Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
KRAZEDONE
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Conversation with Drubius |
| 08.05.04 (12:45 pm) [edit] |
|
i find that i most enjoy conversations when they reveal something of the inner person. (this may explain the deep pleasure i take in conversing over beer. to a certain extent, it helps to strip the veneer.)
pleasantries are decoys: dead wood painted to look real, but without warm flesh, beating heart. so my approach is usually more like a chess gambit than a conversation. my goal is to get to the heart. to glimpse the essence of those with whom i speak. questions about me i tend to head off, to redirect, so that they don't distract from my play. and, as with chess, many of my moves are meaningless, or bluffs, or calculated to provoke not an answer but a reaction. everything. Everything. EVERYTHING. is a clue. the trick is to see it for what it is.
|
|
|
| |
| The Nature of Sex II |
| 08.02.04 (7:38 am) [edit] |
"[T]he real nature of sex has nothing to do with the physical world at all but is the reflection of emotional and mental energies....There is no greater battleground...than the energies which are released through the apparently wholly physical act of sex. The union which takes place on the level of the [emotions] produces a flow of energy which takes a man, for a brief moment, "out of himself"--it is virtually the only time that he can feel himself to be at one with another human being.... [T]here is a death of the individual awareness and the birth of a mutual awareness for which the Elizabethans called the sexual act "the little death." Unfortunately there are many people who are as frightened of the apparent emotional vulnerability inherent in this as they are of death itself. What they do not recognize is that the union takes place whether it is recognized or not....
"To consider this point of view is to recognize the real responsibility involved in a sexual union. This has nothing to do with morality. We have had many centuries of moral teachings which have done absolutely nothing to help us understand the real nature of the mystery. The currents of this great creative force or "serpent power"--whose cousins we may see as the serpent in the garden, the ourobouros of alchemy, and the plumed serpent of the Aztecs--may be released in other ways, but...the average individual knows only one--physical sex. Once set in motion, these currents bind and alter both souls involved."
[u]Saturn: A New Look at an Old Devil[/u]
by Liz Greene
p. 25-6
|
|
|
| |
| Science & Reality? |
| 08.02.04 (7:31 am) [edit] |
The other day I watched Discovery channel for about three hours of investigations into "paranormal" activities and ESP. Each story went roughly like this: a) narration of strange phenomena, b) claims of veracity by pro-paranormal "experts", and c) debunking of phenomena by scientific "experts".
The anti-paranormal position seems always reduced to 2 options: imagination/hallucination or lack of "factual" evidence. This, of course, drives me crazy.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea what "paranormal activity" is.)
More and more it seems to me that American society refuses to endorse publicly anything that science cannot prove. This is a limiting but understandable viewpoint. Our educational system inculcates in students from early youth the correlation between "reality" and science and claims that the latter is the only acceptable arbiter of the former.
(A student of Western history can easily trace the trend from Medieval religiosity to modern skepticism. I sometimes think that, for the majority of people, the object of worship has changed but not the manner.)
I would like to propose a slightly different outlook. Science is [b]NOT[/b] the only arbitrator of reality! Rather, it is a description of man's relationship with his environment [i]AS PRESENTED THROUGH HIS SENSES[/i]! Therefore, science has little to do with anything that cannot be sensed.
[I can hear the objections already: UV light, atomic particles, quantum theory... all that. Of course. But the instruments we construct are those which try to symbolize those "realities" in terms that our senses can detect and therefore they are, so to speak, still the evidence of our senses but once removed from "reality".]
One scientific "expert" noted that the reporting of "paranormal phenomena" almost always came from those who believed in such things, while those who didn't believe rarely saw anything paranormal. This was part of his "evidence" that ghosts are not real. (God save us from scientific "experts"! [If, that is, the existence of God has not been disproved by them already.]) It seems to me that one could easily use his dualistic statement as evidence in either camp.
In keeping with my definition of science above, I have a new suggestion for everyone who comes across a situation that she doesn't understand (be it paranormal or all too natural): admit that you have no fucking idea what is going on! Go ahead, try it out. Just open your mouth and say it along with me: "I do not know what's going on here." Good. Now repeat it. Ignore your ego when it insists that you are a [b]PROFESSIONAL[/b] who is [b]HIGHLY RESPECTED BY OTHER PROFESSIONALS[/b]. Resist the fear that comes when you realize you are [i]NOT IN CONTROL[/i]. Just keep breathing; all those feelings will pass. I promise.
