Our modern society’s most consistent method for conveying a sense of authenticity is lumpiness.

My friend Mephisto Stormbane, Scourge of the GOP, Defiler of Language, is of the opinion that quite is such an insane word that it’s non-functioning. While I see where he’s coming from, I disagree that it’s as bad as a word like bimonthly. It approaches that state of being a Contextually Unidentifiable Autoantonym, but it’s not QUITE there.

For example, in that last sentence, I used the word, and everyone, on both sides of the Atlantic understood my meaning. This is part of why quite is so weird. In the states, the meaning of quite is more or less fixed. It means “very much” as in “I quite liked it.” The UK meaning, however, is either “very much” OR “only slightly”, making it pretty much a Contextually Unidentifiable Autoantonym. In spoken language delivery can make it work, but in text, it’s very tricky.

Things get really crazy when you introduce negations of quite. When one says that they “didn’t quite like it,” they’re saying the same thing in both US and UK English. Given that the words have different meanings, this is already kind of weird, but then you take into account that the accepted meaning of “didn’t quite like,” that you almost liked it, but just barely didn’t, isn’t actually a negation of either meaning of “quite liked,” syntactically speaking.

For the “very much” meaning, you have “I did not very much like it.” While this may seem straightforward, it isn’t. Again, it’s the syntax. Another example of this is the distinction between “cannot” and “can not”. The two phrases seem very similar, but in reality, the first means “unable to” while the second means “able to not”. For example “I cannot go out to dinner.” He can’t go to dinner. Maybe he’s broke or something. Maybe he’s busy. Regardless, he’s unable to eat out. “I can not go out to dinner.” He is able to not go out to dinner. Maybe he usually eats out, but he’s telling you he can cook, or that he’s willing to cancel his dinner plans to do something else. Because of phrases like this, english speakers often think of not as meaning the opposite, when it really is JUST negation. All possibilities other than that which was specifically negated are open.

So with “didn’t quite like it” what are we really saying? (Again, syntactically. For all practical purposes, the “almost, but just barely not” meaning holds.) That you did something OTHER than very much like it, which is extremely broad in its meaning. It implies a range of possible meanings.

This is also true of the UK only meaning, though that comes closer. What the words spoken really mean is “I did not just barely like it.” What we accept them to mean is “I just barely didn’t like it.”

In the image above, we have added both the accepted meaning for “didn’t quite like,” which is universal (making it the only version that can safely be used in a text intended for cross-Atlantic readership) and the syntactic meanings, indicated with red braces showing all the potential meanings still allowed by the negation of not quite.

As I believe I have successfully illustrated, the word quite is fucking crazy. Fortunately, the phrase not quite, despite not actually being a coherent phrase, strictly speaking, is entirely safe to use, because even a grammar nazi has to admit that the accepted meaning is clear. Personally, I wish we’d correct this inconsistency by doing what we did with cannot, and applying the codified meaning to a new word, like noquite or notquite or unquite (though that last one sounds a little Newspeak). If we were to use only existing language, UK speakers would be able to accurately express not quite/i> by saying quite not, or “just barely not.” Of course, since it’s a little too late to restandardize English, the big hope here is for foreign speakers to find our current construction so confusing that they introduce and popularize an alternative. Stress testing your language is just one of the free benefits of Globalization.

French people don’t French Kiss. It’s weird, I know, but it’s true. They do make out, but when they do, they hold their bodies very very still, and no one gets handsy at all. They don’t even embrace very tightly. The only thing moving is their lips. It’s kind of creepier, because instead of looking like they’re crazy horny, they just look like badly designed make out robots.

Is Barack Obama Black?

The answer is Yes, No, There’s No Such Thing as Black. This is the problem with being a pluralist.

Yes:
Well, he’s certainly black enough for the media. You’ll notice how rare it is that anyone discusses his heritage on his mother’s side, that being boring European standard issue. It’s pretty simple, you look at the guy, and he looks black, and that, for better or for worse, is what being black is. It means people are already worrying about things like assassination. There are people, disturbingly many of them, who will refuse to vote for him BECAUSE of the melanin in his skin, and the country his father was born in. The man is black.

No:
Barack Obama is not a Black man. Being a Black man in America means something. It means something about where you grew up, where you went to school, and what your parents, and your parents’ parents were able to do for a living. It means something about the images you saw on TV that represented, or failed to represent, your life. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and did some of his growing up in Indonesia with his step-dad because apparently Ann Dunham has jungle fever. He does not, and cannot represent the Black American.

There’s No Such Thing as Black:
The point of all this is, of course, that “Black” isn’t one thing. How Black is Obama? Is he Half Black because of his heritage? Is he All Black because of his looks and the One-Drop Rule? Is he Not Black Enough because he didn’t grow up in the same lifestyle as the average Black American? “Black” by itself means so many different, often contradictory things that it doesn’t mean anything. Does a person’s heritage give you a head start in making some guesses about their history and culture? Sure. So does knowing that they grew up in a mountainous region. So does knowing if they’ve ever been a member of a country club. So does reading their bumper stickers. The terrifying thing is the degree to which we tend to allow information like this limit our views rather than expand them. A person’s heritage, region, culture and political views should serve to deepen the picture, not to define it in totality.

