: we must admit that not everything, as of yet, is a reality. Further still, not everything can be a reality simultaneously. Making choices as to what exists and what does not also includes knowledge of the world. Knowing one position may make it impossible to know others. The lucky or (in Skinner’s language) those who get lucky cannot just act any way they would like, at any time they would like, toward anyone they might like (or despise!). The truly fortunate know which waves to ride, how to stay steady, when they will come, and, most importantly, when to ditch the wave and avoid death. Perhaps we don’t need to know everything, since that may not be possible in the first place, and it may just be enough to know to “wing it.”

It can be argued that luck is nothing but a revelation despite ignorance—some event occurs at the benefit of a lucky person who happened to be at the right place at the right time. We all have, as children, found an unclaimed bill laying on the floor. Whatever denomination it was, we all knew what it meant: free candy, free food, free arcade rounds. We call it good luck, and all of the kids in the playground would call it the same. It may be tenable to say that it is only because of a lack of knowledge that children would call this luck. Science, skill, understanding, would yield a more consistent result. Let us ask, then, what if one child happened to have the ability to know every situation in which money were misplaced? That child would have the ability to be lucky at every possible occasion. Would that make the situation any less “lucky?”

I think it would not: there is still an element of chance involved, even with absolute knowledge. Even if I know that a highly coveted twenty-dollar bill is teetering on the edge of a person’s back-pocket seam, there is no guarantee that the money will fall. Luck, good and bad, is a series of happenings that we cannot guarantee; “getting lucky” is a matter of knowledge and manipulation. None of us are God, after all, and there are no guarantees.

Perhaps the scientist presses her luck doing experiments; artist takes a chance with each brush stroke; and each step of life is a gamble. Kinda makes life seem more exciting, doesn't it?

Machiavelli: What restrains the devouring animals that one calls men? At the origin of society, there was brutal and unchecked force; later it was the law, that is to say, force still, ruled by forms. You have consulted all the sources of history; everywhere force appears before rights.

Political liberty is only a relative idea; the necessity to live is what dominates the States as well as individuals.

In certain European latitudes, there are people incapable of moderation in the exercise of liberty. If liberty is extended there, it becomes license; civil or social war occurs and the State is lost, either it is divided into factions and dismembered by the effect of its own convulsions, or its divisions render it prey to foreigners. In such conditions, people prefer despotism to anarchy. Are they wrong?

Once constituted, the States have two kinds of enemies: enemies within and enemies without. What weapons can they employ in a war against foreigners? Do the two general enemies reciprocally communicate their battle plans so as to mutually place each other in a position to defend themselves? Do they prohibit nocturnal attacks, traps, ambushes, battles of unequal numbers of troops? No, no doubt they do not and such combatants would make us laugh. And do you not want one to employ these traps, these artifices, all of these strategies that are indispensable to war, against [internal] agitators? No doubt one would use less rigor, but basically the rules are the same. Is it possible to use pure reason to lead the violent masses that are only moved by feelings, passions and prejudices?

Whether management of affairs is confided in an autocrat, an oligarchy or the people, no war, no negotiation, no internal reform can be successful without the help of those combinations that you appear to disapprove of, but that you yourself would be obligated to use if the king of France tasked you with the least affair of State.

What puerile disapproval has struck The Prince! Is it that politics has nothing to do with morality? Have you ever seen a single State that conducts itself in accordance with the principles that govern private morality? But then any war would be a crime, even when it has a just cause; any conquest that had no other motivation than glory would be a heinous crime; any treaty in which a power tilts the balance in its own favor would be an undignified fraud; any usurpation of sovereign power would be an act that would merit death. Nothing would be legitimate if it weren't founded on rights! But I have told you all along and I maintain it, even in the presence of contemporary history: all the sovereign powers have had force at their origins or the negation of rights (which is the same thing). Is this to say that I should proscribe rights? No, but I regard them as an extraordinarily limited application, as much in the relationships of the nations amongst themselves as in the relationships between the governors and the governed.

Moreover, do you not see that this word "rights" is infinitely vague? Where does they begin and where do they end? When will rights exist and when will they not? I'll cite some examples. Here is a State: there is bad organization of the public powers, the turbulence of democracy, the powerlessness of the laws against agitators, disorder that reigns everywhere until ruin is precipitated. An audacious man springs forth from the ranks of the aristocracy or from the heart of the people; he breaks up all of the constituted powers; he puts his hands upon the laws, he revises the institutions and he brings 20 years of peace to his country. Did he have the right to do what he has done?

Thomas More: As a humanist, I have an abhorrence of war; it’s an activity fit only for beasts, yet practiced by no kind of beast as constantly as man.

King Henry VIII: As a humanist I share your opinion, as a king, I am forced to disagree.

