Tagore

THE BEGINNING

"WHERE have I come from, where did you pick me up?" the baby asked its mother.

She answered half crying, half laughing, and clasping the baby to her breast,-- "You were hidden in my heart as its desire, my darling.

You were in the dolls of my childhood's games; and when with clay I made the image of my god every morning, I made and unmade you then.

You were enshrined with our household deity, in his worship I worshipped you.

In all my hopes and my loves, in my life, in the life of my mother you have lived.

In the lap of the deathless Spirit who rules our home you have been nursed for ages.

When in girlhood my heart was opening its petals, you hovered as a fragrance about it.

Your tender softness bloomed in my youthful limbs, like a glow in the sky before the sunrise.

Heaven's first darling, twin-born with the morning light, you have floated down the stream of the world's life, and at last you have stranded on my heart.

As I gaze on your face, mystery overwhelms me; you who belong to all have become mine.

For fear of losing you I hold you tight to my breast. What magic has snared the world's treasure in these slender arms of mine?"

http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/rt/cmoon.htm

76th post (a tribute to america)

ok. its white house week on cspan which makes me more happy than any of you can even begin to imagine., so this blog is all about these united states and the politicians i love. im going to continue the letter writing thing from earlier.




dear george washington,

you are a badass among badasses, the president who set the precedent. did you ever have any doubt? youre always portrayed so confidently, the model statesman of the world.



dear john jay,

guess what. no slaves. anywhere. fucking awesome, right? im not sure you know how much i want to be you- unsung, well-travelled, brilliant.



dear thomas jefferson,

im just going to listen to your actions, not your words. well some of your words. dude, you know i love polymaths, but did you have to be so opposed to a federal supremacy?



dear alexander hamilton,

i swear, i will hunt down all of the descendents of aaron burr and make their lives miserable. you shouldve been president.



dear andrew jackson,

do you still have the bullet? do you just sit around and gloat? you are a fucking demigod.



dear james k polk,

i dont deserve to speak to you.



dear henry clay and john c calhoun and daniel webster,

rock on. you made congress cool. hasnt happened since. wont happen again.



dear lincoln,

aderol? i can get you some.



dear teddy,

thank you for smashing the atrium. fuck buchanan



dear taft,

you are proof that work history is directly proportional to weight in american politics. what didnt you do?



dear adlai stevenson,

kennedys a dick. i got your back.



dear barry goldwater,

you rawk. and im tired of these little letters.

a series of open letters

dear congress or the executive branch (since you have more power than constitutionally allowed),

guess what. bailouts dont work. they never have. give ford the bridge loan on condition of the other twos collapse. thats it. stop wasting our money. stop. stop. stop.

i know youre just going to say that filing for bankruptcy is harder now because of the scarcity, that america will lose nearly a million jobs. bullshit. we will just lose a million jobs owned by american companies. we need to get used to the fact that there is a world economy, it is all globalized. i really dont think factory workers care whether their ceos are japanese or from the us. i think they just want their jobs and a little assurance that theyll be able to keep them through retirement.



dear worshippers of obama (especially those on msnbc),

he is not a god. please dont set him up to disappoint us all.



dear conspiracy theorists,

obama is not the antichrist. hes just a half black kid with some ideas a lot of americans like the sound of.



dear gm,

in reference to that first letter, we all hate you more than we hate congress. fuck you. buy chrystler and give it a go or sell yourself for a loss. you brought this shit on yourself, and if i see you back in congress in april begging for money, i will personally see to it that you are all forced into poverty. take some fucking responsibility for yourselves.



dear citizens of zimbabwe,

im shouting as loud as i motherfucking can for you. no one else wanted to join until recently. i cant promise that help is on the way, but i can promise that i will do my best to never lose my voice. and i can promise i will not stop shouting until you can cast a vote . i will not stop shouting until you get proper medical attention. i will not stop shouting until you have a responsible government with your best interests at heart.



dear citizens of southern sudan,

no one learned from darfur. im not even sure you know the crisis that is about to befall you. i shout for you too.



dear government of the peoples republic of china,

please do not neglect basic safety in your rush to become a megapower. please do not assume you have carte blanc. america wont do shit, but your own people will. beware of public opinion. also, i seriously love you guys. want to go out for dinner sometime?



dear countries of colombia, venezuela, nicaragua, and mexico,

im not stupid. bushs administration may be incompetent in relations in the americas, but i have a sneaking suspicion that bill richardson may be able to get a few things changed. so watch the fuck out, because i send articulate letters to politicians, and politicians enforce sanctions on countries that dont crack down on the thugs selling drugs from your country.



dear incoming obama administration,

do not neglect the issue i addressed above. you know its as big a security issue as 'terrorism.'



dear elizabeth,

i hope youre not waiting for some twist of fate to bring us together again. i stopped last week.

yup

pakistan was bombed yesterday. never heard a word about it. fuck media.

ill talk

about the cabinet when it is fully assembled.

but for now, i have a small rant about the crisis in india. yes, its fucking tragic, and yes i want more answers, and no, american media wont give it to me straight, BUT

did you know there are five countries in africa who lost at least twice as many people on that day to genocide? and it just happened again today. and itll happen tomorrow. and it happened yesterday. did you see any stories on that?

so heres an open letter




dear person who determines what tragedies see air time,
OR
dear persons in charge of the world community at large,
OR
dear people of the world who know and turn a blind eye to certain events and gush over others,




FUCK YOU.




sincerely,
lee

travis drives up to omaha to pick up some cash

it was hot as fuck for a change. and all the birds were yelping about it. and little nameless wouldnt give me a handjob on the drive over to omaha, said she felt too clean to do it. i didnt mind much.

i got off enough at the prospect of picking up my six and a half grand in omaha. i placed a bet on a scrappy little bitch who knocked the feet out from under the frontrunner. dog racing. it was a different kind of sport.

little nameless' stomach got to growling a little after noon. she wanted some more of those goddamn chicken fries. there was a burger king about ten miles down the highway, and i tried to explain to her that itd probably only be about 15 minutes. she kind of spaced out on me though. i think the little derelict who ran around our little motel room sold her some bad shrooms.