After practicing this mantra for some time, you will find a marvelous (no, i will NOT call it a paranormal) experience: you will begin to SEE for the first time since you were an infant. Oh, sure, I know your eyes work just fine, thank you very much. You are, no doubt, a keen observer. But once you start to let go, you will find that you may catch a glimpse of the world as it is, rather than as it looks to you in the mirror.
|
|
|
| |
| The Church of I Don't Know: Burial Rites |
| 08.02.04 (7:20 am) [edit] |
The Book of the Church Of I Don't Know
Final Chapter: Burial Rites
The priest of the COIDK (a.k.a. Ignoramus) shall lead the mourners as follows.
Ignoramus:
"We are gathered here today to confront a mystery we don't understand. Our departed friend lies in this wooden crate, and we ask ourselves, what is the meaning of her death?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"We who knew her in life stand around this open grave. What was the meaning of her life?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"In these times of sorrow, many of us begin to ask questions such as: when will this happen to me?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"We ask, what happens after I die?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"We ask, how can I avoid this tragic end?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"I warn you against such questions, brothers and sisters, for they tempt us into the illusion that universe may offer an answer. What answer can we expect from the universe?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"Now let us go forth in ignorance. And remember, whenever you feel like you're in control, the words that will shatter your illusions. What are those words, my friends?"
Crowd:
"We don't know."
Ignoramus:
"Amen."
|
|
|
| |
| poem: a villanelle |
| 07.19.04 (7:53 pm) [edit] |
This is a type of poem called a villanelle. I don't usually work with rhyme or meter these days, but this form caught my eye and I gave it my best shot. The rhyme scheme and repeated lines are requirements for the villanelle form.
For what it's worth, the repeated line "A New Look at an Old Devil" is also the title of a fascinating book dealing with learning difficult lessons and the pain we feel when we refuse to learn them.
I am interested in any comments you might have about the form, suggestions for improvement, or what you take from the poem. Thanks!
[u]A New Look at an Old Devil[/u]
by Drew Stephenson
By summer pool the senses revel
with image of light on surface's wave:
a new look at an old devil.
From book to Her, my eye-the rebel!-
swims the light between; I begin to rave.
By summer pool the senses revel
at full, round curves, tan belly level,
all limned by moon-pale bikini brave:
a new look at an old devil.
She bends trim waist, shows firm, broad bevel
and my mind growls deep, by lust enslaved.
By summer pool the senses revel.
Closing gate breaks the spell like pebbles
in ponds destroy reflections we crave;
a new look at an old devil.
Such visions rise in Ghent or Seville;
Where be you, heed this same warning grave:
by summer pool the senses revel
in a new look at an old devil.
|
|
|
| |
| Some thoughts on sex... |
| 06.14.04 (7:06 pm) [edit] |
There are times when I get so turned on by the physical appearance of a woman that I feel an atavistic part of me straining to tear away from the rest and devour her. If you're a guy, you probably know the feeling. And I'm not talking about being turned on by staring at porn for hours on end. This feeling can erupt from the briefest glimpse of a certain combination of curves, from the unconscious toss of hair, from a scent.
What astounds me is how empty that desire turns out to be. Really. I would think that a feeling so basic, so immediate and powerful, must signal Something Important in a larger sense. But aside from the siren song of DNA, the old invitation to mix in that ancient dance, there is nothing. No love. No promise of refuge. Only the primordial cycle that discards individuals to continue the group.
On the other hand, there is the glow, the profound [infinite?] depth of sweetness that is intimacy. While the onset often comes quietly, sub-liminally, the rising tide will drown you in light if you let it in.
Touching my lover, kissing her, inside her, I feel [I become] an immense energy that anihilates "I" in US. I can "see" her breath almost like the waves of heat above hot asphalt. I can feel myself inside her [i]from her point of view[/i]. This incredible connection continues until she comes, or I do.
