The United States debating torture. A self-proclaimed God-fearing man, assumed leader of the nation, rallying for inhumane treatment of people who may or may not be guilty of a crime. I wonder how his god would feel about that.
He says this is a war for civilization, a war against evil and evil-doers. What sort of generalized anodyne is this? How can the American people be placated by such obviously ambiguous rhetoric? When have we not been against "evil"? Or terrorism? How do you conduct a war on the abstract? By bringing Baghdad taxi drivers to the brink of drowning to death?
This is the most disturbing conversation our country has ever had. How is it possible to claim the moral high ground while efforting to lower our own standards to those of the "evil-doers"?
The terrorists are bad, they behead white people, so we should be bad too to protect our goodness?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Mood: irritated
Have you ever noticed the day after you smoke pot you get agitated easily? That's how I felt today, only I didn't get high yesterday. Not on the sabbath, no sir.
All I could dwell upon was how uninspiring and useless my job is. How many people are passionate about their jobs? Surely not janitors, or Hollywood types. Most people? It's a comfoting thought -- that everyone's miserable and I'm not alone.
I watched a bull-riding competition yesterday while bored (obviously). Those guys have to love what they do. Why else put yourself in a position for such potential bodily injury?
It's fun to watch cowboys get stomped by bulls. Fox should start a show about ti: "When hamburger fights back". Now I just need some CGI special effect scene depicting the colonel getting henpecked (not figuratively) to death. My ears want painful screams with a southern drawl, the lily white suit blotched red!
Why is the big purple McDonald's character named Grimace? Because he's not entirely fond of watching ground meat rendered from cows enmasse, that's why.
Dr. Phil-good's presecription: new Yo La Tengo, xanax, and internet clips of people hurting themselves while skateboarding
Currently Listening to:
Yo La Tengo
I Am Not Afraid of You and I Will Beat Your Ass (2006)
Very stellar, btw.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Bad Dane Cook!
Jessica Simpson and Dane Cook in the same movie. Phillip brain bleed. Not just from all the substance abuse and usual life woes either.
Tomorrow starts the 2006 ACL fest, yet another year I'm unable to go. I foresee a weekend of encapsulated, insulated reality escapism. Someone find me a republican so I can ask them the best way to go about this.
Ann Richards, the only good thing ever to come out of Texas, died. She lost being re-elected governor because she legislated her principles instead of politics. And W. probably rigged that one too, because she was hugely popular. Also he's unelectable and a complete braying jackass phony liar crap nugget.
Could Norah Jones be more painfully beautiful? Leading scientists say no.
Currently Listening to:
I'm From Barcelona
Let Me Introduce You to My Friends (2006)
This borders on Polyphonic Spreeness, which I abhor, but stups short and does right by me.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The sad and primal forces of nature
Yesterday I would have written a seven-eleven post but was working out of the office all day (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and frankly forgot that it even was seven-eleven. I should state outright that I don't give a fuck -- it's just another day on the calendar, made special by our own calendar year. Why is the 1,825th day after the event so much more significant than the 1,826th? Or the 1,000th? Or 2,000th? We have a strange habit of paying special attention to tragedies on their anniversaries and affording them none the rest of the year (unless you're a republican running for re-election and need people to be terrified so they'll vote for you, which ironically is the exact definition of terrorism). Also see: Hurricane Katrina.
We're no safer, more people hate and want to kill us, our country is broke, our military significantly weakened, the rich are richer and the poor poorer, evangelicals rule the roost, and I need coffee.
People: kill your television (Ned's Atomic Dustbin). You will find no truth in TV. Watch Network.
Currently Listening to:
TV on the Radio
Return to Cookie Mountain (2006)
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Keith Olbermann, je t'aime
You can watch Keith read this commentary at the Countdown page, which is actually more stirring than just reading it. But I had to post his words.
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today’s Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
Comments? Email KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today’s Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
Comments? Email KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Lindsay Lohan: Fire down below? Fire in (around) the hole? I can't pick a title!
My bookie is going to knee-cap me. Lindsay Lohan does NOT, in fact, have a freckled firecrotch, with carpet matching curtains. DAMNATION! For me that was her one last possible redeeming quality. You can see the pictures on that link. Plain as tall Sarah.
Currently Listening to:
The Thermals
Currently Listening to:The Thermals
The Body, The Blood, The Machine (2006)
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Shoot the sherriff?