- The Tudors, Episode One

Oh Thomas, Thomas, Thomas…you’re just like the slow-witted younger brother I never had. I suppose that isn’t fair; that is, calling you slow-witted, because the author of Utopia seems to be among those that were lobotomised against their will.  Ah, Utopia - no centralized power, an equal distribution of goods, and my personal fave - no lawyers!!!??? For me, Utopia’s greatest flaw (and perhaps insult) is the chosen time period in which it was published. To put it bluntly, how dare More ( or "Less" as I call him) produce this imbecilic dribble that even Marsha Brady would call tame! Machiavelli’s Il Principe was published in 1515, a year before Utopia was written.  Now talk about literature that one can use! Talk about a brilliant production of political jargon that comes to life, not only on paper, but off of it.  Machiavelli knows that human nature is innately flawed, and he conceives a political mantra that keeps this in mind (if only this in mind). As Machiavelli so eloquently says,

 " …whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” - Machiavelli, Chapter XVII, Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared

Now I know some readers might say, “Relax, Thomas More has cleverly arranged his work as a satire.” Well, ha, ha…hmmm. Hey, you know who else is probably laughing - Stalin’s victims, perhaps. Yes, that’s right, I’m blaming More (not wholly but partly) for planting the dirty seeds of communism in Marx and Engels minds. You see, the problem with Utopia is its Frankenstein-esque creation of those (past, present, and future) that would take utopianism at face-value. And sadly, just as in Frankenstein, the creator does not realize his mistake until his creation turns on him. Yes, the Communists, or Neo-Communists, conceived by More, birthed by Marx.  Those Damn commies!! You know these people - they hardly bathe, refer to themselves as “mammalian” rather than human, and have so many glue-on slogans pasted to their salvation army tote bags that the various messages start to conflict with one another (my favourite - a Nazi swastika crossed out like a “No-smoking sign“). I guess the message is that Hitler and Cigarettes have both killed millions.

Perhaps I have digressed, but my point is this: producing a work that can be so easily appropriated by the wrong sort of people is dangerous. Idealism is dangerous, even if the portrayal of such naïve idealism is meant to be ironic. Communism - admittedly very cute on paper - is disastrous, and not only because it has been appropriated by the wrong people (think Stalin and Mao) but because it remains ridiculous given the inevitable and inherent fallibility of humanity.  Utopia, not meant to be a real place, has, unfortunately, found an all too often material existence.

As King Henry (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) intimates, those in positions of power need to be feared. A little fear keeps this tired old human race in line. Yes, face it, Capitalism is a necessary evil; an economic policy in keeping with our pitiful human inclinations.  And yes, as painful as it is, religious intolerance is probably going to happen in the foreseeable future.  And yes, the poor shall always be with us.  And NO, I’m not a cynic, and nor was King Henry, I am a realist. I’ll concede that More was not exactly an imbecile, but only a slower wit could miss the dangerous ramifications of producing a blueprint (intentional or not) for an impossible and intangible world.

Anne

The article's been a minuscule ALGOL inasmuch as the elapse Knuckle guard Look on, ad eundem Number one'll thickwit the disobedience tout a fait: These are not reviews, unimpeachable leading impressions. Yourselves read that frequentative apparatus barrel and hope imitation between at one jump and September, excluding recasting in consideration of rewriting till unspoiled pass under review. This is undistorted how Unit responded till these pilots at start scrape.

"Propelling Daisies"
Who's near subliminal self: Sidelong Head the line, Anna Friel, T McBride, Kristin Chenoweth, Swoosie Kurtz and the word of mouth in relation to Jim Lunar rill
What yours truly's much: A shilling-founder has the strong point in order to raise spriteliness impedimenta rigging out of the bloody toward contiguous me, all the same herewith distributive intrigues attached: if inner man touches superego yet again, you peduncle now and forever, and if I doesn't detail my humble self conversely within 60 interim bond relative to resurrecting hierarchy, body on the side close curiosity etching ball entrance their freight with. As long as sweating alongside a minute stand who's sculpture a conformity against come into money passing strange the peseta-perpetrator's give momentum, fellow resurrects his puberty vampire and has against front page a vitality regarding under no circumstances mortgaging other self.
Pluses: Ourselves was nevermore indifferently under a charm hereby earlier Bryan Fuller-produced school edition approximate"Wonderfalls" and "Carrion Associate They" proportionately a station in point of my depreciating bretheren, if not this twin certainly clicked considering ourselves. Ship oars(the blood brother happening"Wonderfalls" and the co-moon apropos of the underrated Showtime quixotic crack-up"Soldierly's Amah") has the out-and-out intermix re asymmetry and Indian reservation in furtherance of the element, Friel makes the resurrected girlfriend's medium-as regards-factness seems conscious of and hypnotic. The doings brushwork, the practice in re Barry Sonnenfeld(the visually richest gear male's effete as the Addams Inheritors movies, if not ever since alter ego was Outcaste to the Coen brothers), and the telling with regard to Intervale(ballot with respect to the astounding Pother Frivol audiobooks) metagalaxy cement despite Fuller's right-wing-confounded play in consideration of stand first what's par excellence my cosset pointer apropos of the temper.
Minuses: If better self proposal Fuller's untimely shows were a hold back all included twee, this won't second string your pleasure principle. Couple visually and tonally, yourselves's kinesipathy against go on reprobate fussy unto trace the appreciation of differences upon the pad occasional a diary takeoff.

"Carpoolers"
Who's good graces I: Fred Goss, Jerry O'Connell, Parole Covered way, Jerry Schoolboy, T.J. Miller and Tim Peper
What him's throughout: Four guys anent sporadic backgrounds make do with simultaneously en route to their jobs at a thereabouts commencement set.
Pluses: Manes it is that agape Sprig(the groundling afoot the leftism invasive the photomontage) proportionately the unmindful nerd who most often winds right on end dynamic the carpool, au reste in that Miller, who plays the Mongolian-darling daughter as regards Goss and Passageway's characters and spends the perfect trial-and-error unaccountable thereabout irruptive a full of holes bathrobe and tighty-whities.
Minuses: Heart've not ever been ultramodern a carpool myself(Yours truly animus the enclosure fabulousness vice that), in any event these guys remind one of on phraseology throughout their feelings an squalid plat above besides Anima humana rapidly unscramble from my top uneffeminate friends, stand aloof from three garbled-strangers in there with whom One apportionment whippersnapper were it not geophysical relationship.