I wonder if anyone else experiences this? I can think of many reasons why I do, from empathy to drugs to magick to meditation... but none of them can be proven.
The reason I wonder, and why I thought to write this in "public", is that I believe that everyone who makes love with another has a similar connection, whether they are conscious of it or not. And to me, this is the true reason to avoid promiscuity: you take part of every lover with you, and not all of the exchange is physical.
|
|
|
| |
| Unity |
| 06.14.04 (6:40 pm) [edit] |
there are only two things in the world: unity and separation; one of them is an illusion.
we are inextricably bound together. ask an ecologist. ask jesus or buddha. ask the physicists. you'll get the same answer from each source.
yet we cling with adolescent ardor to the illusion of individuality, perhaps because we think that is the only way to be "free". (we don't want to struggle with the paradox of freedom: you can choose to do anything at anytime; but you cannot choose to do anything that [i]you[/i] wouldn't do.) the essence of the issue is that freedom and unity come from the same source: knowing who you are.
and once you know who YOU are, you will find that we are all united. this is love.
|
|
|
| |
| A favorite book quote |
| 06.14.04 (6:38 pm) [edit] |
The world has not to be put in order: the world is order incarnate. It is for us to put ourselves in unison with this order, to know what is the world order in contradistinction to the wishful-thinking order which we seek to impose on one another."
--Henry Miller, "Sexus" p. 213
|
|
|
| |
| a favorite movie quote |
| 06.14.04 (6:37 pm) [edit] |
A few words about searching for something.
If you're looking for something in particular, your chances of finding it are not very good. That's because, of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one.
But if you're looking for anything, your chances of success are very good because, of all the things in the world, you're looking for any of them.
The most important rule is this: whatever you're looking for is usually right in front of you.
--from the movie Zero Effect
|
|
|
| |
| temet nocem |
| 06.14.04 (6:35 pm) [edit] |
everybody wants you to know yourself. to find yourself. to live your life.
We experience life in cycles of feelings. of actions. of thoughts. repetition. until we begin to believe that we know who we are.
but life is motion. like riding rapids: each time you ride, the current takes you along slightly different ways. until, one day, you're on a new path.
at best. at the very MOST. you can learn who you *were*.
then, if you're lucky, life rips off your blinders. tears away your comfort. erodes the certainties you've ridden for so long.
then,all that crap about "knowing yourself" gets flushed away. there's no time for reflection. for "finding yourself".
now, you're living your life.
the only guarantee is that you will not get out alive.
|
|
|
| |
| The Flame of Beauty |
| 06.02.04 (5:30 pm) [edit] |
Beauty comes from a certain regular complexity.
In the physical world: the balanced proportions of a healthy face or body that whisper promises to our DNA; the fractal patterns and interdependence of successful ecosystems; the ever-shifting flow of clouds and light on a fall afternoon.
In the emotional realms: the reliability that engenders trust; the compassion that bridges the chasm between heart and heart; the golden beacon that is love.
In the spiritual realm: the pervasive elevating potential of faith; the shadowdance of soul behind the scenes of this life; the omnipresent brilliance of EHIEH.
Where lies the danger, you ask?
In confusing the pleasure you feel at the apprehension of beauty with the desire to get close to the source.
Like a campfire on a cold night, the closer you get, the more warmth you feel. But there comes a point where you cannot survive the burn.
|
|
|
| |
| working against myself |
| 05.24.04 (2:34 pm) [edit] |
I realized (remembered) today that the two halves of my life are working against each other.
This is not a new insight. I just seem to lose sight of it whenever I see it anew.
As a teacher and coach I feel pressured by 100,000 different things. I push myself, my students and my team(s) toward the various finish lines that demarcate the year. This push gives me purpose, allows me to focus on definite targets, and leaves me exhausted but with something, always, to celebrate.
The problem is that all of this is a distraction. I have studied enough, experienced enough, meditated enough to know that meaning lies within as well as without. There is a "zone", if you will, where I can feel [understand] [i]everything[/i]... where everything falls into place, and the world and the universe and everything simply... IS one. But to find it I must let go all these external forces and become still.