A British documentary (mockumentary, docudrama, whatever) depicts the fictional assassination of President Bush while on a trip to Chicago in 2007 by a supposed Syrian sniper. As much as I loathe Bush and his administration I still gotta frown upon the premise since I don't believe in murder in any circumstance.
Occasionally I entertain the thought of murder in utilitarian terms, and consider that maybe many lives would be saved were it not for the continued life of one person or a small group of people. But here, killing Bush would accomplish nothing in the way of change, and probably arouse the same fuck-all-brown-people sentiment that propagated after 7-11 and lead to more carpetbombing and xenophobia.
Mostly though I don't want my utter malice for the guy to elicit a knee-jerk, hells-yeah-plug-that-nut-garbler response. I'm not an un-biased juror here so my opinion is just suspect, I think. Maybe I'll just go with "respect the office of the president" and say fie.
Currently Listening to:
CSS
Cansei de Ser Sexy (2006)
Friday, September 01, 2006
West Wing dialogue
This is an excerpt from The West Wing episode where Jimmy Smits, the Democratic presidential nominee, debates Alan Alda, the Republican nominee. It's spectacular.
"Some of our older airlines are having trouble meeting their huge pension obligations at the very same time when they're facing intense competition from low-cost airlines that are so new they don't yet have pensions to pay. Now, an unthinking liberal will describe the airline bankruptcies as the evil capitalists screwing the workers."
"I didn't say that Senator and I don't think you should put words in my mouth."
"No. Of course you didn't say it. You're not an unthinking liberal. Are you?"
"I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime."
"No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?"
"It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country."
"A Republican President ended slavery."
"Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
"Some of our older airlines are having trouble meeting their huge pension obligations at the very same time when they're facing intense competition from low-cost airlines that are so new they don't yet have pensions to pay. Now, an unthinking liberal will describe the airline bankruptcies as the evil capitalists screwing the workers."
"I didn't say that Senator and I don't think you should put words in my mouth."
"No. Of course you didn't say it. You're not an unthinking liberal. Are you?"
"I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime."
"No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?"
"It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country."
"A Republican President ended slavery."
"Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
Das verken suckens der balls
Buzzing about in Cameron Parish -- a 2-hour trip to and fro.
Wednesday was a 12-hour day, including a 4-foot fall off a loading dock while holding a 17-inch CRT (not flat-panel, i.e. heavy) computer monitor. I decided I'm not particularly fond of falling from loading docks. My pants ripped, I'm having a hard time writing -- half of my left hand is blue and swollen (masturbation... difficult. I'm a southpaw), and my diet has gone to shit because the only thing to eat in the utopian land of Cameron is fast food. Lots of McFried things.
Also I've had to imbibe copius amounts of beer after work (yes, just HAD to) every day to stay grounded and not go mental/postal and quit. So I'm a big fatass now.
Thursday was only a 10-hour day. I should change my Myspace moniker to Inch and the Angry Phillip.
We're off for Labor Day. I should thank Dog for small miracles.
Currently Listening to:
What Made Milwaukee Famous
Trying to Never Catch Up (2006)
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Handjobs
Sporadically I am a big dumb animal of simian status, with little control of addictions, subsequent actions, and restraint of thought thuswhile. I could be glad that these situations are only chemically-induced phenomena (not at all phenomenal), and not ballast of my everyday sober existence. But we rarely focus on the positive do we? Still, I reverently wash xanax down with beer for fear of not being known at all. Even the blunderous "me".
It's as though some magnanimous knowledge exists innately in those around me that I'm not privy to and it either makes me an outsider looking in or the sole possessor of a different secret who just laments it. It doesn't elicit a sense of superiority or self-pity in me, in either scenario, just the usual perplexion that gnaws at the back of my brain. A hefty Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I feel like a casual observer of life and lives but rarely a participant.
And speaking of perplexion, why are there internet porn sites solely featuring handjobs? From a male standpoint isn't porn supposed to illustrate that which is not easliy attainable on a regular basis (for us non-socio's and broke-asses)? So.... handjobs? All I have to do for a handjob is buy myself dinner and get myself drunk. And occasionally light some candles. Not that difficult.
Currently Listening To:
My Brightest Diamond
Bring Me the Workhorse (2006)
It's as though some magnanimous knowledge exists innately in those around me that I'm not privy to and it either makes me an outsider looking in or the sole possessor of a different secret who just laments it. It doesn't elicit a sense of superiority or self-pity in me, in either scenario, just the usual perplexion that gnaws at the back of my brain. A hefty Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I feel like a casual observer of life and lives but rarely a participant.