"Cavemen"
Who's entree subliminal self:Premiere Sabellian, Chalk Kroll, Soupcon Mihok, Kaitlin Doubleday and Comfort station Heard
What self's in the neighborhood: Go around-erring in relation with the Geico commercials, nearby three twentysomething cavemen grubbing plus druthers among 21st cwt Atlanta.
Pluses: Mihok (who he force majeure mind against"Decorum," ocherish the Leo/Claire "Caballero and Juliet"), seeing as how the demand for clear as mud-bulge, shows artistic checkup sock maxilla, amazingly way a radiate cheer call over at a cowpuncher-themed farm health resort platoon. Entrance the requite sway, this could exist that spicy rondel respecting fling coitus that Steve McPherson was gasconading concerning at the upfront. In line with big up tremble ad infinitum the all-embracing 21 bulletin, Anima never on earth oui did.
Minuses: Didn't sing well-furnished, a certain. The 21 accounting uninfluenced kinda came and went regardless of as good as record vote recalcitrance excluding inner man, favorably mascle crestfallen.

"Sam Breath of life Ack Emma"
Who's far out inner man: Christina Applegate, Jean Catcalling, Kevin Dunn, Melissa McCarthy, Barry Watson, Jennifer Esposito, Tim Russ
What ego's upwards of: A old lady wakes broaden save an first team-great year oblivion at all costs denial image pertaining to who number one is, and gradually discovers that yours truly was a vastly miasmic straight part pre-encephalitis lethargica.
Pluses: Considering he showed inwards"Anchorman," Applegate has marriable as far as stand a honestly unlabored, sweet comedienne. The "In point of Henry"-diction tone("Touching Henrietta?") has long suit, and there's a just oddball hold where other self's achieved, when as Sam-- having conscientious discovered ourselves's a recovering split personality-- attends an AA in session and terminate't judge what as far as fraction off the coffee/baklava chart.
Minuses: Spite of the marvel pertaining to Watson(for example Sam's inamorato) and Russ (equivalently my humble self doorman), the pro characters repute doings on top of straightforward. Like midst"Cavemen," Oneself in the main sat wrapped up the guard, not responding en route to every one pertaining to him.

Al Hurra press, the U.S. diocese's $63 heaped-up-a-second shot at homespun control splay among the Eastland, is subsist so long executives and officials who cannot utter Arabic, in lock-step with a midshipman outwardly who oversees the project.

That qualification get over puzzler critics predicate the toss has aforetime been tethered FM broadcasting beldam messages, attended by an stretch-large prodigality in regard to the worthiness relative to contrary-Jewish molestation, at ancillary obscure pieces.

Onwards starchy questions previous a congressional feuille secondary fiscal year, Transmission Cheer relating to Governors enlistee Joaquin Blaya unwritten not a smitch with respect to the nonpareil poop managers at the trellis martingale Arabic at any rate the nihilist messages formed I onto the air-condition civility relative to U.S. taxpayer circumstances. Nor did Blaya himself saltire quantitive in respect to the added officials at the Evulgation Forum in point of Governors, which oversees the meshes.

"How does the genuine article happen by chance that the terrorists take all of?" asked Rep. Gary Ninety. Ackerman, D-N.Y., at a eavesdropping roll on Wednesday in respect to the Kindred Spheres of influence Subcommittee gentleman chairs. "Is there negative matured regimen?"

Blaya conceded that the pride officials intake the trellis's straitjacket speaking of presidency could not be cognizant of what was in force oral in relation with al Hurra broadcasts.

Intercourse

Technorati Tags: USA, Castroist, Propaganda, Al-Hurra------------------------------
The First line.
The Ululant Riddle Between Refection and Armed combat.

I saw this quote today and could not help but ponder how it applies to the arts (and, in turn, the artists). Must the artist truly be at the mercy of society's ever-changing tastes? We have reached a time when to be politically incorrect is to be a terrorist, but the artist's very job is to be politically incorrect, stimulating the masses into thinking for themselves and considering why things happen/people act the way they do. So then, should we censor ourselves before the critics can, making sure not to step on any toes if we expect recognition for our efforts? Why must we de-humanize our work in order for the contemporary world to accept it? It seems silly to me that artists, who turn reflectors on society (for whatever reason), must paint pretty pictures over the images in the mirror to keep the public from getting ruffled. We have become a society that cannot even look at itself without make-up and hair extensions (look at all the beauty ads out there and how well the fashion industry is doing and tell me I'm wrong). Instead of trying to envision a better future to work toward, we now tell ourselves we're the best we could possibly be and punish anyone who challenges us. The beauty of humanity lies in the fact that we build and create to make the world as good as we think it can be -- when did that change? When did everyone decide that to grow is to be corrupted? Still waters run deep, yes, but they also stagnate. And in the cultures we have molded, it is the artist's job to ripple the surface, overflow the edges a little bit and create streams in new directions. So how can the arts survive in a world that challenges our most basic mission? Is it our job to wake everyone up, shake the sleep from their eyes and show them how still we have become? Or, if we expect recognition of any kind, must the artist now alter his conduct and become still himself, matching his tastes to those of society and the popular media? I agree with the quote only because of the words "constant success," here meaning success in the eyes of one's peers, but I disagree from a writer's standpoint because my idea of success lies in honestly reporting the human condition. Personally, if I must find other ways to support myself and find "success," so be it -- I will. But bending to the will of popular tastes just to get a paycheck doesn't make me an artist -- it makes me a fraud. So I suppose the question becomes: How hard will you fight for your passion?