I suppose I'm just afraid to give up all the distractions, because then I might just find out who I truly am.
|
|
|
| |
| Do I believe in Jesus? |
| 05.08.04 (3:10 pm) [edit] |
I have heard and seen this question hundreds of times, and even after years of thought I cannot answer as clearly as I would like to answer.
On one hand, the answer is an unqualified YES that arises from my upbringing, my education and my personal experience. Some of my earliest memories from childhood include Sunday school, and I have attended various churches throughout my life. Although the early memories are largely unpleasant (boredom, unkind teachers and discomfort), exposure to Jesus early and often left its mark. And, of course, one cannot escape the influence of Christianity in an American education. Almost every "Great Book" and most of Western History bear traces of Christianity. Beyond the basic influence of liberal arts, however, I have made a point of reading, researching and reflecting upon religions in general and Christianity in particular. All of these influnces push me to confess that I do believe in Jesus.
On the other hand, I have trouble telling others that I believe in Jesus because I fear that most do not understand what I mean. In the first place, while I believe that Jesus can indeed be seen as the Son of God and part of the Divine Trinity, I find that my understanding of Jesus' teachings is very different from most Christians' understanding of Jesus' teachings. Among the more obvious points: there are lots of people who profess to love Jesus (this is not hard) but who show no signs of loving any neighbor who looks/acts/speaks differently. In the second place, as a student of History and of religions, I cannot acknowledge that Jesus is the Only Son of the Only God. No matter how you slice it, preferring one deity to another cannot be PROVEN to be anything more than human choice. In the third place, as a devotee of the Kabbala, I find a profound understanding of Jesus which includes and also exceeds those portraits of the Son that one finds in mainstream Christianity.
Given all of these issues, I feel that to answer merely with "Yes" anyone who asks if I believe in Jesus is to oversimplify to the point of misleading. To me, every moment of every day and everyone and everything I meet is a religious, a magickal opportunity; I feel that Jesus would agree. It may be that I am wrong.
And even after all these words, I find, as usual, that my answer is still not clear.
|
|
|
| |
| Problems with Christianity: You Don’t Get to Decide! |
| 04.13.04 (10:50 pm) [edit] |
Look, the rules are clear. Love your neighbor and all children. Put others before yourself. Honor God [including that spark of Him/Her in you] as best you can. Value life over status. And keep your eyes and hands to yourself unless you get invited to do otherwise. Not too tricky.
So STOP the hypocrisy and justification... "I can nail my babysitter, but I will not tolerate a homosexual priest in my church." "Well, I know I should help the needy, but I work hard for my money and I'm not gonna give it to some bum to spend on malt liquor!"
Don't like it, Christian? TOO BAD! God made the rules; you don't get to decide. So either play along...or go to Hell.
|
|
|
| |
| Problems with Christianity: Cast Not Your Pearls Before Swine |
| 04.13.04 (10:49 pm) [edit] |
If you look at most religions, you find that there is usually a small minority who get access to the real stuff: the Pope, the Presbyters, the imams, Buddhas and Boddhisatvas, the Brahmin.
To study the sacred mysteries of the Torah, one must be at least 30, married with children, and physically healthy. To learn the "mysteries" of Protestantism, by contrast, you have to either have a heartbeat or not.
[Rant: almost every teenage girl knows from experience the power of that which is withheld from a seeker. And almost every woman can measure the value of what is granted too easily. So someone PLEASE tell me why a 2000 year old institution has lost sight of this maxim!!! End rant.]
Back when I used to go to church often, and on those occasions when I go now on behalf of my family, I am stunned by the lowbrow format of the "sermon". There are about three types: the exhortation to good, the "challenge" comparison, and the "celebration". None is particularly effective, except in curing insomniacs.
The exhortation to good usually consists of a reminder of the "rules" of Christianity. The Ten Commandments. Faith, Hope and Love. Value Jesus over money. Obey God even when you don't understand Him. Looking around the country today, I can see that this is working well. For goodness sake, people will not follow the speed limit, dress codes, jaywalking rules or any other set of regulations that does not appear to either: a) have clear, sensible and immediate benefits and/or b) have an immediate, tangible and severe punishment for scofflaws. Why would the church think that is any different with their game?!