And speaking of perplexion, why are there internet porn sites solely featuring handjobs? From a male standpoint isn't porn supposed to illustrate that which is not easliy attainable on a regular basis (for us non-socio's and broke-asses)? So.... handjobs? All I have to do for a handjob is buy myself dinner and get myself drunk. And occasionally light some candles. Not that difficult.
Currently Listening To:My Brightest Diamond
Bring Me the Workhorse (2006)
Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Keats and Yeats are on your side
I also wanted to write a blog about how Dane Cook sucks, but my time is better spent doing... anything but pondering Dane Cook.
Last night I bore witness to nothing but happy couples. Doing couple-y things. Historically this would send me into a spiral of self-pity and bitter loathing, but this morning I strangely find myself unbothered. I credit Mel Gibson and blame 9/11.
Also last night I found out that old friends of mine:
a. Got married without inviting me
b. Moved away without telling me
c. Moved back to Lafayette without contacting me
Three seperate people, mind you.
Not that I desire to be the center of anyone's universe, but FUCK it's a lot of personal disregard to absorb in one night.
Again, I am atypically unbothered. All the zen and meditating and medicating must be paying off. Suck it Tom Cruise!
I noticed in the local Lafayette party line pinko rag that someone was shot and killed at the mall. Strangely I don't care.
Happy birthday Stuart Murdoch!
Currently Listening To:
The Smiths
The Queen Is Dead (1990)
Last night I bore witness to nothing but happy couples. Doing couple-y things. Historically this would send me into a spiral of self-pity and bitter loathing, but this morning I strangely find myself unbothered. I credit Mel Gibson and blame 9/11.
Also last night I found out that old friends of mine:
a. Got married without inviting me
b. Moved away without telling me
c. Moved back to Lafayette without contacting me
Three seperate people, mind you.
Not that I desire to be the center of anyone's universe, but FUCK it's a lot of personal disregard to absorb in one night.
Again, I am atypically unbothered. All the zen and meditating and medicating must be paying off. Suck it Tom Cruise!
I noticed in the local Lafayette party line pinko rag that someone was shot and killed at the mall. Strangely I don't care.
Happy birthday Stuart Murdoch!
Currently Listening To:The Smiths
The Queen Is Dead (1990)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Top Ten Chapter Titles In George W. Bush's Memoirs
From David Letterman:
10. "101 Ways I've Misspelled 'Condoleezza'"
9. "Why Mom And Dad Voted For Kerry"
8. "The Best Memos I've Never Read"
7. "The War In Iraq, A 6-Foot Sandwich, And Other Things I Started But Couldn't Finish"
6. "How To Lose An Election And Still Become President"
5. "Good News, America - Just 923 More Days"
4. "1962-1964: The Cheerleader Years"
3. "Huh?"
2. "Bubba Was Right - - Monica Is Up For Anything"
1. "Chapter 20...Or is That My Approval Rating?"
10. "101 Ways I've Misspelled 'Condoleezza'"
9. "Why Mom And Dad Voted For Kerry"
8. "The Best Memos I've Never Read"
7. "The War In Iraq, A 6-Foot Sandwich, And Other Things I Started But Couldn't Finish"
6. "How To Lose An Election And Still Become President"
5. "Good News, America - Just 923 More Days"
4. "1962-1964: The Cheerleader Years"
3. "Huh?"
2. "Bubba Was Right - - Monica Is Up For Anything"
1. "Chapter 20...Or is That My Approval Rating?"
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Anniversary
The past few days I've been incessantly regailed with tails of suffering and remaining questions from people victimized by the hurricanes, and the inadequate responses that were begrudgingly offered. It's disheartening.
On one side you have the self-empowered righteous well-to-do's who blame the misfortunes of the relocated on their unwillingness to work and over-breeding, or that they decided to live in a giant bowl, or their darkness, or any other conjured excuse to evade responsibility.
On the other are those who sympathize with their plights and wring hands about what to do to help. Anymore I don't trust charities supposedly set up to give aid to the misplaced. At present I think the best contribution one can make is their time (ALWAYS worth more than money); time helping rebuild, clearing debris, and simply putting in face time to show that the devastated families aren't forgotten, and that there are those out there who still care.
My problem is that I'm just not privy to any means of providing that kind of aid.
