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.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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 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
Sunday, September 14, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 5, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