Apparently, some CRAFTY pastors have discovered the problem above... and developed the comparison "challenge" to stimulate their sheep. This one plays out like this here: "[Biblical figure] did/avoided [something amazing]... do you think YOU have what it takes to follow in his [or on very rare occasions, her] footsteps?" Apparently the holes in this one escape our otherwise shrewd clergyMen. Here's one: outside of Baptist churches, NO ONE REALLY BELIEVES THE BIBLE IS LITERAL HISTORY! Somehow, the challenge of a metaphor seems less exciting. Here's another: the amazing accomplishment of the Biblical figure usually involves something extremely unpleasant [eating only locusts and honey?], something generally considered impossible [David v. Goliath; the centenarian who fathered a child] or something illegal [sacrificing own child on boulder/"altar"]. Sure those are amazing things... but who cares?
Then of course there's the excitement of "Celebration" at a white, upper-class church. You just haven't partied until you've hit this one! On really wild nights, one of the repressed wives/daughters will raise a hand up WHILE SHE'S SINGING! And one or two in the congregation will get this [very disturbing] look on their faces... the same sort of straining towards pleasure that you see moments before orgasm. Oh, yes. They're feeling the love.
And then there's....
HEY, WAKE UP!!!
|
|
|
| |
| Problems with Christianity: Know your audience! |
| 04.13.04 (10:48 pm) [edit] |
To anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Gospels, it should be crystal clear that Jesus plays for the underdog. He came to save sinners, not the righteous; hung with tax collectors and prostitutes.
So here's a great idea: let's preach this message to a bunch of fat old white guys [definitely NOT on the losing team.. they get to make up the rules and change them as they go along].
Surprise! They're not buying it. Go check the drool factor at your local Episcopal or maybe Methodist church if you don't believe me. Why doesn't the ultimate sacrifice keep them from dozing off?
Because they already HAVE all the power! Other rich white guys hire them into rich white guy jobs. They raise their daughters to genuflect to any man with a strong portfolio and Italian loafers. They sedate their unsatisfied wives with diamonds and chardonnay so they can sleep with the women in the office who want to warm their ambition at the corporate fire.
What these guys want is some Old Testament thunder! Forget "love your neighbor as yourself". Bring on the Commandments! HONOR THY [mother and] FATHER. Bring on the blood! SUFFER NOT A WITCH TO LIVE. Bring on the persecution! HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF THE LORD GOD!
They want to hear about people turned into pillars of salt, about plagues loosed on slaves who rise against masters, about Enoch slaughtering the priests of Ba'al. Why? Because these are the ways that men hold power over others. This is what keeps them rich.
|
|
|
| |
| The Beauties of Christianity |
| 04.12.04 (1:27 pm) [edit] |
"There are a great many symbols which are used as objects of meditation. These symbols are used by [some] as a means of concentrating the mind and introducing into it certain thoughts, calling up certain associated ideas, and stimulating certain feelings. The initiate, however, uses a symbol-system differently; he uses it as an algebra...as a means of guiding thought out into the Unseen and Incomprehensible.
"And how does he do this?....There are some [aspects of the symbol] of which he knows something; there are others of which he can intuit something, or more crudely, make a guess, reasoning from first principles. The mind leaps from one known to another known and in so doing traverses certain distances, metaphorically speaking; it is like a traveler in the desert who knows the situation of two oases and makes a forced march between them. He would never have dared to push out into the desert from the first oasis if he had not known the location of the second; but at the end of his journey he not only knows much more about the characteristics of the second oasis, but he has also observed the country lying in between them. Thus, making forced marches from oasis to oasis, backwards and forwards across the desert, he gradually explores it; nevertheless, the desert is incapable of supporting life."
Now what better symbol can one ask than that of Jesus? If we seek to know the Unseen and Incomprehensible--hencefo rth referred to as God--then we need merely work our algebra as instructed by the inimitable Dion Fortune. Let Z=God. Since Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Light; none shall come to the Father but through me", let Jesus=Y, such that Y=less than Z.