I've personally been through Cameron Parish several times (because of work) and seen the progress being made, not by assistance from FEMA or anything government-related, but by the citizens' willingness to come to the aid of one another. We (my company) have been working frantically to get the schools ready for opening -- this past Monday -- and enabling the educational process to procede. But we do this at a profit, which, to me essentially means nothing. There is very little, if any, altruistic motive involved in what we do.
I'd like to do something to help that proffers no thanks whatsoever. Assistance from anonymouse sources to anonymous people whose thanks will never be heard is almost as close to pure altruism as is possible. Otherwise it's latent tit-for-tat.
Any crap, if anyone knows of good charities or means of doing real good with regard to the myriad of victimized and forgotten souls, please pass it along.
Currently Listening To:
The Decemberists
The Crane Wife (2006)
That's right, I have an advance copy. Beg me.
On one side you have the self-empowered righteous well-to-do's who blame the misfortunes of the relocated on their unwillingness to work and over-breeding, or that they decided to live in a giant bowl, or their darkness, or any other conjured excuse to evade responsibility.
On the other are those who sympathize with their plights and wring hands about what to do to help. Anymore I don't trust charities supposedly set up to give aid to the misplaced. At present I think the best contribution one can make is their time (ALWAYS worth more than money); time helping rebuild, clearing debris, and simply putting in face time to show that the devastated families aren't forgotten, and that there are those out there who still care.
My problem is that I'm just not privy to any means of providing that kind of aid.
I've personally been through Cameron Parish several times (because of work) and seen the progress being made, not by assistance from FEMA or anything government-related, but by the citizens' willingness to come to the aid of one another. We (my company) have been working frantically to get the schools ready for opening -- this past Monday -- and enabling the educational process to procede. But we do this at a profit, which, to me essentially means nothing. There is very little, if any, altruistic motive involved in what we do.
I'd like to do something to help that proffers no thanks whatsoever. Assistance from anonymouse sources to anonymous people whose thanks will never be heard is almost as close to pure altruism as is possible. Otherwise it's latent tit-for-tat.
Any crap, if anyone knows of good charities or means of doing real good with regard to the myriad of victimized and forgotten souls, please pass it along.
Currently Listening To:The Decemberists
The Crane Wife (2006)
That's right, I have an advance copy. Beg me.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Meat is murder
This weekend I had a serious yen for a hamburger, and pepperoni on my pizza. I remained stalwart, begrudgingly. Last night I had a dream that I was on my uncle's ranch and bore witness to the process by which cattle go from aloof pasture-grazers to saran-wrapped ground beef (and also strangely horses, even though I have never knowingly eaten or desired horse meat, aside from having metaphorically wanted to eat a whole one).
My zeal against veal has been thusly renewed. Just watch the Kentucky-Fried Cruelty video I have under the "videos" section of my profile. Finger-lickin' malice.
Currently Listening To:
Persephone's Bees
Notes from the Underworld (2006)
One of my favorites from 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
Stream of consciousness blather
What else is self-esteem besides an objective attempt at comparison? One says "I like myself" because they live up to their own parameters of worth, but how are said parameters developed? Inevitably doesn't a person hone standards of what they deem meritous by taking examples from other people? So if we don't base our self-esteem on what others think, or of who others are, what is it then based on?
Certain admirable characteristics in others strike chords in us that say "this is good, this is something I would like to employ in myself" and we thusly try. Ed Bagley Jr. is an unltra-environmentalist, which I find admirable, so I try to be as well because eco-altruism appeals to me. It strikes my biologically hard-wired chord. And when I satisfy my yen to nourish that desire I feel as if I have done something proper, and I think better of myself.
But I've also observed people hunting, and despite it being en vogue among several people around me I still find it vulgar, simian, and indicative of intellectual reversion to baser instincts. It doesn't nourish any desire in me whatsoever (not even when it's headed right for us!).
I've no idea where self-esteem comes from, or what it says that it's something you can supposedly "work on." I would say it's just a victim of circumstance and you have less control over it than some would suggest. But mine sucks and maybe it's just more convenient for me to think so.
As such and contrarily, I'm going to try to become the master of my own self-esteem, instead of the reverse. Really the power of thought is vastly underestimated. We approach life as time to make money to live, live well and die comfortably, but the standard of "living well" is a fabrication made up by our environment and peers. Most people quickly lose the ability to close their eyes and go on a vacation, or be able to look straight up into the sky or see a blade of grass and marvel at its beauty wherever you happen to be. There is a disconnect between rationality and sensory perception. We accept what we see, smell, hear, taste and touch as real, or "tangible." How does anyone know what is or isn't real though?