that girl was always getting into so much shit. she reminded me of betty. everyone reminded me of betty in nebraska. thats what her dad used to call her. nebraska beth. i think she used to live there or something before he got custody.

we pulled into the burger king and the bitch had already fallen asleep, so i bought her the fries and hauled ass north to omaha to pick up my winnings.

my old buddy rich was waiting for me in the backlot of some dealership. i half thought about leaving the girl there, but i didnt trust rich much around women. and my sister lives in kansas city. i wanted the two to meet.

reviving the blog

i dont want to talk about politics, but i do want to keep this blog alive, so i guess im just going to ramble for a couple of paragraphs and hope i find something to say.

a new hobby you should all pick up: reading antiquated history and economy journals. ive had so much fun reading about brits opinions on russia before the second world war or listening to american commentators argue that the economy is strong and economists are just trying to play prophet in the twenties.

im listening to james brown. im not sure why.

yeah... not sure this is quite working, but i might as well keep writing shit. today is a really slow day.

listen to neutral milk hotel. even though ive already told all you readers to do so. do it. for real.

anyone have any suggestions for my next book? id like something light. if anyone says twilight i will shoot you in the face. no lie.

politic fatigue

i have it.

maccain won the debate on points. but he always looks like a dick, so no one thought he won.

if i can somehow get a working internet connection in my fucking room, ill be back here with a rant sometime in the coming week.

a would-be review of the second debate

heres why im not doing it

-nothing important was said
-both candidates scare the shit out of me
-barack obama is already the president; mccain has all but given up

Excerpt from Bret Easton Ellis' Less Than Zero

As we walk out of the theater, ninety minutes, maybe two hours later, some girl with pink hair and roller skates slung over her shoulders come up to Trent.

"Trent, like, oh my God. Isn't this place a scream?" the girl squeals.

"Hey, Ronnette, this Clay. Clay, this is Ronnette."

"Hi, Clay," she says, flirting. "Hey, you two, what flick did you see?" She opens a piece of Bazooka and pops it into her mouth.

"Um . . . number thirteen," Trent says, groggy, eyes red and half closed.

"What was it called?" Ronnette asks.

"I forget," Trent says, and looks over at me. I forgot too and so i just shrug.

"Hey Trenty, I need a ride. Did you drive here?" she asks.

"No, well yeah. No, Clay did."

"Oh, Clay, could you please give me a ride?"

"Sure."

"Fab. Let me put these on and we'll go."

On the way through the mall, a security guard, sitting alone on a white bench, smoking a cigarette, tells Ronnette that there's no roller skating in the Beverly Center.

"Too much," Ronnette says, and rolls away.

The security guard just sits there and takes another drag and watches us leave.

Once in my car Ronnette tells us that she just finished singing vocals, actually background vocals, on Bandarasta's new album.

"But I don't like Bandarasta. He's always calling me 'Halloween' for some reason. I don't like to be called 'Halloween.' I don't like it at all."

I don't ask who Bandarasta is; instead I ask her if she's a singer.

"Oh, you could say. I'm a hairdresser, really. See, I got mono and dropped out of Uni and just hung around. I paint too . . . oh gosh, that reminds me. I left my art over at Devo's house. I think they want to use it in a video. Anyway . . ." She laughs and then stops and blows a bubble and snaps her gum. "What did you ask me, I forgot."

I notice that Trent's asleep and I jab him in the stomach.

"I'm up, dude, I'm up." He sits up and unrolls his window.

"Cla-ay," Ronnette says. "What did you ask me. I forgot."

"What do you do?" I ask, irritated, trying to stay awake.

"Oh, I cut everybody's hair at Flip. Oh, turn this song up. I love this song. They're gonna be at The Palace on Friday."

"Trent, wake up, asshole," I say loudly over the music.

"I'm up, dude, I'm up. Eyes are just tired."

"Open them," I tell him.

He opens them and looks around the car. "Hair looks good," he tells Ronnette.

"Did it myself. I had this dream, see, where I saw the whole world melt. I was standing on La Cienega and from there I could see the whole world and it was melting and it was just so strong and realistic like. And so I thought, Well, if this dream comes true, how can I stop it, you know?"

I'm nodding my head.

"How can I chage things, you know? So I thought if I, like pierced my ear or something, like alter my physical image, dye my hair, the world wouldn't melt. So I dyed my hair and this pink lasts. I like it. It lasts. I don't think the world is gonna melt anymore."

"I'm not to reassured by her tone and I can't believe I'm actually nodding my head, but I pull up to Danny's Okie Dog on Santa Monica and she trips as she climbs out of the small back seat of the Mercedes and lies on the sidewalk and laughs as I drive away. I ask Trent where he met her. We pass the billboard on Sunset. Disappear Here. Wonder if he's for sale.

"Just around," he says. "Wanna joint?"














What do you think?
Do you like any of the characters?

the vice presidential debate

i had the distinct pleasure of watching this particular debate with a bunch of dumbasses who saw fit to bash palin everytime she stuttered and make dumbass remarks about the issues that were being discussed. thats why its taken me so long to post this review. i had to go back and watch the debate by myself, so i could actually get a real handle on what was being said.

insofar as what the world expected from sarah palin and joe biden, they both exceded expectations, which i suppose is not a bad thing at all. but i was left partially unsatisfied [suprised?] by both candidates.

lets go ahead and get this out of the way. joe biden won the debate. let there be no doubt about it. joe biden, in terms of debate points, just smashed palin. as for the aestetics, palins victory was in the fact that she made it seem that she hadnt completely lost.

this debate was a little different than the first presidential one. the moderator, ive already forgotten her name, actually asked some of the questions i wanted to hear the answers to! the debate started with economic issues, as one would expect, and both had little to quibble about in terms of the recent senate bill [ill talk about where that went to shit in the next blog]. unlike the petty debate on earmarks mccain and obama had, this debate turned into one on taxes. palin tried to bludgeon the point across, bringing it up after the debate had already started turning in the next direction. but if youre gonna fight about something petty, taxes is the least petty of them all.