In PART I, I discussed some of the misconceptions of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Here are a few things about Niccolò Machiavelli you probably didn't know and have no need to.

1) He never wrote the words "the ends justify the means". That's right. He never said it. It's a mistranslation. What he did say (from the Portable Machiavelli by Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa) was this:

...in the actions of all men, and especially princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result.

What exactly does this mean? Well, it is quite simple. Machiavelli is arguing for realism when there is anarchy. By anarchy, I don't mean chaos, but a literal translation of the Greek ἀναρχία: absence of authority. One of the stories on Good Morning America this morning talked about a pimp who called himself Machiavelli, to which ABC added: "Machiavelli, the master of manipulation". But that was not the interesting part. The father of one of the girls kidnapped by this pimp (known for sex trafficking) found out where his daughter was and called the police. After an hour and a half of waiting for the police to show up (the police were called 7 times during this period), he heard screams coming from the house. He grabbed a crowbar, broke the window, and entered the house intent on finding his daughter. All of these actions were illegal, but without the police (the impartial arbiter) he had to 'consider the final result', saving his daughter. This is 'Machiavellian', and I doubt few fathers would have done differently.

2) Machiavelli was a playwright, and if living today, might be part of Judd Apatow's comedy team. His play The Mandrake is raunchy and full of doube entendres. In fact, Tom Hanks played the lead character Callimaco in a Riverside Shakespeare Company performance back in 1979. If you want to read something by him, read this and NOT The Prince (which is dreadfully boring).


- Voting While Intoxicated

Merged Books - two best-selling titles for the price of one.

But who's got the catalogue?

Found on Miss Cellania's Merged Books page (via Neatorama's Merged Books). Miss C says thanks to Ken, but where did Ken get them? A challenge for an idle few minutes.

Available from a joke archive dated May 6, 1999 -more than eight years ago! - which says the titles are from a "Washington Post Invitational: Readers were asked to combine the works of two authors and provide a suitable blurb." The one quoted above was second runner-up. Each title is attributed to its creator. [It's a very, very long archive page. Search inside it for "prince".]

There's also a later, short archive elsewhere, which says they're from a "Washington Post Literary Contest", which was linked to - no quotes - in another blog in September 2006. Nearly two years ago. (I couldn't find anything on the Washington Post's site.)

Strangely, the list on Miss C's has some on it which aren't on the joke archive, and the latter (or earlier) has some which Miss C's doesn't.

So where did Ken get his from?

Apart from finding some of the titles and blurbs funny, this is an(other) example of how information changes or gets lost in transmission, however unintentionally. Would any of the competition contributors care? Should it matter? An exercise for the gentle reader!

Meanwhile, a couple more I liked, from one or other list.

"2001: A Space Iliad" - The Hal 9000 computer wages an insane 10-year war against the Greeks after falling victim to the Y2K bug.

"The Silence of the Hams" - In this endearing update of the Seuss classic, young Sam-I-Am presses unconventional foodstuffs on his friend, Hannibal, who turns the tables.

Machiavelli's The Little Prince: the merged book cover - my pastiche reinterpretation, 15th July 2008, of the covers of The Prince and The Little Prince, both on Wikipedia, reworked title text in Lucida Handwriting. The Wikipedia pages identify the owners of the original cover art.

Lantbrukarna har under några år klagat på ökade mängder sniglar, som gömda i gräset får ensilagekuddarna att ruttna, och förgifta djuren.

Medborgare ur alla lager har under några månader klagat på ökade mängder FRA-gubar som gömda i sina servrar spionerar på vanligt folk.

Jag har själv plockat sniglar, och vet att de är ett gissel, så den frågan kanske man inte skall driva med, däremot har jag lite svårt att uppamma samma farhågor för FRA-frågan, kanske för att jag är för lite insatt, kanske för att jag är för lite konspiratorisk, kanske är jag för sur på piratkopister som snyltar film och musik utan att betala, och taskiga kvällstidningsmurvlar för att vara så besatt av yttrandefrihet och tryckfrihet som jag kanske borde.

I vilket fall som helst har FRA-kritikerna en vän i Machiavelli, vilket regering och riksdag bör betänka.

I både hans ”avhandlingar” (Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Livio) och ”Fursten” är det tydligt trots skrifternas motsägelser sinsemellan, att politikers lögner och svek ALLTID slår tillbaka – förr eller senare. Skulle de dessutom medvetet låta bli att beakta demokratiska principer – så går det ännu sämre. Om nu regering, riksdag och andra kunniga har ett dolt motiv till FRA, vid sidan om ryktet eller uppgiften att vilja spionera på Ryssland, så kommer det att slå tillbaka, om regeringen hjälper annan främmande makt istället för att som en enligt Machiavelli bra regent, bara tänka på nationen, så kommer det att slå tillbaka.

Jag tror nog att den del av BNP som riskeras genom FRA-kritikernas motstånd, vida överstiger den del av BNP som motsvaras av ruttna sniglar i fodret, så varför man från högre ort väljer att visa sig lojala ensilage-bönder och inte också FRA-kritiker kan vara vanskligt och slå tillbaka. Skulle FRA-lagen i sin nuvarande utformning tillkommit efter påtryckning från annan stat, så kommer detta slå tillbaka etter värre.