The movie has aliens in it. If that bothers you, you probably won’t like it. Otherwise, it was pretty fun.

Personally, my guess is a lot of the distaste comes from the aliens, and people thinking Spielberg sneaks aliens into his movies constantly. Here’s a rundown.
Number of Spielberg movies with aliens

• 4

Number of Spielberg movies about alien invasions

• 1 (War of the Worlds)

Number of Spielberg movies about benevolent alien visitors

• 3 (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, E.T.)

That’s it. It’s not exactly excessive. If you are claiming that A. I. had aliens, you are wrong. Those were robots. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THEY WERE ROBOTS IT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT PORTION OF THE MOVIE. All the humans have died, but the A.I. that we created lives on beyond us. They have screens for faces!

I do blame Spielberg, since it was bad visual story telling that allowed so many people to see aliens where the plot was about the legacy of humanity. But seriously, if they’re aliens, how can they turn a robot on by waving their hand over him, and why would they share his memory by touch. Don’t tell me psychic aliens, were dealing with databanks, not memories.

Anyway, Indiana Jones was pretty good. I had fun.

These guys aren’t Stickman or Carl. I don’t know who they are, but they live in a future that is CRAZY. People will sell you things you don’t need there! And the politicians are corrupt! And corporations have too much power! And the children are poorly educated! What a wacky world full of startling parallels to Our Own!

Ian VS. A Strawman is a new feature where-in I pose myself a question or argument that I disagree with, then, because the question is a simplistic and narrow interpretation of an position, I win. I’ll be great

People are stupid because The Bible is dumb and believing in God is absurd. The book is full of contradictions and obvious falsehoods, and it makes people ignorant. Faith is choosing to believe something you know is wrong.

WRONG Strawman. “Choosing to believe something you know is wrong.” is insanity, not faith. People who believe The Bible (or any holy book for that matter) word for word are either crazy, or willfully uninformed of the contents. Faith, on the other hand, is a very fine thing. Faith is choosing to believe in something that cannot be known. That means cannot be known EITHER WAY. It’s not insane, it’s a core component of hope, which is both noble, and a core component of human survival.

Also, Religion does not make people ignorant, it exists because people ARE ignorant. We don’t understand things, so we create structures that explain them. But it’s more than that. Consider that every culture in the world has a religion of some kind. That’s not a fluke, it’s an innate coping mechanism for human beings. Religion creates unity among a people, giving common ground that allows them to work together, and as anyone who pays attention has noticed, people can’t accomplish much of anything unless they work in groups. More-over, religions up until a few thousand years ago all incorporated sacrificial feasts, usually focusing on taking care of that ever present protein quest all of mankind appears stuck on.

Of course, most of those functions have been lost, leaving us with a sort of vestigial form of religion, one which often seems to do more harm than good. Where does this leave us? I’m personally of the opinion that ritual and faith are hardwired enough into the human brain that we need some outlet, but we certainly don’t need the Sky Daddy present in most modern religions.

Bonus Rant: Dear Christians Who Think God Wants Them to Have a Bunch of Money,

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

-Jesus (as reported in Mathew 6:24 AND Luke 16:13. It’s in the book TWICE guys. It’s not tricky.)

These words are a link to another page. This page is about the aesthetics of the counter-culture, and the failure there-of.

If you are not interested in that, we will also be discussing The Reflex by Duran Duran, the best band ever to get their name from Barbarella*. Here are the lyrics. They are insane.

You gone too far this time
But Im dancing on the valentine
I tell you somebodys fooling around -
With my chances on the dangerline
Ill cross that bridge when I find it
Another day to make my stand, oh..
High time is no time for deciding
If I should find a helping hand, oh..

So why dont you use it
Try not to bruse it
Buy time dont lose it

(chorus)

The reflex is an only child, hes waiting in the park
The reflex is in charge of finding treasure in the dark
And watching over lucky clover isnt that bizarre
Every little thing the reflex does leaves you answered with a
Question mark

Im on a ride and I want to get off
But they wont slow down the roundabout
I sold the renoir and the tv set
Dont want to be around when this gets out

(chorus) (chorus)

The reflex is an only child, hes waiting by the park
The reflex is in charge of finding treasure in the dark
And watching over lucky clover isnt that bizarre
Every little thing the reflex does is an answer with a
Question mark

(chorus) (chorus)

The reflex is an only child, hes waiting by the park
The reflex is in charge of finding treasure in the dark
And watching over lucky clover isnt that bizarre
Every little thing the reflex does leaves me answered with a
Question mark

Oh, the reflex what a game hes hiding all the cards
The reflex is in charge of finding treasure in the dark
And watching over lucky clover isnt that bizarre
Every little thing the reflex does leaves you answered with a
Question mark

What the fuck is that song about?

