heebee jeebees

In a somewhat formulaic but still nightmare inducing and thought-provoking tradition of fake documentaries, in the spirit of the Blair Witch Project and revisited with the series Paranormal Activity, the same creative team has unleashed another lurid and worrisome monster in The Bay, apparently created out of a potion of pollution, agricultural run-off, steroids and nuclear waste. The inspiration, though not as aggressive in reality (though that maybe owing to the steroids and mutations), for these insidious and alien creatures, however, is not far removed from its portrayal.

An isopod (Asseln) is a kind of primitive crustacean with seven pairs of legs, and the most well-known representative of this family is probably the roly-poly, the pillbug (Kellerassel) but many other live in the water and have adopted scary, parasitic lifestyles. One species can grow to a half a meter in length and scuttles about on the cold, dark ocean floor like an insectoid tank, but the really terrifying one that makes the skin crawl (and the subject of the movie with some cross-overs) is a singular variety called Cymothoa exigua, the tongue-eating louse. A nymph invades the host fish, usually a Snapper (Barsch) through its gills, before latching onto the tip of its tongue. Growing to a substantial size, eventually the fish's tongue atrophies and falls off and the parasite then acts as a regular tongue. I do not quite buy the idea that the fish just has some ersatz, prosthetic tongue now and no further damage is done to the host, nor to people.  These creatures have an even more bizarre life-cycle, progressing to males from hermaphrodites when attached to the gills and growing into females in the fish's mouth.  True horror is knowing what is out there in nature and its scavenging, resourceful inventions.

ojos bien cerrados or pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

There a perfect cover for the meeting of finance ministers and reserve bank chiefs of the G20 nations going on in Mexico. One wonders about the timing of such things and though the meeting seems kind of formal and anodyne, one still cannot quite shake the feeling that important decisions are being vetted—the kind that governments cannot rely on democracy and openness to choose wisely. There is no rudeness, nor strategic advantage, I think, in not waiting for the outcome of the US elections, even though neither of these events went unplanned or were scheduled in a vacuum.

I fear that the results will be hotly contested and unknown for weeks, but regardless of the conclusion and attendant consequences, the US president will be accedes to the same fiscal situation. Most of the discussion in Mexico seems to be economic-boilerplate, not choking off near-term growth by too great a focus on austerity and discipline, deferring the savings and necessary restructuring for later, all which might seem a rather insignificant message to come out of the gathering of so much talent, power and influence ten-thousand kilometers away (for the EU representatives) but bureaucracy is often like that.

In as much as some events might like to have the spotlight stolen from, maybe this conference also stands for the scales that fell away from one’s eyes in another regard (scales—that phrase has been haunting me throughout the campaign, an obscure and automatic saying like, “As I lay dying, the woman with the dog’s eyes would not close my eyes as I descend into the underworld”): the chaos the whole of the banking and financial system has wrought. Maybe the illusion is dispelled that covered up the cycle of boom and bust that is a dissonance and a disconnect from the real economy and only plays policy into the hands of money-managers. The allure and ease, stoked by private concerns, keep central banks and ministers distracted from the real charges and warrants. The charade crested in 2008 and left many disillusioned but so long as there is money to be made off of money, some will try to keep up this effluvious momentum. Maybe such overshadowed events, spared some attention through timing, are acknowledgments that people are weary of talk without protection, calls for reform and toning down the rhetoric of ascetics, and efforts and assessments to bridge disorder best not receive top-billing so we’re not all heir to this fiscal froth.

syncretism or give me that old time religion

Though my vote would be for the “black Muslim,” it’s remarkable, I think, that politeness and discretion and tolerance flag in such an asymmetrical fashion. One’s personal beliefs and convictions are important indicators of official deportment and ought to be afforded with respect, regardless of pedigree. Such a big schism erupted over the Kennedy presidency, the one and only Catholic office-holder (though there is an unlikely union between the challengers, and we will see what happens with that), and there’s this strange cauldron of questions and assumptions about the incumbent that’s bewitching to a large part of the voting-public—and though maybe assumptions and prejudice are already cemented in regards to the challenger candidate’s affiliation and confession, that there’s little talk of it is still rather incredulous.

Without baiting the same kind of shallow and flippant stereotypes about any community of faith (teetotalling, narrow-minded harem-mongers could be code for many things), it does seem that one’s background ought to be a matter of discussion—not derision, and an invitation to learn more. Of course, the loser will be forgotten as a wildly inaccurate representative (real or attributed) of his religion but the politics and climate that made this match will still be there, though with different champions and seconds and despite the rumoured separation of Church and State. There is a tendency to reject tenets that are not seeped in and mystified by traditions that did not come from an unattainable past as something too new and too human, but rather than forestalling one’s own established confession, it seems that the aversion comes from not the evangelizing, the otherness or conflicting values, but in the way that it forces one to examine native-held convictions and how one represents them or is represented by them in an unrarefied and maybe unflattering light.

umfrage and johnny quest

The word from Berlin and surveys departing on several different course to gauge public sentiment for the US election is overwhelming in favour of keeping the incumbent in power, both for charismatic reasons and for self-interest.

The observations of outside, apart from the mêlée of the alternately courted, demonized and pandered voting public, gave me more and more cause to wonder how it is that people can be persuaded to vote against their own self-interests and move retrograde on small yet significant gains. German opinion cites an economic introversion and protectionism that will create an unfavourable trade environment and a swaggering defensive posture that not backed up by ability (economic latitude) but rather demanding more of NATO partners in order enable their ventures, while other priorities, like ecological stewardship, fall by the wayside. Such secondary, knock-on consequences sound dire enough, and I wonder what possible first-order geo-political results might pan out, either by a pretend mandate or warring factions exhausting resources and credibility on a dishonest drive whose rules have been determined not by consequence but rather by the ephemeral spin of the media and framed fears.

paid for by the campaign for space dog for president

zum mitnehmen oder latchkey take-away

Germany is a comparatively neat and tidy place, but there are quite a few problem spots and scapegoats for litter. Politicians are targeting one visible culprit, with some precedence and a mixed record of success, in Munich and Berlin by proposing levying a fast food tax on the disposable remains of daily routines—coffee cups, greasy bags, waxy paper. Not wanting to dispatch more sanitation workers on new beats or provide ever growing waste-bins, however, the tax scheme, borne by the cafes and fast food outfits that produce these leavings and pass the costs on to the consumer, seems to be only punitive.

Believe it or not, the judicial system in Germany only lets stand taxation programmes that somehow benefit, and not merely punish, those who pay into it. In fact, most of the litter that one sees is from take-away (or quickly overflowing from public trash receptacles) and is quite easily traced by to its source through shameless branding. No industry is a paradigm of cleanliness, though, just some are better hidden and less identifiable.  While I agree that something should be done and the producers might need to acknowledge a little more responsibility for the lifestyle they are promoting, I am not sure how it can be legislated without providing special consideration and extra services for the litterbugs. Berlin’s scheme encourages people to bring their own mugs to coffee stands to avoid the surcharge, and I’ve been to quite a few festivals that not only charge a deposit fee, refunded when one busses their own cups, steins and glasses back to the counter, but also on paper plates, plastic cups and disposable knives and forks. Take-out culture might need a little fine-tuning, with more trash redeemable to ensure it’s disposed of properly. What do you think? Should snack bars and fast food operators be saddled with the financial or the collection responsibility of their disposables or ought the matter of civic pride just be left up to the patrons?