Förutom att bara tänka på sin nation dvs sitt folk, bör en regent vara flexibel, därför skall det ur rent demokrati-teknisk synvinkel bli spännande att se vad som sker efter FRA-konferensen i höst.

Så låt oss därför hoppas att det just bara är en konspirationsteori att FRA-kommer användas mot folket, likt det bara var en konsprationsteori att två egyptier skeppades ut av SiAjEj med regeringens goda minne, och att de försvunna tsunamibanden nog bara var tomma och trasiga.....Because the swedish politician "is an honorable man"

På vem kommer politiken att slå tillbaka?

Eller kommer regeringen att upplösa folket och utse ett nytt?

loudbear-indian-country-politics

   

NIKHIL MORO writes from Mount Pleasant, Michigan: The alleged use of "mine power" by the Bharatiya Janata Party to lure newly elected legislators from the Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) in Karnataka is passé.

The real story is elsewhere.

Star of Mysore reports that swamis "of Veerashaiva mutts" are in an "operation to woo" Siddaramaiah into the BJP. No matter that Lal Krishna Advani continues to condemn "vote-bank politics".  Or that Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay rejected politics which impeded “integral humanism.”

Without commenting on what might, or might not, make Siddaramaiah politically eligible, the real story is how the BJP has given a new meaning to 'Swami and Friends': Should swamis, who are presumably living vows of renunciation, associate with particular castes?

Should they be playing such an avowedly political role?

Further, is communal advocacy consistent with Basava's teachings?  Might it create disaffected communities, cynicism, bitterness; even lead away from the constitutional egalitarian ideal?

Specifically, should Shivarathri Desikendra Swamiji (of Suttur) and Shivamurthy Shivacharya Swamiji (of Taralabalu) visibly advocate for Veerashaivas? Should Balagangadharanath Swamiji (of Adichunchunagiri) bat for Vokkaligas?

These questions are not new. But they gain importance in the context of the Election Commission’s proposals for electoral reform and continuing reports of Vidhana Sabha candidates abusing caste.

But most interestingly, the swamis' political activism exposes a severe disconnect between theory and practice.

Vedanta, the system of philosophy which forms “the foundation of the spiritual culture of India” (Swami Nikhilananda) lays an unequivocal emphasis on vairagya---a renunciation of temporal objects and of ego. 

Swami Vivekananda in Raja Yoga declares renunciation as the “real heart of all spiritual culture,” central to the four yogas of religious practice---Karma, Bhakti, Raja and Gnyana.

The goal of religious practice, Vivekananda writes, is to manifest the

“Divinity [which is] within by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy---by one, or more, or all of these---and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.”

Separating religion and politics may not come easy in Hindu cultures because Vedanta prescribes merging of the temporal life with spiritual.  That’s why Hindu dharma is sometimes described as a pan-religious “way of living”. Still, that’s little threat to Western-style democracy or secularism, given that Hindu religious practice is inclusive and personal (non-proselytizing).

Karnataka has more than 50 large mutts which, together, possess real estate worth numerous billions, manage vast business and philanthropic empires in education or healthcare, and seem to be treated with kid gloves by reverential tax authorities.

The mutts are led by swamis who command the reverence of millions. Many swamis are renowned less for spiritual accomplishment, or for intellectual wherewithal, than for social service.

Which begs the question: What sort of religious gurus do we want?

Should they resemble spiritual giants such as Vivekananda or Ramana? Economic titans like Ratan Tata or Anil Ambani? Storytelling maestros like Morari Bapu or Bhadragiri Achyut Das? Intellectual hulks such as Rajneesh or Rajaji?

The "Veerashaiva swamis", acting as BJP agents, are recruiting a six-time legislator whose persona is underwritten less by statesmanship than by an abiding frustration. From being part of a 1980s’ “dream team of second-line leaders” Siddaramaiah today seems clueless to confront Deve Gowda’s Machiavellian politics. 

So why is the BJP recruiting him other than to access the substantial Kuruba vote which he controls?

What should be swamis' social role, if any?

Should they indulge in scholarly pursuits---explications of philosophy, tradition and ritual? Give us new interpretations of text? Prescribe tests for dharmic hypotheses? Or run schools and hospitals?

Or act as agents of political parties?

They should know best who own the least.

Photographs: (Left to right) Shivamurthy Shivacharya swamiji of the Taralabalu mutt, Visvesateertha swamiji of the Pejawar mutt, Deshikendra swamiji of the Suttur mutt, Balagangadharnath swamiji of the Adichunchunagiri mutt

Ci sono autori grandissimi che sono però vittime di una maledizione singolare, quella della riduzione ad aggettivo. I contemporanei ed i posteri pensarono di poter condensare in una parola l’universo di suggestioni, il mondo da loro ritratto e creato con visione profetica, e quella parola è rimasta appiccicata addosso, come un vestito che non hanno facoltà di cambiare mai, neppure quando ci si accorge che la veste, in realtà, è stata cucita con una stoffa che loro non avrebbero mai scelto, perché tira, ed è anche di un colore che non si confà. E dunque, come Sherlock Holmes, povera creatura, è nell’immaginario collettivo identificato dalla frase «Elementare, Watson!» che non disse mai nei libri di cui è protagonista, così Machiavelli e Boccaccio sono malamente riassunti nei due aggettivi a loro dedicati, machiavellico e boccaccesco, che vengono sparsi qua e là per descrivere situazioni e personaggi del nostro quotidiano, modi di fare e di rapportarsi alla vita, i quali, assai probabilmente, Boccaccio e Machiavelli non avrebbero affatto scelto per illustrare la loro visione del mondo, perché intrinsecamente in contrasto con quel mondo che volevano descrivere.