the economic rounds were, of course, the source of my dissatisfaction.

the next rounds of debate focused on a couple of issues that i thought were actually handled very well by both candidates: foreign policy and energy policy. joe biden showed a pretty firm grasp on the situations America finds itself lodged in and adeptly detailed the the sdvice of our commanders on the ground. palin, apporpriately pointed out the successes of the surge and the advice of some military higher ups on afghanistan. both overstated a little. biden attached mccains name to the bush-cheney administration. palin got all coloquial and annoying. it happens. im used to it. on the energy crisis, biden may actually have lost points, fumbling through what hes said about clean coal and going for the jugular on offshore. palin came off as very competent on the issue. and actually came out in opposition to mccain, saying shes going to work on changing his mind in regards to drilling in anwr.

then came the social issues. palin claimed her stance was the same as senator bidens on gay relationships, extending them the full rights under the law but not redefining the institution of marriage to include a same sex couple. that was a little surprising. the rest not so much.

they finished with the question we all wanted to know the answer to: if your principle dies and you have to take office, how will your administration differ. biden pointed out that he and obama were on the same page on nearly every issue. palin said she was her own person and might differ in some areas implying energy policy more than likely.

overall, i was much more impressed with this debate than the original presidential one. biden won. palin didnt necessarily lose. i pretty much knew that would be the outcome. im pretty content nonetheless. they both seemed competent, something i couldnt say for either before.

oh and biden got all choked up and almost cried when he started talking about his kids and the car accident. one of the most touching moments ive ever seen from any politician. but it didnt fit the response he was supposed to be giving, so... yeah. im not sure what to make of that.

the economy revisited

i really suck at articulating my stances on issues. all of these little rants are only half-coherent. heres another one :P

just a short while ago, the senate passed a bill very similar to the bill that failed in the house. it had a few little add-ons meant to entice a few of those who were weary of voting yes on the last bill. im not going to say that the adjustments they made were not good ones.

theres more insurance for peoples savings
they have incentivized private participation (not to the extent that i wanted, but in the right direction)

and thats about it. ive only read summaries. the thing is 400-something pages.

im most certainly not endorsing the bill, but there was a subtle shift toward my position in the adjustments made. it gives me a little hope. and the fact that it enjoyed three-quarters support was pleasant considering how partisan things have been lately.

i keep wanting to endorse the bill. but i still cant. too much of the original language. too much tax payer money. it still supports this idea that the american government has to ride in and save the day, that it is our responsibility to buy faulty mortgages and place a check on the banking industry. i know it looks bad out there. i know the markets are turning to shit and we are trading at a loss an unemployment is going to be higher this quarter. but we cannot afford government intervention to this degree for the sake of the tax payer and for the sake of the market as a whole.

i keep hearing that the crisis is a fire that needs to be extinguished. that we can sort out who started it later. but thats all wrong. i see this unprecedented intervention as rewarding a bad kid simply because you dont want to see him cry. i know there are innocent folks who will lose their jobs. thats going to happen either way. i know we may see a recession and the econoomy wont be as stable. but thats only in the short term.

im just stressing myself out. ill be back soon to review the vp debate.

economic crisis

those of you who listen to me rant know i already predicted this shit, but for the sake of making known my opinions, i will reiterate as simply as possible.

in a free market system, there are bound to be ups and downs. mismanaged companies are going to fail. demand for certain products will drop. dirty deals will have repricussions. get the fuck over it. its not governments place to jump in and buy up all of the mismanaged shit to keep people from losing jobs. its not governments job to place miles of red tape around simple transactions our economic system was founded on.

heres the situation put rather bluntly. the internet and technologies industry provided a huge boom in our economy (it wasnt bill clinton who was responsible for the surpluses; it was the times in which he was president. either party wouldve seen growth). at the beginning of the new millenium that bubble burst and with the attacks on september eleventh it looked as if the economy might start nose-diving. it wouldve sucked, but it had to happen. but instead of letting it run its course, the then-president of the federal reserve decided to pump in hundreds of billions of dollars that didnt exist (he can do that. our currency is a sham read the blog a couple days below) and it delayed the recession. it was still bound to happen. it was just going to be worse because our currency would be devalued a little more. then the subprime shit started to catch fire. then the banks and mutual funds who invested in real estate started to buckle (it turns out even real estate can depreciate. who wouldve thunk it?). now the government wants to put it off again. it will happen and the more we let it snowball, the worse we're gonna have it later.

my solution: incentivize private participation with tax eliminations on rent and capital gains on real estate. reform the tax code. let shit run its course and rethink this whole full faith and credit deal.




hope you are well esha.

review of the first presidential debate

it is that time again. the time when i get all antsy and start asking for peoples opinions on subjects they dont quite understand. get ready for more politics! yes!

the format will be a little different than the reviews of the conventions because this debate is something entirely different from those events. im pretty sure you may be a little anxious to hear my humble opinion on the actual winner of the debate. obama won. handily? not at all.

the first half hour or so of the debate focused on the current economic crisis and the general economic situation of the united states. bear in mind that this was billed to me as a debate on foreign policy. i understand that the american people want to hear the candidates opinions on the pressing issue, but the extent to which this debate focused on economics was ridiculous. but alas, it was part of the debate and did need to be factored into the equation.

john mccain for the first fifteen minutes or so could not articulate any real substantial stance on the economic crisis. he supposedly suspended his campaign to go down there and be superman, bringing about compromise, and he didnt. im not even sure he knew what the hell was even going on. barack obama took the time to articulate his position and list his first priorities as the leader of the country. i didnt particularly agree with some of what he said, but at least he told me where he stood.

the conversation then diverted itself into an earmarks vs. irresponsible spending brawl. i cannot even begin to tell you how much this pissed me off. jim learer seriously let the debate get out of hand. no one cares about any of it. we all know neither candidate can fix it. and we all wanted to hear about foreign policy. this first third or half of the debate goes to barack obama without a doubt. he won it by a good thirty or so point margin. mccain came off looking like an idiot, hesitant to really define anything.