But that is not much to go on, and we require more information about Y. Fortunately, we have many symbols that may help us arrive at a better understanding of Y: the Cross (U), the Fisher of Men (V), the Sacrificial Lamb (W), and the Bridegroom (X) among others. Let us suppose, then, that Jesus is that second oasis mentioned above. We now have many different local oases (or starting points) to choose from, each of which offers a path towards Jesus; walking each path will show us more and more territory until at last our familiarity changes the Unseen and Incomprehensible into, at the very least, the Briefly Glimpsed and Somewhat Familiar. U+V+W+X=less than Y; Y=less than Z.
Of course, the veil can never be torn from the face of God while we remain in the flesh; the desert cannot support life. But the devotion and love and sacrifice required to force our marches between the oases mentioned above will birth and nurture the baby Jesus in our own hearts. And so, if the end result of Christianity is to unite our heart, mind and spirit with God, then those who would be Christians should rejoice in the salvational possibilities of the symbolism of Jesus.
|
|
|
| |
| the ground is slipping away |
| 04.06.04 (7:06 pm) [edit] |
so here's the thing... at least tonight's thing.
According to Geometry, 3 points in space are the minimum number required to create a plane. A plane is a flat, 2-dimensional figure which can form the base (or side, or top) of more complex, 3-dimensional figures (like a pyramid, for instance).
Stick with me while I switch this up...
I recall reading once that three sources for the same information are enough for many people to accept that information as truth. Consider truth as a plane for the moment... a flat, 2-dimensional figure which can form the basis for more complex figures (like opinions, interpretations, or courses of action, for instance). I decided to test this out with the most absurd thing that came to me.
One day I went in to work and told a friendly co-worker, "John", that the moon had cracked in half overnight. "Can you believe this moon shit?" I asked him.
"Moon shit? What the hell are you talking about?!" he replied.
"You didn't see the paper? Watch the news this morning?" I inquired. "
No. I was hung over." he said.
"Dude, [i]the moon cracked in half[/i]. NASA is going crazy... they have no idea what happened! I can't believe you didn't hear about it!" I said.
"That's crazy, man." John said. But he wasn't certain.
"Go ask Steve. Or Jenny. We were just talking about it before you came in!" I told him. [b]POINT ONE[/b].
Of course, I had already conferred with Steve [[b]POINT TWO[/b]] and Jenny [[b]POINT THREE[/b]] to play along. They backed me all the way. Great performances! We'd like to thank the Academy...
At the end of this little experiment, John, as rational human being as any, began to believe that the moon had actually cracked in half. Three apparently independent sources = a flimsy base of truth to stand on.
Almost done, now. Lemme flip up over and reverse it...
If I, an underachieving yokel, can convince John of a lunar absurdity by using three "points" of information that he knows personally are not authorities on astrophysics...
how much more vulnerable are we to the "points" of information given to us by, for instance, "CNN, the most trusted name in news"?
Ten years ago, I never would have worried about this issue at all. Of course, that was before the drugs... But it was also before the entry of unacknowledged editorializing and bias into the world of news reporting.
Slowly but surely, each snide comment; each story covered unfairly; each nuance of preference I catch on the news chips away at the thin plane of "truth" I rest on.
How much more before we have nowhere safe left to stand?
|
|
|
| |
| Belgian Ale, anyone? |
| 04.01.04 (4:09 pm) [edit] |
I'm fairly excited because I just got paid and I picked up a few beers I've never had before. All of them are Belgian Ales.
"What's that?!" you ask. "Belgian Ales? I thought you liked the dark stuff?"
You daaaaamn right! That's why I'm drinking the Belgians.
See, here's my theory: I really prefer dark, hoppy, intense flavored beers. On the other hand, I know the Belgians have been making beer pretty much as long as anyone still in business today. And my friends at the USBTC say that the real class lies in malts, not the explosive hoppiness that brings me such explosive happiness (yes, I have been drinking :oops: ). And they have great beer judgement. So i'm going to drink this Belgian Ale to see what all the noise is about!
Here are my choices:
Chimay Cinq Cents Trippel Ale (750ml@ 7.5%) $8.00
Crobbendonk Abbey Pale Ale 12 oz $3.50
Affligem Dubbel Ale (750 ml@ 7% alc.) $8.95
If you've tried these before, I'd love to hear your comments. If you've got other favorite beers, let me know! I've tried an enormous variety, but I'm always on the lookout for something new!