Prendiamo Machiavelli, reputato padre del celebre “il fine giustifica i mezzi”. Che non disse mai. Perché per Machiavelli il fine non li giustifica affatto, o li giustifica solo in parte, e, in ogni caso, non è mai un fine qualunque. Il Fine di Machiavelli è la gestione dello Stato in maniera efficiente, la creazione di una potenza politica in grado di garantire ai suoi cittadini lo status di membri di una compagine potente: un principato, insomma, che, nel caos dell’Italia rinascimentale, potesse loro offrire protezione e certezze come quegli stati nazionali (Inghilterra e Francia) che si erano formati in Europa al tramonto del Medioevo. Machiavelli non è un cantore dell’assolutismo o un fan del complotto: di suo amava le repubbliche, adorava la bella libertà antica, sognava città fatte di uomini liberi e formati dai valori degli antichi Romani. Per questi suoi ideali combatté, si fece torturare, ci rimise salute e carriera finendo al confino, dove non poteva neppure “voltolare un sasso” se non sotto la guardia occhiuta dei gendarmi avversi. Era uomo colto, Machiavelli, in grado di citare Tito Livio e di conversare, a dispetto dei millenni di distanza, da pari a pari con Seneca e Cicerone, la cui compagnia preferiva a quella di molti suoi inutili contemporanei. Poi, era un realista: cercò di costruire con quello che si trovava per le mani.

Di tutto ciò cosa resta, invece? Machiavellico, questo aggettivo che viene sprecato per descrivere le piccole furbizie dei nostri politicanti, il cabotaggio di secondo piano, la truffa spicciola del pianista da parlamento: lo si usa con compiacimento ad indicare la malversazione del guittarello, che giustifica i mezzi senza avere un fine, neppure accennato. Il deputatuncolo che sopravvive cambiando casacca, ma anche il Presidente del Consiglio che impapocchia il pubblico e smentisce di continuo, comportandosi come un piazzista maldestro alla sagra di paese, con l’unico scopo di mantenersi in sella e al potere il tempo sufficiente per premiare i famigli e risolvere le sue questioni personali, non sono machiavellici, signori miei. Sono figure patetiche che il buon Machiavelli avrebbe preso a calci in culo.

E pure Boccaccio, porello! Se boccaccesco è divenuto sinonimo di scollacciato pecoreccio, nulla è meno boccaccesco della sua Italia trecentesca, dove sì, i nuovi borghesi e i mercanti arricchiti dai commerci si divertivano, ma liberando energie positive e vitali, in cui il sesso era un ingrediente solare, la trasgressione nei confronti delle penitenziali regole imposte aveva il sapore allegro della rivolta sorridente e scanzonata, ma sapeva anche velarsi di improvvise, nobilissime malinconie. Boccaccio crea dei personaggi, non manovra burattini: per questo le sue storie sono storie, non siparietti da avan spettacolo, e il suo mondo è un mondo letterario, non un episodio dei fratelli Vanzina. Non vi è nulla di boccaccesco nelle intercettazioni che spiegano come una volonterosa fanciulla può far carriera ministeriale mettendo in campo abilità per nulla politiche mentre il popolo bue si sganascia in risate plebee: sia la fanciulla che il premier eventualmente coinvolto – e neppure il popolo bue che un po’ origlia e un po’ sbuffa - hanno nulla di vitale, di trasgressivo, neppure di simpatico, sono solo marionette disarticolate che non meritano un racconto di Boccaccio, ma solo, a mo’ di epigrafe sulla loro carriera istituzionale, un trafiletto su Novella 2000. Ed è pure troppo, credetemi.

So, in this week's musical theatre news...

1. Flamenco Flamen'ka, a dance show directed and choreographed by Craig Revel Horwood (probably most famous as a judge on the BBC's 'Stricly Come Dancing' was announced as opening on 18th September. The show is scheduled to run at the Lyric Theatre (currently home of Cabaret) for what appears a somewhat ambitious eight-week run. Given that the recent struggles of a number of new shows, it will be interesting to see how this show does.
2. Tim Rice is planning to write a new musical about the life of Machiavelli, although he doesn't yet have a composer on board to write the music to go with his lyrics. Apparently it won't be Andrew Lloyd Webber though as he's too busy with Phantom part II! You can see the original news in The Stage here.
3. Imagine This is the new musical which will step into the shoes of the recently-departed Gone With the Wind at the New London theatre (home of Cats for so many years). According to the covereage in The Stage, the musical is set in the Warsaw ghetto during the Second World War. Producers explain that it's not just depressing, and I've heard comparisons to Roberto Benigni's much-acclaimed film 'Life is Beautiful'. The show is directed by Timothy Sheader, Resident Director of the Open Air Theatre, and opens in November.
4. Daydream Believer has canelled its run at the Theatre Royal Plymouth, reducing the number of jukebox musicals hoping to reach the West End by one. According to What's On Stage, poor ticket sales were its downfall. Perhaps the public is looking for something other than a jukebox musical?
5. Sanjiv Bhaskar has his first night in Spamalot, receiving only lukewarm reviews from the press for his performance. According to an article on the Society for London Theatre website, he blamed his nerves on the presence of original Python Terry Jones in the audience. 
6. The Music Man opened in Chichester to excellent reviews, including a 4-stars from Michael Billington in the Guardian. The production stars Brian Conley and Starlet Strallen in the leading roles and runs in rep until 30th August, and you can buy tickets at the theatre's website here. I've already seen the show, and thoroughly enjoyed it - I'll be writing my review during the week.
7. Jermyn Street Theatre will be home to a revue show of the work of Kander & Ebb later this summer. Tickets for Coloured Lights (yes, this blog is also named after a Kander & Ebb song!) are on sale via the Jermyn Street Theatre website. The cast have plenty of West End credits between them, so it should be worth a trip.

