As I stared out my window this morning, drinking black tea and eating a banana, I stumbled upon a conundrum.
The natural world never appears the same exact way twice. Movies do, at face value, but not the real thing. The snow might fall every year, even the same sort of snow, but we never see the same set of flakes fall in the same way. They will always ride the wind differently, always land in new places. The same car might always be parked in front of the house, but there must be something new inside, or new dirt, or something. New patterns, new microscopic hitchhikers...
I have a penchant for watching some movies to the point that I know every scene, every line, without practicing or studying. They become a part of me. If you have ever had a conversation with me, I've probably pulled up some obscure reference that puts a look on your face so quizzical I need to explain where my most recent words had their origin.
My existence, whether in viewing or listening to music or reading, contains in large part in the repetitive consumption of human creations, not in a raw interaction with an ever-changing yet cyclical nature.
I have recently come to believe this to be a mystical connexion to human origins, to the oral tradition that held our history before heiroglyphics or the alphabet, to the practice of memorizing poetry in grammar school that was only abandoned within the past hundred years.
ASIDE: We live in an experimental time. Population growth and technological progress since the industrial revolution have propelled us into such a state of change that anything being accepted as wisdom must be scrutinized against that which was previously conventional, because there may have been a reason for it that we are now overlooking in our zest for the power of our own ideas.
Should I believe that this exact repetitive nature of human consumption is therefore a stain upon our existence, that we should only interact with the natural world in which things are forever changing, if only minutely? No. This requires some pondering to arrive at a couple of mildly stunning conclusions.
The first regards the natural world. Look at its cyclical nature. Look at the shock it brings to the system to see a blood-red moon, yet even this we can measure to be something that happens twice a year around the globe. A month, or "moonth", is roughly approximated to the time it takes to travel from one full moon to the next. Everything is cyclical in nature, and we can hardly find a sign that doesn't point to something we have seen before, or at least to something we can expect based on what we have already experienced. Therefore, this same sort of repetition, whether in the telling of tales or the memorization of poetry or the watching of movies, is in line with the natural experience intended by the Creator.
Likewise, the repetitive nature of human texts is not purely duplicative. Whether it be the Bible or The Big Lebowski or a Mark Rothko painting, we bring new experiences with every viewing, so this exact mimic of what we had previously seen takes on a whole new shape. The more we see the same thing, the more we understand it, and the better we understand ourselves.
So, nature, unlike television or books, is always just a little bit aesthetically different each time we see it, even if we have seen it before. However, books and television are likewise different each time we see them because of what has come through us in the meantime. Yet both remain entirely cyclical. This is just a small exposition of the nature of all things, which is necessarily dual. Everything is repetitive AND changing. We have free-will that is predestined. Blackness, which appears at first glance to be a magnanimous presence, is the absence of all color, while whiteness, which is associated with purity and newness, is the presence of all color.
Just think what a minute of snowfall could do for you.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Poor in America
There is a high school in America that has just now gotten the internet, but its computers run on Windows 3.1. No student has high-speed internet in the home, in fact, none of them have myspace or facebook accounts, not even at school or the library. The only computer programming classes it offers are in an archaic language that isn't even used anymore. They have no formal cellphone policy, because none of the students has yet had the means to obtain one. Many sports teams have to practice in a basement gymnasium not even big enough to house a regulation basketball court. The main football field is still grass and dirt and does not employ new FieldTurf, even in a very cold climate.
Imagine sending a child from this school into today's workforce and expecting them to compete with high school and college graduates who have been well trained in the latest technology.
This was my high school, from which I graduated in 1997. You say you're liberal because the poor are getting poorer, because the middle class is going away? I argue that the poor are now better off than they've ever been. Name a poor kid today who had as little technological training in their developmental years as I had in an upper-middle-class suburban high school. Even the homeless have myspace. Let it rest. The keys to wealth and happiness do not rest in more funding.
Imagine sending a child from this school into today's workforce and expecting them to compete with high school and college graduates who have been well trained in the latest technology.
This was my high school, from which I graduated in 1997. You say you're liberal because the poor are getting poorer, because the middle class is going away? I argue that the poor are now better off than they've ever been. Name a poor kid today who had as little technological training in their developmental years as I had in an upper-middle-class suburban high school. Even the homeless have myspace. Let it rest. The keys to wealth and happiness do not rest in more funding.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
President 2008
I should have gone on the record before Super Tuesday, but since we didn't really learn anything new from it, I don't mind saying this now.
Let it be known that I'm not much for politics. The Presidency is one of the world's biggest popularity contests. The ideas, the issues, the stances are all out there and have been since the beginning. The tide turns on lies and truths that come out later.
This being said, John McCain will be the next President. No matter whether Hillary or Obama wins. The country is usually split about 50/50 Democrat and Republican, with the decision left up to the people riding the fence who might decide to show up and vote whichever way the wind is blowing. McCain has some crossover appeal and a lot of experience that will make him look good in the debates. His two potential opponents have neither in the same quantities.