It's all objectivity, which delineates that real truth does not exist. As sson as the brain processes some stimulus it applies experience, thought, and the subject is skewed somehow. Think about how a person's mood affects their outlook on themselves and the world. I say this based on personal experience (and from endless cliches about optimism), but when I'm in a good mood I think more highly of myself, work becomes easier, not much can get me down. And a person's outlook is basically a choice they make based on external stimuli, to be gumpy or happy or generous or vengeful, etc. So essentially I choose what my reality is, based on interpretations of external factors that affect me.
A person's natural instinct can in a sense be counterintuitive; we ALLOW certain conditions in our lives we perceive as negative to become internalized, and thus affect our mood. And who really WANTS to be in a bad mood (masochists aside)? Why can't we redefine how we react to those stimuli? It's probably not easy but with practice why can't it be done? It's just a choice.
You can apply this to today's neo-conservatives. Their opinions are based not on what we would call "reality" but rather a conjured reality they've created for themselves in order to rationalize their true ends. They decide what outcome they desire then formulate the environment around it to provide the means.
And people as a whole are too preoccupied with ends. The roller coaster analogy -- you look forward to the steep drop and loops, but without the nerve-wracking, jolting, rattling trip up the giant hill the whole experience would be ruined, or at least mitigated. Anticipation in life is what gratifies. It's the same way you enjoy taking a piss much more after you've been holding it in forever than under normal circumstances.
So is this whole experience we call life just clattering up the roller-coaster incline waiting for the big thrill? What big thrill are we hoping we'll arrive at? Religions say the afterlife, but I say that getting there is more than half the fun. It may be the only fun there is. You have to appreciate the here and now because noone knows for certain where this "journey" will lead to, if anywhere. As Trinity said in The Matrix, "..it's the question that drives us..."
People who vanquish their enemies are left with no purpose. The thrill of the chase needs to be more appreciated by all of us. My cat loves playing with straws, and when I'm swinging it all around and playing tug-of-war he's ecstatic. But when I let go, when I let him win, he just kind of sits there with this disappointed look on his chevy chase.
Getting there is half the fun? Understatement.
Lots of hawkish Americans aver that the torture of detainees, arbitrarily labelled as "hostile combatants" to whom the Geneva Conventions allegedly don't apply, deserve to be tortured, because they do it to innocent Americans. Two people standing next to each other, both supportive of this mentality, should sport "I'm with stupid" shirts. You don't become great by lowering your own standards to those of your enemies, who you claim to be evil. I.e., they're bad so we should be bad too? Doesn't that only prove that a fair Democracy based on laws does not work? It's imperative that, no matter how heinous the actions of our enemies may be, that we adhere to a higher moral standard than they, otherwise we have no right to complain about their tactics.
And the idea of beating "terrorists who hate our freedom" by sacrificing those freedoms ourselves is mind-numbing on so many levels. It's tantamount to committing suicide so no one can kill you.
But sadly we do not live in an age of reason.
Certain admirable characteristics in others strike chords in us that say "this is good, this is something I would like to employ in myself" and we thusly try. Ed Bagley Jr. is an unltra-environmentalist, which I find admirable, so I try to be as well because eco-altruism appeals to me. It strikes my biologically hard-wired chord. And when I satisfy my yen to nourish that desire I feel as if I have done something proper, and I think better of myself.
But I've also observed people hunting, and despite it being en vogue among several people around me I still find it vulgar, simian, and indicative of intellectual reversion to baser instincts. It doesn't nourish any desire in me whatsoever (not even when it's headed right for us!).
I've no idea where self-esteem comes from, or what it says that it's something you can supposedly "work on." I would say it's just a victim of circumstance and you have less control over it than some would suggest. But mine sucks and maybe it's just more convenient for me to think so.
As such and contrarily, I'm going to try to become the master of my own self-esteem, instead of the reverse. Really the power of thought is vastly underestimated. We approach life as time to make money to live, live well and die comfortably, but the standard of "living well" is a fabrication made up by our environment and peers. Most people quickly lose the ability to close their eyes and go on a vacation, or be able to look straight up into the sky or see a blade of grass and marvel at its beauty wherever you happen to be. There is a disconnect between rationality and sensory perception. We accept what we see, smell, hear, taste and touch as real, or "tangible." How does anyone know what is or isn't real though?