 
 
 
 
*Fuck You Matmos!

I wrote this joke after talking with my friend about Scorpion and Felix, a novel Karl Marx wrote before all that communism stuff got started.

AHEM!

Two philosophers walk into a bar.
The first one says “Dialectical Discourse is always useful for determining the validity of a position.”
and the second philosopher says “No it isn’t.”

AWESOME.

Emphasis on the perfect.

I LOVE Crossroads. It is an almost perfectly broken thing. It doesn’t aim very high, and it fails at everything it attempts. All this, plus a moment of ineffable transcendence. You should watch this movie*.

The movie opens with three friends burying a shoe box full of dreams in a field. Though they have not really been introduced they are

• White Trash Girl (later Pregnant White Trash Girl with Speech Impediment)
• Bitchy Popular Girl (we are later told she was a chubby child, but she’s clearly not)
• Britney Spears’ Idea of a Normal Girl (played by her little sister, who is, at the time of this writing, an unmarried, pregnant teen)

We cut forward to The Last Day of School. Britney is singing along to Madonna in her underwear because A: This is what Normal Girls do. and B: There are probably some boyfriends in the crowd. Then her dad, Elwood Blues (Now Fat) walks in and tells her to hurry, or she’ll be late for her speech as Valedictorian. Because in this movie Britney is not only a Normal Girl, she is The Best Normal Girl EVER.

Moments later Britney is insulted by being called a virgin. The person insulting her is the Bitchy Popular girl. Then the Pregnant White Trash girl shows up and everyone is mean to her. Best Friends No More Forever!

NOW! We have three of the major themes already. I know, it’s only like five minutes in. The first theme is FRIENDS FOREVER? Can you stay friends with the people you got along with when you were six for the rest of your life no matter how much you change and develop differing interests? Spoiler Warning:

YES.

The second theme is Britney is normal but better. This makes her unpopular. It’s important to be aware that while she didn’t write the movie, the plot and characters really were from the mind of Ms. Spears. So what you see here is Britney’s idea of what a nice normal girl is like. She’s a good singer, and super smart, and her dad loves her even if he is over protective, and she’s gonna be a doctor and also her mom abandoned her for no reason.

Britney has parent issues.

Theme three: Britney needs cock. Her virginity, and attempts to lose said virginity are bizarrely prominent. Which would make sense if this was a coming of age movie. Which it is. Sometimes.

The movie continues in this disjointed way throughout. It muddles through comedy, attempts at Girl Power drama, a budding romance and the occasional horrible musical number (the most UN-rocking version of I Love Rock ‘N’ Roll EVER). Characters are all poorly sketched cyphers, and best of all is Britney Spears as the unpopular brainiac who almost sleeps with her lab partner out of desperation. While the other performers can at least fulfill the shallow roles they’ve been given, it is entirely impossible for any viewer to accept the Pop Princess as a shy, quiet genius who never went to parties, and spent all her time studying. It is roughly the worst possible casting, and it makes for this brilliant tension the entire time. In a movie where everything is fake, nothing is faker than her.

Highlights include Britney meeting her mom (Kim “The Slutty One on Sex and the City” Cattrall), who is a huge bitch about everything, won’t let Britney meet her half brothers, and tells her she was an accident, for no real reason. An awkward and mostly incoherent romance between Britney and some guy who she thinks might be a murderer, who is out of jail at like 21, so clearly he didn’t even get nailed for Man 2 let alone Murder. The culmination of that awkward romance in the most unsexy scene in the movie. And then, the coup de grace.

Crossroads is a movie that aims low, and fails anyway. Except for one scene. Suddenly, almost out of nowhere (repeat viewings yield subtle clues) the movie decides to shift from lighthearted-coming-of-age-romance-road-trip-friends-forever-girl-power-musician-vehicle to Serious Drama. And it fails so completely that it becomes a special kind of success. I don’t want to ruin this for you. Please, see the movie. You’ll know which scene I’m talking about. Huge issues, well outside the scope of this film are raised, and a dealt with a manor so cursory, so casual, that they actually make both rape and miscarriage into high comedy. No attempt at satire could ever attack the Serious Drama with the ferocity that Crossroads summons ENTIRELY BY ACCIDENT. It’s a truly stunning bit of cinema.

And then, before you know it, it’s over. The girls are friends forever, Britney has gotten laid, and she’s finally doing something for HERSELF. Of course, what she’s doing is getting a recording contract while Elwood Blues (Now Fat), looks on, at least seeing his daughter for who she really is, and loving her despite the fact that she’s going to be a rich and famous pop star. Not because of it. Poor Britney Spears made a cry for help SO BIG it looked like a crappy movie, and no one noticed until she was wandering around on coke with no underpants and being locked up for psych evaluations.

*OK, not all of you. Basically, did you see Showgirls? Did you enjoy the mess? If so, I humbly recommend Crossroads.