economy- barack obama: 60, mccain:30

the remainder of the debate was a little more spirited. there were misquotations and false characterizations. it was all beautiful political theater. mccain had a built in advantage here. he actually does have significant experience in the field and the surge by most observations has been successful.

mccain displayed an incredible knowledge of the middle east and eastern european political climate. obama appeared to have an accurate broad knowledge, but it was nothing compared to his opponent's detailed knowledge. obama lost points because he could not justify his opposition to the surge, but won them back by deflecting the issue with a "the war didnt start in 2007" line.

obama also staved off a major error in statement he made a while back by giving more nuance to his assertion that we need to be more open with foreign leaders, explaining that of course he would prepare beforehand and only enter into a meeting if he felt it may benefit the american people. mccain came off as a shrewd professional at the negotiation game, citing specific names of leaders im sure the president himself could not remember.

foreign policy- obama:55, mccain: 75

total- obama:120, mccain:105

i would have liked to have seen someone break 150. maybe next time.

the main points to draw from the debate, if you didnt feel like reading all of that:
obama outlined his priorities economically but did little to assure anyone that he knew how to responsibly cut funding where necessary. mccain didnt appear to have the faintest idea as to what was going on domestically or in the markets and harped on his no more earmarking rant. mccain clearly knows foriegn policy, but may be too agressive in his belief that diplomacy can only come when other nations meet certain criteria. obama has a newer, but too braod approach to diplomacy, but lacks the necessary knowledge of the political landscape of these key areas of the world.

they both suck

the federal reserve explained

i was thinking about this last night before i went to sleep. and i have often given little rants about this to people who like hearing my political opinions on things.

united states currency is regulated and printed by a semi-private organization known as the federal reserve. until, i think, about 40 years ago, the federal reserve printed money based on a gold standard. this meant, that any money you had, you could legally exchange for gold.

oh but those days are no more. currency is now based on full faith and credit in the united states, meaning jackshit. our money is based on faith in the assertion that the american economy will always be "good for the money."

(have you noticed im trying to be calm? its really hard.)

the reason this is so bad is because our entire econmoy rests on the legitimacy of the federal reserve and since there is no legitimate federal oversight, its pretty safe to assume the reserve only has its own interests in mind.

essentially all of the dollars in the united states are loaned to us from the federal reserve (AT INTEREST), which means we are at any given moment in time always going to be indebted to our own currency. your dollar is no longer worth a dollar; its worth a dollar and nine cents. royally uncool? yes.

though the federal reserves relies on us not being able to pay the money back, the false inflation really doesnt put me at ease. though the federal reserve has the power to restrict and allow the printing of money, their little bit of independence from the government who represents me is a little scary. and though many libertarians call for, at the very least, a restoration of the gold standard, we have seen no progress. honestly, having a massive reserve system entrenched in the economy of my country isnt a completely bad thing. giants are harder to move. in times of economic uncertainty (like now), i really long for the days when there was more accountability on our part and less discretion on theirs.

september the eleventh

im supposed to write something patriotic. hoop and hollar about how great america is and how we overcame and how heroic the nation was. im not gonna do it. ill simply say:

to all of those who observe a moment of silence for tragedies the world over and all of those who forgot themselves in their love for others and all of those who are truly selfless in the quietest and loudest moments... may you live forever.

china rises

ive discovered that my daily internal monologues tend to be thematic. todays theme: china, the power they hold, and the fragility of a nation on the verge of greatness.

china, it turns out, made one of the wisest decisions ever in terms of economic development. to elaborate- the country intentionally devalued its currency to expand its grasp on the export economy and get cut downs on raw material prices. they proceeded to invest heavily in their infrastructure and in turn their industry. the genius of this plan makes it hard for me to talk straight. seriously.

the situation of china as it stands now:

chinas infrastructure has been improved exponentially
china gets cutbacks on the price of raw materials
china owns the export market
china holds the debts of the greatest economies of the world
china can at any point revalue their currency, call in debts, and buy out the world

scary? you fucking bet it is. but there is a downside for them.

china is a very fragile nation, especially now that the olympics have boosted their ego. domestically, a country of over a billion attempting to to govern from a centralized government is succeptable to inner turmoil. (this is where i cough and shout tibet). theres also an inherent risk in revaluing a currency, deflation. that export industry, the cornerstone of china, will disappear. im afraid that china feels its a super power (it still has low gdp and no major international companies to bring in revenue) and may try something drastic to really establish itself as one. if that happens, they will lose export money, feel civil uprising again, call in american debts we cannot pay, and subsequently collapse (rome proper style).

i trust china because frankly i trust their government to look out for their national best interest. i have an unhealthy obsession with the old scholar-gentry of china. but i wont go into the history.

to be or not to be

i went on a random walk and stumbled on this question: matt, what would you like to be? the internal monologue went as follows:

in order to determine what you want to be, you must first establish what to be actually means. i began by juxtaposing to be with to be perceived as. i then began to explore other languages, all latin based because thats the extent of my knowledge of language and (with the later help of kiersten) i broke down to be into 4 seperate components. 4 bes in their own right.

to be composed of
to be in terms of action
to exist
to be perceived as

the first is where my question began to focus, but i will first go over the others so as to avoid misinterpreting the first.

to be interms of action fits rather well into the spanish estar. i can say for instance, i am running or i am sick. these can all be observed by an outsider and do not apply to what i am or would like to be.

to be perceived as is fairly simple. adjectives, all that i can think of, apply to this. nouns, too, i guess. i want to be perceived as a nice guy. i want to be perceived as cool. this focuses almost solely on others and also deals with aspirations to a certain extent.

existing is a more scientific being. the best example to use for why this deserves a seperate being starts to get into the question of the first being that i asked of myself. if there is a man in a black box, isolated from everything (namely a society in any sense) it is not a stretch to say that at some point he will experience hunger, a physical need. through this hunger we assume that the man is aware of the concept of i, that he must exist because he can recognise his own needs.

