had an interesting discussion last night with friends at the local McMenamins pub in Bend. We were talking about the 90's cultural phenomenon said Seattle of the 90's with its Microsoft, grunge music and clothing, and tech revolution equated with Chicago of the 1930's, with its big-band era, jazz, and mobsters. We tried to pinpoint the cities that served as focal points for that time period. 60's was San Francisco, 70's we couldn't really identify, but maybe new york with its summer of sam, reggie jackson, and disco era couldn't really be overlooked even though it definately had some problems so did the rest of the nation.

My question: what about now? How will some future generation or us when we're grayer and sadder look back on this time period of the 2000's. someone at the table suggested new york because of the wTc and terrorism, but how do you credit that event with making a city great? Another fella said it was Austin, texas with its cool cultural scene, but no way. Slacker got done in the 90's-we can't say it's changing the nation. I suggested half-jokingly Crawford Texas, but no one really agreed. People did concede that maybe the red states have the upper hand over the blue states in terms of relevance these days, and I know that most of American television is geared towards those states. But, nothing really caught the imagination as being the city that's hip or relevant to our present time.

Then, I realized-there's a place out there that's beyond a place. it's not limited to where people are at physically, and maybe this is the beginning of the spiritual revolution-it's called the internet. People often inhabit these forums called blogs when they want to meet, see others, and express themselves unabashed. tonight, it's saturday night, and where am I? Not in the bars squashing another beer and saying all the wrong things, but online, communicating with my peers of myself, me, and I in a forum that i control. It's safe here-there's no terrorists online, and there's no rejection (other than silence).

that's my thought on where it's at right now. You can be anywhere in the world to enjoy it. All you need is a modem and a mouse. That's how we'll look back on this decade. Sorry Crawford.

The State of Our Nation

Imperfect Union V: After watching Bush's State of the Union Address on CNN and MSNBC (and untold other networks), an unassuming viewer may have thought Republicans were the only party present for Bush's State of the Union. That's because the TV cameras focused almost exclusively on the Republican side of the aisle, rendering Democrats virtually invisible. When Bush invoked an imaginary Social Security crisis, you could hear, but not see, the Democrats boo, whereas the GOP and their obnoxious stained-ink fingers were visible after every applause. Surely this isn't indicative of the media's acquiescence to Republican Washington? www.thenation.com

The Nation has it right. How the hell did our nation's media get so cowed by the Republican right wing? I could not watch the State of the Union. In fact, i fell asleep, not because i was tired but sick of the obnoxious and in your face cheering that pervaded the event. Not a pretty site for America. But, hey, we're all happy when an Iraqi woman and the parents of a deceased marine can hug for the cameras. It's called made-for-television.

• Other thoughts on the state of the union. Isn't it pathetic that John Edwards continues his election campaign, making speeches for his eventual run for president in 2008? Why doesn't he do something in the legislature? Oops, I think Dick Cheney just inhabited my brain. Sorry.

• On CNN yesterday, pretty interesting feature on the Ethnic Studies professor at University of Colorado, under fire for his comments about the 9/11 attacks. Interviewed by paula zahn, he basically said that he believed the 'technocrats' in the WTC had it coming because they were part of the machine that inflicted the same misery and pain around the world as part of the American economic machine. I cannot agree with him on this point, but saying it does help us understand the terrorists' mindset, right? he should be welcomed to express his viewpoints in a free society, right???

Well, maybe not. Zahn apparently got pissed off about this, because she continued to interrupt him and put words in his mouth, concluding the interview by distoring some comments about what he would do if he got fired (he would challenge it) into a threat on the university that they'd better not fire him. What a crock of shit!

She's working for the dark side, and the scariest thing about it-this is not Fox News Corp., but CNN. I'm glad that they aired the segment and overall, it was pretty good, but Zahn's use of the families as victims and her apparent inability to understand his points were just criminal because you can see CNN heading in the direction of attack journalism just like Fox.