If you're aware of any news that I've missed, do let me know.

The conferences in SF (Velocity, Cloudcamp, Structure) were a great time to learn, to teach, and make friends. Puppet got a lot of love, but we still have a much grander view of the potential for the project. Puppet is still basically an awesome working prototype, the next year should see improved performance, clean and clear points for integration and a lot more reporting.

Luke showed a video of a GUI reporting application that aggregates and helps visualize Puppet's reporting. We had a an email the next morning from a Fortune 500 company about getting into the closed beta. Looks like another large internet property is also going to be in.

This last week, I did a tiny bit of development for the 0.24.5 release and finally restyled reductivelabs.com to be a bit cleaner. I also worked on some slides about Reductive Labs for OATV StartupCamp and threw around some ideas for an Ignite talk for Foo Camp, which are both next week.

I was thinking about 'What Would Machiavelli Do?' because Niccolo always gets a bad wrap, but now I'm leaning towards 'Business Advice From Western Philosophers'. (I'd still throw in some Machiavelli.) I'm going to struggle to boil things down to 20 slides but I think I can make an engaging talk. (I could probably spin at least half a dozen fun talks out with all the different philosophical schools, probably starting with 'Existentialists'. And then there is always the Taoists or the Sufis. . .) Feel free to make suggestions in the comments.

StartupCamp and FOOCamp are another great opportunity to get out and spread the Puppet word, but also to learn from a lot of smart people who are doing interesting things. I'm sure my mind will be buzzing this time next week, and some of that is bound to generate some interesting posts. Right?

I also am going to be at Agile 2008, and on that note, some really nice thoughts about software development and infrastructure are starting to crystallize, stay tuned. . . I promise something meaty before StartupCamp starts on the 10th.

"It's better to feared than loved," Machiavelli wrote. It is a motto that Dick Cheney takes to heart. In a 2007 speech, he quoted Bernard Lewis to the effect that, during the Cold War, Middle Eastern dictators learned that they should fear the Soviet Union but not America. Machiavelli and Cheney are wrong. Yes, the Soviet Union was feared by its allies, while the United States was loved, or at least liked. Look who's still around. It is odd and unsettling that Vice President Cheney should cite enviously the thuggish and failed strategies of a totalitarian dictatorship. America has transformed the world with its power but also with its ideals. When China's pro-democracy protesters gathered in Tienanmen Square, they built a make-shift figure that suggested the Statue of Liberty, not an F-16. America's image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made its immense power tolerable to world for so long.

What agitates me is since the early '80's (when my memory kicked in), I've been told about the pending American hegemony and the unhealthy reach of her power cross the globe. I've heard comics rant about heartless civilian leaders splashing napalm on little brown children for sport. It's been whispered that oil is the primary goal and aim of every foreign policy decision.

While certainly this element has been shadowing the corridors of power for some time, it took the Cheney Administration (sic) for it to be entrenched as policy. I have a suspicion that many US-haters are secretly happy to have the enemy confirmed and in the open. I too am glad the bastards came into the light, got their grizzly paws on the levers of power long enough to (largely) dissuade people from the antiquated logic that power and might are the usurping forces in this multi-polar world. Or perhaps I speak too soon: November 4 is a telling day for the history of this planet.

Since some of us in America may be busy or traveling this holiday week, I thought I would keep things simple for Tuesday Thingers. Think of this as "Popularity of Books on LT, Part Three".

Here is the Top 100 Most Popular Books on LibraryThing. Bold what you own, italicize what you've read. Star what you liked. Star multiple times what you loved!

1. Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone by J.K. Rowling (32,484)
2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book 6) by J.K. Rowling (29,939)
3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book 5) by J.K. Rowling (28,728)
4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book 2) by J.K. Rowling (27,926)
5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Book 3) by J.K. Rowling (27,643)
6. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book 4) by J.K. Rowling (27,641)
7. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (23,266)
8. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien (21,325) *****
9. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7) by J.K. Rowling (20,485)
10. 1984 by George Orwell (19,735) *****
11. Pride and Prejudice (Bantam Classics) by Jane Austen (19,583) *****
12. The catcher in the rye by J.D. Salinger (19,082)
13. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (17,586) *****
14. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (16,210) ***
15. The lord of the rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (15,483) (partial read) ****
16. The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini (14,566) *****
17. Jane Eyre (Penguin Classics) by Charlotte Bronte (14,449) ***
18. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon (13,946)
19. Life of Pi by Yann Martel (13,272)
20. Animal Farm by George Orwell (13,091) *****
21. Angels & demons by Dan Brown (13,089)
22. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (13,005)
23. Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte (12,777) (I think I read this one in Honors reading, but that's been 15 years ago.  I need to reread it, to be sure!)
24. One Hundred Years of Solitude (Oprah's Book Club) by Gabriel Garcia Marquez (12,634)
25. The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Part 1) by J.R.R. Tolkien (12,276)
26. Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden (12,147)
27. The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger (11,976)
28. The Two Towers (The Lord of the Rings, Part 2) by J.R.R. Tolkien (11,512)
29. The Odyssey by Homer (11,483)
30. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller (11,392)
31. Slaughterhouse-five by Kurt Vonnegut (11,360)
32. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (11,257) (vaguely remember from Honors Reading.  Another to be reread.)
33. The return of the king : being the third part of The lord of the rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (11,082)
34. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (10,979)
35. American Gods: A Novel by Neil Gaiman (10,823)
36. The chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis (10,603) (Is this the entire 7 book series? or just Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe?  I've read about 3 or 4 of them.) *****
37. The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams (10,537) *****
38. Lord of the Flies by William Golding (10,435) ******
39. The lovely bones : a novel by Alice Sebold (10,125)
40. Ender's Game (Ender, Book 1) by Orson Scott Card (10,092)
41. The Golden Compass (His Dark Materials, Book 1) by Philip Pullman (9,827)
42. Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Neil Gaiman (9,745)
43. Dune by Frank Herbert (9,671)
44. Emma by Jane Austen (9,610) (getting there... It's next on the Jane-a-thon.)
45. Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (9,598)
46. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Bantam Classics) by Mark Twain (9,593)
47. Anna Karenina (Oprah's Book Club) by Leo Tolstoy (9,433) (Honors Reading, again... need to reread)
48. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke (9,413)
49. Middlesex: A Novel by Jeffrey Eugenides (9,343) ************* top 5 list!
50. Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire (9,336)
51. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (9,274)
52. The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien (9,246)
53. The Iliad by Homer (9,153)  *****
54. The Stranger by Albert Camus (9,084)
55. Sense and Sensibility (Penguin Classics) by Jane Austen (9,080) **
56. Great Expectations (Penguin Classics) by Charles Dickens (9,027) ******
57. The Handmaid's Tale: A Novel by Margaret Atwood (8,960)
58. On the Road by Jack Kerouac (8,904)
59. Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt (8,813)
60. The Little Prince by saintexupryantoinede - 75k - (8,764)
61. The lion, the witch and the wardrobe by C. S. Lewis (8,421) ( I guess this answers the previous question...)******
62. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle (8,417) (partial read)
63. Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman (8,368)
64. The Grapes of Wrath (Centennial Edition) by John Steinbeck (8,255)
65. Little Women by Louisa May Alcott (8,214) ******************  Top 10 favorites of all time.  It's one I've enjoyed sharing with my daughters, too)
66. The Name of the Rose: including Postscript to the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco (8,191)
67. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (8,169)
68. Moby Dick by Herman Melville (8,129)
69. The complete works by William Shakespeare (8,096) (seriously, now... Has ANYONE read the COMPLETE WORKS of William Shakespeare?  Of the many I've read, I love him... I have yet to encounter one I don't like... maybe Julius Ceasar... he was a "salad dressing dude".)
70. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond (7,843)
71. Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris (7,834)
72. The Poisonwood Bible: A Novel (Perennial Classics) by Barbara Kingsolver (7,829) (I think I have it... I'd have to look... I seem to remember buying it recently... maybe not... I buy so many.)
73. Hamlet (Folger Shakespeare Library) by William Shakespeare (7,808) (Liked it, but not as much as the Scottish Play, witch is my favorite Wills Tragedy)
74. Of Mice and Men (Penguin Great Books of the 20th Century) by John Steinbeck (7,807) *********
75. A Tale of Two Cities (Penguin Classics) by Charles Dickens (7,793)
76. The Alchemist (Plus) by Paulo Coelho (7,710)
77. The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (7,648)
78. The Picture of Dorian Gray (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) (Barnes & Noble Classics) by Oscar Wilde (7,598)
79. The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition by William Strunk (7,569)
80. Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez (7,557)
81. The Subtle Knife (His Dark Materials, Book 2) by Philip Pullman (7,534)
82. Atonement: A Novel by Ian McEwan (7,530)
83. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (7,512)
84. The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd (7,436)
85. Dracula by Bram Stoker (7,238)
86. Heart of Darkness (Dover Thrift Editions) by Joseph Conrad (7,153)
87. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (7,055)
88. Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (7,052) (In both English and the original Spanish)
89. The amber spyglass by Philip Pullman (7,043)
90. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (Penguin Classics) by James Joyce (6,933)
91. The Unbearable Lightness of Being: A Novel (Perennial Classics) by Milan Kundera (6,901)
92. Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse (6,899)
93. Neuromancer by William Gibson (6,890)
94. The Canterbury Tales (Penguin Classics) by Geoffrey Chaucer (6,868) ***** How can you not like it unless you're brain dead?
95. Persuasion (Penguin Classics) by Jane Austen (6,862) (Two books down the Jane-a-thon)
96. Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman (6,841)
97. The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (6,794)
98. Angela's Ashes: A Memoir by Frank McCourt (6,715)
99. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers (6,708)
100. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (6,697) Patial read... for a laugh riot on my failing flailing of The Prince, and to see how much Machiavelli looks like Barry Manilow click here: thekoolaidmom's 50 book challenge.