i originally thought this might bring me closer to an answer as to what i wanted or could want to be. but on further inspection, that existence is completely different. it establishes, but does not define the concept of i. We know there is an i; we want to find its composition to establish some sort of precedent on deciding what an i can be.

break it down into the simplest sentence: i am. the am defines the i, the am is what (insert pronoun) need.

ill give some examples i went through after these discussions. i started by prioritizing describing words- adjectives. i began by thinking perhaps i wanted to be intelligent, but this begins to interfere with definition 4. i did not want to be intelligent for its own sake, but for the sake of helping a society or establishing myself as superior to those within it. the next word i tried was spiritual, but again, i found that in my least spiritual times i was least inhibited, least worried, and most happy. (i know the same may not be true for you, but if it is true for me, it cannot be something that applies to the broadest sense of a definition). this led me to ask myself whether being happy or peaceful or calm characterized an actual composition, but the problem arises again. can this nonphysical i be defined simply by emotions and desires or doesnt the nature of those things depending on outside forces negate the idea that we are defining an i in a way that is not acted upon by outside forces.

that clearly defines in my mind a couple of things id like to reiterate.

1. there is an i.
2. there is a physical i that can be observed through self-perception
3. self-perception is perception and fits into definition four
4. composition cannot be a function/ there cannot be a society or any outside force at play when defining the composition of i in the first definition of to be.
5. the composition of i is the actual "being" in i am.

heres where i hit the wall on my search, because i took away what i thought was a given: the physical i. after death, is there a nonphysical (metaphysical/existential) i? there is no way for us to observe that.

brief review (republican)

george w bush- D. if you cant even come off as genuine in a pre-recorded message, theres no way to redeem yourself. if bush had given the greatest speech of his life, it still wouldnt have mattered. no one likes bush. i find myself defending him against other republicans, but thats all beside the point. bush praised mccain, saying its he (not obama) who can best help win the war on terror. honestly. no one was listening. i skipped the speech and my youtube is down, so i just read a transcript for this.

laura bush- D+. shes a nice lady. she got a bigger speaking role because bush couldnt make it there personally, a gesture of good faith from the mccain campaign. she didnt hurt anything. she didnt fail, but again: nobody listened.

cindy mccain- A-. i thought cindy did an excellent job. she has a great story to tell, and she didnt harp oon her husbands military experience for too long. any first lady who jumps into her first real public speech with a call to serve a greater good makes an excellent woman in my book. she strayed from real substantive issues, but let us know that she would continue one of bushs major successes- the fight against tb and hiv/aids in africa.

joe lieberman- B-. aside from the fact that hes a fucking rat, joe lieberman was pretty effective in his address, praising mccain in an effort to put country before party. he landed some really hard hits on obama, and he focused where he needed to focus- mccains narrative and military experience.

mitt romney- C-. mitt proved why hes not vice president. he talked real substantive issues, but he wasnt into the speech. im sure hes already forming a 2012 exploratory committee for president. this guy has never seemed genuinely enthusiastic about mccain, but how could he be. romney is an economic conservative who happens to think the war on terror is important. mccain is a foreign policy liberal (neo-conservative) who happens to like free markets. they wouldve balanced each other out, but they would not have been very exciting.

mike huckabee- A. mike huckabee can deliver a speech. he told a great story and added some witty cuts at the democrats to boot. i thought hed owned the night.



rudy giuliani- A+. hate him though i may, rudy had the most effective speech of either convention. he went negative- really negative, taking shots at barack obamas work as a community organizer and his present votes in the illinois legislature (even though its widely know among the political junkies that a present vote is very common in state lesislatures if you support a bill, but have a problem with the wording of one of its articles). giuliani placed a lot of doubt in everyones mind about the presumptive democratic nominee and praised mccain as the only man who can take on these tough times.

sarah palin- A. palin also took the gloves off. she proved herself a really gritty hardcore conservative. honestly, i thought the move was a disaster when i heard her first speech, but this one nearly won me over. shes tough and defends her inexperience with the quality of the little bit she does have, kicking out the entire alaska establishment. im not sure id feel comfortable with her in such a high position, but im confident she has an agenda, which is nice to know, alleviates any feeling that she was just a gimic.

tim pawlenty- C. this man is boring. one of the most forgettable speeches ive heard. there were plenty of charges that only republicans understand the real plight of the acerage american and that barack obama would raise taxes no matter what he says. pointed arguments from a dull man.

john mccain- A+. he managed to be completely civil. in an entire hour speech, im not sure i heard the name obama three times. john mccain succeeded in delivering a better speech than barack obama despite his reputation as being a not so hot orator. he spelled out his plans and his policies, called america to serve, and delivered a ouching account of his own life experiences. i used to hate him because of loose ties to corrupt dealings in washington and his seeminly gut shot reaction to any crisis. i completely disagree with him on a lot of issues, but as a person, he won me over in that acceptance speech.

i pose this question to you

im trying not to talk too much about the republicans until after their convention, so instead, ill go with what is personally ailing me: choices in the next book i should buy.

since at least one of you is most certainly going to be effected by this decision, i thought id pose it here. ive narrowed my choices down to:

the lazarus project
netherland
the great railway bazaar

they are tied by a pretty common theme in my reading; they are semi-honest accounts of cultural immersion. im really only looking for a rejection of the lazarus project. if theres not one, i will probably move on with it.

and also- should i buy carl sandburgs complete works for 25 bucks or the chicago poems for 5? i have a feeling the chicago ones are the only ones ill enjoy, but id hate to miss a couple of hidden gems in his work.

interactive blog! interact!

joe biden

i wasnt that active around the time barack obama made his choice of vice presidential candidate, so i shall blog about it now.

personally, i thought the best pick was chuck hagel- an anti-war republican who mouths off a little. i thought the gesture of picking someone almost diametrically opposed in philosophy would help to fuel the whole compromise and change message. plus, i found hagel to be quite articulate on a lot of issues i care a lot about, namely education and market restriction.