It's all objectivity, which delineates that real truth does not exist. As sson as the brain processes some stimulus it applies experience, thought, and the subject is skewed somehow. Think about how a person's mood affects their outlook on themselves and the world. I say this based on personal experience (and from endless cliches about optimism), but when I'm in a good mood I think more highly of myself, work becomes easier, not much can get me down. And a person's outlook is basically a choice they make based on external stimuli, to be gumpy or happy or generous or vengeful, etc. So essentially I choose what my reality is, based on interpretations of external factors that affect me.
A person's natural instinct can in a sense be counterintuitive; we ALLOW certain conditions in our lives we perceive as negative to become internalized, and thus affect our mood. And who really WANTS to be in a bad mood (masochists aside)? Why can't we redefine how we react to those stimuli? It's probably not easy but with practice why can't it be done? It's just a choice.
You can apply this to today's neo-conservatives. Their opinions are based not on what we would call "reality" but rather a conjured reality they've created for themselves in order to rationalize their true ends. They decide what outcome they desire then formulate the environment around it to provide the means.
And people as a whole are too preoccupied with ends. The roller coaster analogy -- you look forward to the steep drop and loops, but without the nerve-wracking, jolting, rattling trip up the giant hill the whole experience would be ruined, or at least mitigated. Anticipation in life is what gratifies. It's the same way you enjoy taking a piss much more after you've been holding it in forever than under normal circumstances.
So is this whole experience we call life just clattering up the roller-coaster incline waiting for the big thrill? What big thrill are we hoping we'll arrive at? Religions say the afterlife, but I say that getting there is more than half the fun. It may be the only fun there is. You have to appreciate the here and now because noone knows for certain where this "journey" will lead to, if anywhere. As Trinity said in The Matrix, "..it's the question that drives us..."
People who vanquish their enemies are left with no purpose. The thrill of the chase needs to be more appreciated by all of us. My cat loves playing with straws, and when I'm swinging it all around and playing tug-of-war he's ecstatic. But when I let go, when I let him win, he just kind of sits there with this disappointed look on his chevy chase.
Getting there is half the fun? Understatement.
Lots of hawkish Americans aver that the torture of detainees, arbitrarily labelled as "hostile combatants" to whom the Geneva Conventions allegedly don't apply, deserve to be tortured, because they do it to innocent Americans. Two people standing next to each other, both supportive of this mentality, should sport "I'm with stupid" shirts. You don't become great by lowering your own standards to those of your enemies, who you claim to be evil. I.e., they're bad so we should be bad too? Doesn't that only prove that a fair Democracy based on laws does not work? It's imperative that, no matter how heinous the actions of our enemies may be, that we adhere to a higher moral standard than they, otherwise we have no right to complain about their tactics.
And the idea of beating "terrorists who hate our freedom" by sacrificing those freedoms ourselves is mind-numbing on so many levels. It's tantamount to committing suicide so no one can kill you.
But sadly we do not live in an age of reason.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Ailing, illing, but not illin'
I want to drill a hole in my cranium to alleviate the pressure that is causing this headache. Also I'm pretty positive I have a fever and, possibly, the flu. Me need cortisone shot, right in the buttock. Never before have I longed to have my ass pierced and violated -- that's how rotten I feel. I'm not going to work today and depending on what the doc tells me I may not tomorrow. Fuck work. I woke up with night sweats last night and fits of hot and cold. T'aint fun.
If anyone wants to bring me some coffee ice cream I'll metaphorically suck their dick.
On the sunny side my landlord is putting in a new air conditioner for me. which excites me beyond comprehension; I feel like a little schoolgirl. I've always maintained that the greatest invention man or woman ever made was air conditioning. Central air is king, but the window units do the job.
I'm making copies of all my DVD's so I can sell them. If anyone is interested they're $5 each, probably. And while on the topic of high finance I may have to sell my ACL tickets. I'm running very light on the yen lately and need to inject a little Jewiness into my practices.
Mmmmmm that's good anti-semitism...
If anyone wants to bring me some coffee ice cream I'll metaphorically suck their dick.
On the sunny side my landlord is putting in a new air conditioner for me. which excites me beyond comprehension; I feel like a little schoolgirl. I've always maintained that the greatest invention man or woman ever made was air conditioning. Central air is king, but the window units do the job.