Hillary should be getting the woman vote, but she can't even get Oprah to back her. How in the world we expect to get a woman President without Oprah's backing, I don't know. I guess Oprah decided she'd stick up for the other political minority she's a part of.
Obama is kind of an asshole. I'm not saying he's not capable. I'm not saying his words don't ring true with a lot of people. But if you listen to the guy, watch his facial expressions, see what happens when he gets riled up in an interview, Mr. Obama gets a little self-righteous. He doesn't have universal appeal. He's good at preaching to the choir, but there's no reason that choir will include Republicans.
No, McCain has it. He's old and old people vote. He's a white male and represents the status quo, which is good enough for a lot of people. He also did some bipartisan work on Campaign Finance Reform, which still needs a hell of a lot of work, but continues to stick him in people's minds as a uniter, not a divider.
Another problem for the two Dems right now? Each other. John McCain and his meager multimillion dollar budget can now ignore Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and the far right wing of the party. He can pursue a centrist message as a universal candidate. Hillary and Obama still have to duke it out. Either they're going to come to a consensus and run on a double-political-minority ticket, which would be novel but suicidal, or else things are going to get ugly while they take off the gloves and try to win the nomination. That would mire them in a bunch of "who's the bigger blue-stater" posturing that would probably keep their victories to the blue states.
HOW THINGS COULD CHANGE:
1) McCain picks a lousy Veep. Get somebody young, dynamic, and more conservative. Attract the hipsters for change and the farts for stagnancy. See if he can do it all in one.
2) McCain runs an ineffective national campaign. Pulls a Rudy, if you will. He can't let the dueling change hounds steal the spotlight during the next month or two. He has to take full advantage of his opportunity instead of sitting back and waiting. Then, it will be too late.
3) Hillary and Obama turn the debate from who's more for change into who's got a better stab at the Sepulchral Manse. Both have claimed to be the candidates for change and are very similar on most points, even though Hillary's change fell out of her pocket only after she started losing ground. One needs to convince us they're ready for Washington. More ready than McCain.
I just don't see it. In America the Shortsighted, the game may already be over. I'm not even sure I'll vote. All depends on if I get my printer hooked up to send the paperwork in. You heard it here first. John McCain will win in 2008.
Let it be known that I'm not much for politics. The Presidency is one of the world's biggest popularity contests. The ideas, the issues, the stances are all out there and have been since the beginning. The tide turns on lies and truths that come out later.
This being said, John McCain will be the next President. No matter whether Hillary or Obama wins. The country is usually split about 50/50 Democrat and Republican, with the decision left up to the people riding the fence who might decide to show up and vote whichever way the wind is blowing. McCain has some crossover appeal and a lot of experience that will make him look good in the debates. His two potential opponents have neither in the same quantities.
Hillary should be getting the woman vote, but she can't even get Oprah to back her. How in the world we expect to get a woman President without Oprah's backing, I don't know. I guess Oprah decided she'd stick up for the other political minority she's a part of.
Obama is kind of an asshole. I'm not saying he's not capable. I'm not saying his words don't ring true with a lot of people. But if you listen to the guy, watch his facial expressions, see what happens when he gets riled up in an interview, Mr. Obama gets a little self-righteous. He doesn't have universal appeal. He's good at preaching to the choir, but there's no reason that choir will include Republicans.
No, McCain has it. He's old and old people vote. He's a white male and represents the status quo, which is good enough for a lot of people. He also did some bipartisan work on Campaign Finance Reform, which still needs a hell of a lot of work, but continues to stick him in people's minds as a uniter, not a divider.
Another problem for the two Dems right now? Each other. John McCain and his meager multimillion dollar budget can now ignore Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and the far right wing of the party. He can pursue a centrist message as a universal candidate. Hillary and Obama still have to duke it out. Either they're going to come to a consensus and run on a double-political-minority ticket, which would be novel but suicidal, or else things are going to get ugly while they take off the gloves and try to win the nomination. That would mire them in a bunch of "who's the bigger blue-stater" posturing that would probably keep their victories to the blue states.
HOW THINGS COULD CHANGE:
1) McCain picks a lousy Veep. Get somebody young, dynamic, and more conservative. Attract the hipsters for change and the farts for stagnancy. See if he can do it all in one.
2) McCain runs an ineffective national campaign. Pulls a Rudy, if you will. He can't let the dueling change hounds steal the spotlight during the next month or two. He has to take full advantage of his opportunity instead of sitting back and waiting. Then, it will be too late.
3) Hillary and Obama turn the debate from who's more for change into who's got a better stab at the Sepulchral Manse. Both have claimed to be the candidates for change and are very similar on most points, even though Hillary's change fell out of her pocket only after she started losing ground. One needs to convince us they're ready for Washington. More ready than McCain.
I just don't see it. In America the Shortsighted, the game may already be over. I'm not even sure I'll vote. All depends on if I get my printer hooked up to send the paperwork in. You heard it here first. John McCain will win in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