but the choice was joe biden. biden agrees with obama on a lot of issues; they are both very liberal democrats. from what i can gather of his narrative, joe biden was elected to the senate in the seventies and upon his election, his wife and one of his children were killed in a car wreck. his two other sons survived. he nearly gave up on the senate to tend to his family, but the senior democrats came to his aid and convinced him to carry on. they placed him in a lot of major committees, keeping him as busy as possible. its actually because of the tragedy (indirectly) that he had so much experience in the senate, working on the judicial and foreign relations committees.

as a person, biden is compelling. as a knowledgable advisor on foreign affairs, not so much. he wanted to break iraq into kurd, shiia, and sunni states, giving them semi-autonomy, but by all accounts also straining relations further as well as forcing people to evacuate their homes.

on the economy, hes in the mainstream of the democratic party- in favor of restreaming welfare and redistributing wealth. whatever. im not even sure free markets work when youre society is mentally retarded, so maybe its best if government takes care of it all.

hes socially liberal which sits pretty well with me, but doesnt really make or break my opinion of a politician.

he also plagiarized a speech back in the 80s. thats about as relevant as sarah palins teenage daughter being pregnant, though. who fucking cares?

hopefully that gives you a little insight into the one they call biden.

post-gustav

just as everyone predicted, gustav didnt really do shit. but thats not really what i want to talk about tonight. im not sure what i want to talk about.

esha told me its not my nature to talk. i wonder if that means i dont have enough to say, if theres some sort of threshold i cannot cross in my ability to communicate. ive always been a little more soft-spoken and quiet when people yapped on about bull shit. this is actually a pretty nifty idea to ponder.

perhaps there is some sort of untapped capacity inside me. perhaps i could have become one of those folks who chats a lot, but if you look at my writing- a truer glance at what i am- youll probably find im not really that comfortable with groups of people.

the way i see it (this was inferred from ernest hemingway) there are only two types of writers: those who can only find truth in other people and those who can only find it in themselves. the former must associate with as many people as possible to piece together a common human experience, the puzzlework of man. the latter can only write when they are kept to themselves, sifting through the recesses of their own insecurities to find what they know is genuine and hope they can make others feel the same way.

thats all i really have to say tonight. my eyes hurt a little.

of hurricanes and john mccain

im back with a vengeance. its a little shameful, all of those 6 word blogs, so im going to renew my self-challenge and try to post more lengthy blogs.

news affecting me right now: gustav and sarah palin.

for gustav. i think this storm may be hyped a little too much because katrina was so disastrous. i really hope im right. louisiana governor bobby jindall is one of my favorite politicians. he seems genuine interested in improving the well-being of his state and seems to have a certain level of confidence to his knowledge of the state affairs.

im not sure any of my family members will be directly effected. from the sounds of things, the storm will be a little too weak to reach as far inland as my relatives live. i know a couple of people who were attending lsu. theyve returned home for the labor day weekend anyway, so it wont effect them too much.

for palin. this may go down as the worst political choice made in over a decade. it will most certainly be the reason john mccain loses the election. sarah palin undercuts his message of experience and is a very unsettling pick for the person one heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the country, if not the western world.

if this was an attempt to woo hillary clinton supporters, it is pathetic. the disaffected ones may have been a little over-zealous, but they by no means want to see some woman who isnt hillary shatter that glass ceiling. if this was an attempt to bolster support from within the party, i dont know anyone who has any sort of renewed enthusiasm regarding the pick. most people simply dont understand it.

i havent done too much research, but from what i can tell, she is known for reforming and cutting the fat, which makes her a pretty valuable executive hand. but theres also some stupid conspiracy surrounding why she fired someone. and it revolves around some family issue. it doesnt sway my vote. but hardcore dems are always looking for a scandal.

thats all i can really comment on right now. if you have any requests for writing topic, leave them in the comments. otherwise, expect a post-gustav rant before weeks end. and a rnc review soon after.

brief review (democratic)

i promised a review of the democratic national convention as early as wednesday, and i nearly shrugged it off. but since i dont feel like reading and the only thing playing on my tv is gustav. because my memory is only slightly above par, i apologize for the lack of depth.

nacy pelosi- D. she passed. i didnt remember her for making any major mistake, but i also simply didnt remember her. as a chairperson and a major part of this convention, its safe to say she was a political nonfactor. her speech was rife with the same old bullshit she feeds us about how much progress is being made (when nothing substantial has been), laden with bush-bashing, and characteristically insincere.

michelle obama- B+. mrs. obama did a phenomenal job of fulfilling the role she needed to. she offered up a back story for the family in very clear terms, delivered one of the better speeches of the night, and managed to appear both relatable and extraordinary. she has such a wonderfully american story to tell, and, having seen her on the campaign trail before, i expected nothing less articulate or heart-warming.

jesse jackson jr.- A+. this may have been one of the best political speeches i have ever seen. its a shame that my roommate and i may have been the only ones who actually did see it. it was at once a call for unity and a sweeping condemnation of the wrong path we have gone down over the last few years, both palatable and unsettling. he drew on the entire breadth of american history and inspired me, personally.



mark warner- F. much like the speaker of the house, i found mark warner's delivery to be subpar at best. he uses too many hand gestures, feels phony, and criticizes bush for not handling september eleventh using the political goggles of 2008. come on. he stuck with the four more years bit. the only thing neither bland nor offensive in this speech was a vague reference to how we need to focus on competing with china economically. even that, he shied away from a little and gave no specifics for. worst major speech of the convention. no doubt.

teddy kennedy- B+. the moment was moving. the speech called for unity. i thought he might overshadow hillary, which concerned me because honestly, this was only a good speech. it draws all of the lore because of his situation. he effectively and civilly argued for a move forward. he passed the torch to the next generation of politics.