I'm making copies of all my DVD's so I can sell them. If anyone is interested they're $5 each, probably. And while on the topic of high finance I may have to sell my ACL tickets. I'm running very light on the yen lately and need to inject a little Jewiness into my practices.
Mmmmmm that's good anti-semitism...
Sunday, July 23, 2006
J. Krishnamurti on love
"Where there is the possibility of pain there is no love The questioner wants to know how he can act freely and without self-repression when he knows his action must hurt those he loves. You know, to love is to be free; both parties are free. Where there is the possibility of pain, where there is the possibility of suffering in love, it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of possession, of acquisitiveness. If you love, really love someone, there is no possibility of giving him pain when you do something that you think is right. It is only when you want that person to do what you desire or he wants you to do what he desires, that there is pain. That is, you like to be possessed; you feel safe, secure, comfortable; though you know that comfort is but transient, you take shelter in that comfort, in that transience. So each struggle for comfort, for encouragement, really but betrays the lack of inward richness; and therefore an action separate, apart from the other individual naturally creates disturbance, pain and suffering; and one individual has to suppress what he really feels in order to adjust himself to the other. In other words, this constant repression, brought about by so-called love, destroys the two individuals. In that love there is no freedom; it is merely a subtle bondage.
Book of Life - July 21st
Book of Life - July 21st
Thursday, July 20, 2006
R.W. Emerson Self-tout
This is an excerpt from the essay Self Reliance by Emerson:
But the man is, as it were, clapped into jail by his consciousness. As soon as he has once acted or spoken with eclat, he is a committed person, watched by the sympathy or the hatred of hundreds, whose affections must now enter into his account. There is no Lethe for this. Ah, that he could pass again into his neutrality! Who can thus avoid all pledges, and having observed, observe again from the same unaffected, unbiased, unbribable, unaffrighted innocence, must always be formidable. He would utter opinions on all passing affairs, which being seen to be not private, but necessary, would sink like darts into the ear of men, and put them in fear.
I've been reading some essays by Emerson, one of my favorite writers to quote. I find myself disagreeing with him in regard to Self-Reliance though.
He writes that our natural instincts should trump opinions and perceptions honed by existence, education, society, culture, etc.; a child's view is superior to that of an adult's since it has not been corrupted by experience.
Perception isn't pure and right simply because it hasn't been influenced by outside factors though. Humans as animals have an innate desire to eat, to fuck, but we don't run willy-nilly over creation stealing and raping to nourish those instincts, because civilization has pre-empted those needs in recognition that we need an ordered societal structure.
Par example: our president -- not exactly an algonquin roundtable nominee. Supporters call him "resolute" for tuning out opinions of the American and world majority and doing what he allegedly believes is right non grata (and in the fantasy bubble world in which he lives, I may cede that he does believe he is right).
But we can't live in fantasy worlds. It's necessary that you formulate beliefs and practices based on something more factual and applicable than instinct (or Biblical passages, but that's a whole other morass to get into). I understand the Ockam's razor notion of simplicity's credence, but even that simplicity is based on proven scientific fact.
Maybe childlike innocence is prefereable in some ways to adults formulating opinions around what they want to believe, not necessarily the truth, such as those that decide what ends they want (usually financial gain) and subsequently facilitate the means in their mind to make said means seem moral and/or logical, ala Bush. But I don't accept that our original humanity is always corrupted by experience.
Ralphie, no air rifle for you this Xmas. It all sounds like a rationale for laissez-faire, thunderdome behavior.
Although I can appreciate the notion of heaving a big helping heaping of "Fuck You" to conformity, so long as it bears reason in mind and isn't some ephemeral rebellion for the sake of rebellion.
Currently Listening To:
The Grates
Gravity Won't Get You High (2006)
Subsiding
Hello all (both of you). I am still alive and blogging, I just mainly do it on my Myspace blog now:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=18410551
It's just more convenient to get blog updates via mail than to have to repeatedly check people's blogs every day to see if they've posted something new.
I'm deliberating coming back to blogger, but for the time-being if you want to read my drivel you'll have to go there. Sincerely I appreciate the interest.
Love and fucks.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=18410551
It's just more convenient to get blog updates via mail than to have to repeatedly check people's blogs every day to see if they've posted something new.
I'm deliberating coming back to blogger, but for the time-being if you want to read my drivel you'll have to go there. Sincerely I appreciate the interest.
Love and fucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)