hillary clinton- A-. she accomplished what she needed to. simply put. she addressed all of the issues that she fought so hard for during the primary season. ive always disliked miss clinton quite a bit, but she won me over with her entire performance at this convention. her speech had wit and class. she didnt stray from her beliefs. her move for acclamation was one of the most moving moments in the last 30 years of politics. well done.

bill clinton- A. these grades are based on the speeches, not overall performance. thats why bill beats out his wife. i didnt know if it was possible, but he managed to be more engaging and impressive than any other public appearance since his presidency. pointing out the similarities between his narrative and obama's worked very well for him. and... he's bill clinton, master of words.

john kerry- B. john kerry is not a speech giver. he's not charismatic. but somehow, he managed to come off with a really good performance. his criticisms were concise. his speech was self-deprecating. honestly, this is the best i've seen john kerry. his and al gore's were the only other democratic candidacies i was even sentient enough to criticize.

joe biden- B-. he fulfilled the role of the attack dog and drove home the 90% percent with bush comment. he was a safe pick. he stayed away from the mouthing off he's known for. his son delivered a better introduction than his speech, mostly because of the emotional ties he had to the issues.

tim kaine- C. he tried too hard to tie himself to the obama story. he went with same vague bush attacks, but his story about his work in nicaragua or honduras was a little interesting. he came off as a pretty amicable guy, but his effect was limited. he didnt stand out.

bill richardson- C. he hyped up the spanish-speaking audience. bill and tim courted the latinos of the audience which was actually refreshing. it feels so divisive when that segment of the audience is isolated. thursday could basically be summed up with these two phrases.
"si se puede" and "mccain voted with bush 90% of the time"

al gore- B-. gore has made a pretty good name for himself. he wields a pretty heavy hand in the democratic party. he didnt bring his a game. if anyone wasnt afforded the luxury of being funny, it was the man we all wanted to kill our buzz, al gore. he wasnt substantive enough, granted his speaking time wasnt the best and he was there on celebration day. i was just hoping for a more sober address.

barack obama- A-. we reach the end. obama addressed the clinton supporters, courted independents, showed his personal story, and made his case in specifics. i thought it was a job wel done. the only deductions i could give him were for the excessiveness of the crowd. he opened himself up to a little scrutiny there. also, his choice of the thursday speakers was suspect.


so glad i knocked that one out. lets pray the republican convention is able to to do something exciting in the wake of gustav.

about russian invasion of georgia

i tried to hold my tongue, but honestly this is complete bullshit. everyone over here is all up in arms. we have no responsibility in the matter as it stands right now. we cant go fighting people just because they do shit we dont like, and we cant try to leverage ourselves in issues that our allies wont speak out against. if germany or france or the uk want to step out and say something, if the eu wants to take some action, if the un security council makes a big fuss about this, then and only then does america need to think about intervening.

in defense of russia, the areas of georgia they are occupying dont even agree with the way georgia is being run. far be it for us to condemn a major world power for occupying lands in hopes of furthering their own agenda *cough*iraq-kuwait-kosovo-panama-cuba-vietnam-korea-hawaii-japan-mexico-the seminoles, cherokees, iroquois, creek, navajo, chickisaw, and various other native american nations- french and spanish territories*cough*

i love the usa. dont get me wrong. but if all of this hype keeps building up, im going to be sooooo disappointed.

audacity of hope

i bought it also. 2 books to read. yay!

The Negro Speaks of Rivers by langston hughes

I've known rivers:
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset.

I've known rivers:
ancient, dusky rivers.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers



yeah. i haven't been doing that lately. im a little bored tonight. im trying to think of something interesting to talk about.

the last sentence was actually repeated several times in soul mountain. it was a bit of a theme and a bit of a weak point to the novel, accenting the stream of consciousness aspect and the idea that even the best storytellers grow a little uninterested in their tales but also bringing attention to the fact that the author had to use repetition to drive home a point that couldve been a lot more understated and just as effective.

hooray for bullshit literary criticism i came up with on the fly.

freakonomics

i need to buy it.

this blog

like all others ive attempted... is slowly dying.

its technically sunday, my room is really fucking hot, and ive found myself dwelling on a whole lot of nothing: reading old emails, looking through peoples' facebook friends, starting little tirades in my head that im never conscious enough to finish. i havent written anything in a very long time. that refers to both recreational and bloggish writing, mostly out of apathy.

come on. anyone reading this knows i have little better to do with my life.

i learned how to tie a 4-in-hand not from an online video. so that was pretty awesome. and i honestly cant think of anything else to say. i dont want to go to sleep just yet. i dont want to do much of anything.

have you ever wondered if there was some way to live without sleep in some sort of semiconscious haze where nothing gets accomplished but you always feel like youll have enough time? i called that my freshman year of high school, and thats one of the things i most miss about it. something im only partially feeling now, staring at a computer screen typing up some random shit.

did you ever sacrifice anything because of your moral compass before you really knew about the world? in all of my memories of childhood, i seem like a selfish little prick who didnt see a need to apologize for stealing or breaking rules unless it was just to evade gettin my ass beat. i suppose it makes sense. we always praise kids when they act selflessly. im sure its because they dont do it very often. you dont have to answer that one.

are you someone's favorite person? ill admit i stole this from a little independent video i saw online. but my immediate reaction was... yes of course. but when im really honest with myself, im probably not. im most certainly not. plenty of people enjoy my company. plenty of people hate my guts. but i cant think of a single person who would stand up and say theres no person id rather spend all my time with than this guy. oddly enough. that makes me feel comfortable. maybe its the lowered expectations or maybe its the simple insignificance the question shines on my life. i dont know.

i cannot for the life of me finish things. so ill leave this open...






...

i like new words

this one comes from esha (via wikipedia)

Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs. The more powerful entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has some (limited) self-rule. A suzerain can also mean a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute. It is similar to the notion of hegemony.

Although it is a concept which has existed in a number of historical empires, it is a concept that is very difficult to describe using 20th- or 21st-century theories of international law, in which sovereignty either exists or does not. While a sovereign nation can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power, modern international law does not recognize any way of making this relationship compulsory on the weaker power.

no pressure

if i write, i write. this is edit day! but i still have to try to memorize another poem.

Tulips by sylvia plath

The tulips are too excitable, it is winter here.
Look how white everything is, how quiet, how snowed-in
I am learning peacefulness, lying by myself quietly
As the light lies on these white walls, this bed, these hands.
I am nobody; I have nothing to do with explosions.
I have given my name and my day-clothes up to the nurses
And my history to the anaesthetist and my body to surgeons.

They have propped my head between the pillow and the sheet-cuff
Like an eye between two white lids that will not shut.
Stupid pupil, it has to take everything in.
The nurses pass and pass, they are no trouble,
They pass the way gulls pass inland in their white caps,
Doing things with their hands, one just the same as another,
So it is impossible to tell how many there are.




yeah. im not typing out the entire thing.
here is a link if you want it.

i know

i always say theres no way im going to do the 1200, but seriously... this time... im really not sure. methinks you will like today's poem esha.

Ah, Sunflower by William Blake

Ah Sun-flower! weary of time.
Who countest the steps of the Sun:
Seeking after that sweet golden clime
Where the traveller's journey is done

Where the Youth pined away with desire,
And the pale Virgin shrouded in snow:
Arise from their graves and aspire,
Where my Sun-flower wishes to go.

A Singer's Breath

im posting the second half here. mostly because i will probably scrap it, and i wanted it posted somewhere.

ii.

Meredith approached the makeshift dock stretching off the too-small patch of land Allison's family owned. Tied to what could best be describe as the most uneven pillar was a little dinghy with some scribbled Vietnamese characters on its side.

He never bothered to actually learn the language, or even enough to jot down some poetry. Allison simply picked up a pamphlet discussing music at an airport the week before and tried his best to jot down the symbols. It was not actually written in Vietnamese. The pamphlet Japanese, promoting a young woman's choir course. The words he copied translated roughly to "A singer's breath."

"Hello Meredith," the recent college drop out shouted from a reclining plastic chair on board his mighty vessel.

"Hello Allison," she quipped back with visible frustration. "What the Hell are you doing out there?"

"Why, I'm getting ready to for a trip around the state."

Meredith was the kind of girl Allison needed, sharp-tongued and responsible. But this little boat was a bit too much for her, another step in his awkward march toward the bizarre.

"Well... I'm going to my aunt's house for the weekend. I thought you might want to say goodbye to me."

"You're not going to your aunt's house. You're going to sail the Seven Seas with me."

He was right about one thing. She wasn't going to her aunt's house. She was leaving him. It wasn't, at that time, much of a surprise for most folks. When a young man leaves school and leaves his future in the middle of a relationship, any young lady would need to think hard about the change, would need to ponder whether it was reasonable to stay. But Allison's was not a rational mind.

She walked away. He muttered some little tune about the sea to himself.

A week passed and Allison got the news, through a letter on his kitchen table. Dalton handed it to him and watched a light go out in his brother's eyes.

"I'm sorry, man," Dalton almost whispered.

His brother responded with a bit of a smirk. "No worries. I had an affair too. And the horizons themselves made the place where we could meet again."

Allison drug his feet a little as he walked to his closet and picked out a silk dress-shirt. And he slipped outside and to the dock and to its end and sat in his little reclining chair.

"Haudure haudure sun-tawn yet conshiun," he sang until the sun tripped over itself into nightfall.

its only noon but

i feel like im not going to finish my 1200 words today. maybe ill start writing right after i type this. that happened last time. but until i come up with a decent direction to go in, i shall blab on here.

so...what shall we catch up on? i wish there were a few more people reading, even if they were jackasses so i could level some criticism their way. thats always a good way to get yourself ranting. but alas, im nearly alone on this crappy little blog.

grrr. i cant even write a fucking blog. this must just be one of those really dry days where nothing will come out of me; maybe there arent any words left out there. yup. thats what it is. all the words are gone today so theres no way i couldve written anything in the first place.

i know what youre thinking. why wont he just put himself out of his misery? why doesnt he just stop writing on this thing. why was there not a question mark at the end of the last question? i dont have answers for any of those questions. THE WORDS ARE GONE.

help me find them, maybe?

memorizing time. yesterday's was the first stanza of e e cummings' thy fingers make early flowers




The Negro Speaks of Rivers by langston hughes

I've known rivers:
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset.

I've known rivers:
ancient, dusky rivers.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

i cant get to sleep, so...

you, my one loyal fan, shall get the utmost privilege of a significantly lengthier blog post.

there are too many crickets here, with varying rhythms and pitches of chirp. i hear them in my dreams sometimes; i wonder if there is any actual communication going on, if the (one would assume) different varieties of a similar species can communicate. i would have to assume they can, even insects. hell, ive been able to use simple intuition to gather that a mouse was hungry. surely there is some sort of universal language that defies even species itself. ponder that one. tell me the extent to which you think animals can intuit what the other is trying to communicate (or if they can communicate at all). *wait. that parenthetical is already covered in the main text. oh well. i dont do second drafts.

on a topic somewhat related to communication, after watching a documentary i can only assume is based on norman solomon's war made easy, i find myself very intrigued by the very notion of bias. is, as one may take the assertion of this thesis to be, there more safety in presenting a point counter to what you personally believe and the people you are telling wish not to hear? would it be ok to defend hitler? honestly, im a little unsure on the matter.

on the one hand, you have propaganda meant to directly interfere with free thought of the individual. and on the other you have this notion that any argument must be given a certain amount of weight, even if one knows it is untrue. i personally enjoy playing devil's advocate, but i am still a little hesitant to say the role must always be filled.

honestly, i think im a little too tired to really be making many points or arguments or what have you, so i will leave this with a few simple tasks for myself:

1-find a copy of norman solomon's war made easy
2-take the day tomorrow to not stress over politics and whether youve cauhgt up with the reading you havent been doing
3-remember to meditate after your shower
4-write esha a letter

an introduction

im rex. i hate blogs. heres my blog.