'Til then, Prost!
|
|
|
| |
| some thoughts on politics... |
| 03.30.04 (5:50 pm) [edit] |
let me first say that I can't really get excited about either of our apparent choices for president.
what really drives me crazy is how seriously everyone seems to be about their hypocrisies.
Bush speaks as if he were a relatively unintelligent angel attempting to pronounce the Holy Message to a group of kindergarten kids. Not so much that he has a halo, just that awful tone of moral certitude in his voice. I mean, really... 30 years ago this guy would have clubbed me over the head for a cold one, and now he's got this Vision for America that seems relatively unconcerned with how America feels about that image.
In the other corner, there's a guy who makes outlandish promises (3 months warning before you get fired, for instance... or today's 'i'll do something about oil prices' as if he's got a seat on the OPEC board we don't know about...) and uses the sort of rhetoric more appropriate to exorcists than democrats. Hey, if Bush must go, that's fine by me. He scares the hell out of me. But is it really a good idea to pick someone [i]just because he can defeat Bush[/i]? Is anyone listening to what this guy is saying?
oooooo... i get so mad... why, i oughta....
wait... hypocrisy. that's where i started.
The thing that really burns me is that anyone thinks it's gonna make a damn bit of difference whether Kerry or Bush ends up in the White House in 2005. These guys are not going to make things better... at best they'll just make different things worse. Americans have been looking to the next President to make things better for 212 years, and look where that has gotten us!
Let's play a quick game. Write down the five things that you love most about living in America.* Quickly! (Oh, come on... i mean the real stuff!)
My examples:
1) My girlfriend
2) Beer
3) Freedom
4) Yellowstone National Park
5) Computers
(Note: I originally had 2 & 3 reversed, but then realized that if I didn't have Freedom, I would want even more beer to drown my pain...)
Now, please take a few minutes and write down the names of the Presidents who have created, guaranteed, or are otherwise responsible for, each of the five things.
See?!
In my list, barring some unknown skeletons in my girlfriend's closet and Al Gore's assertion that he created the internet, the only thing I can thank a President for is Yellowstone National Park (thanks, Teddy!).
Now I can hear you screaming "Freedom!" like some sort of reject from the Braveheart cast... but let's be honest here. Which President do we thank for Freedom? Which one of them hasn't tried to limit, marginalize or take advantage of Freedom for his own benefit? Please.. read your history! Anyone who really wants to be President of the United States should be automatically disqualified on account of an absurdly constipated ego!
So if we could all please ease back from this ridiculous rhetoric that says "our guy is right, and your guy is the devil", from these shouting matches that only scream hypocrisy... maybe we could focus on things that matter.
Like surviving our own excesses and filth on a planet that is rapidly filling up with people and rapidly running out of oil....
Like treating the humans around us with a little more respect...
Like trying to heal our own hearts and minds rather than trying to force our "fixes" on our neighbors...
Like delicious, cold beer.
[*disclaimer: I absolutely love America. I've lived and traveled in enough other countries to recognize that we have it very good here. Plus we have access to a bewildering variety of good brews!]
|
|
|
| |
| mmmmm... beer. |
| 03.30.04 (5:09 pm) [edit] |
Look, I don't know how you feel about beer so I'm just gonna take it from the top here.
I freakin' love beer. Good beer, that is. Of course, the definition of "good beer" changes from time to time. Sometimes is German doublebock... sometimes it's whatever you hand me, as long as its cold.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a drunk. Alcoholic? Maybe. But not a drunk. Really. I swear!
I seem to be, in general, on the side of the hops.
Those of you who drink beer that is actually [b]darker[/b] than your urine will know what I mean. Hops give beer the sort of full, fruity, nutty flavor that you encounter in an I.P.A. (India Pale Ale), for example.
My IPA pick of the week: Stone Ruination IPA.
Why? Great hoppy flavor, very strong undertones, generally bright edge. (To be honest, I'm not sure what those descriptions mean... they kinda sound like beer-snobbery phrases, dontcha think?) But I do mean that the Stone Ruination IPA is a brilliant beer.
Try it! You'll like it!
|
|
|
| |
| good intentions |
| 03.30.04 (4:58 pm) [edit] |
What the world needs now is... love, sweet love? er.. wait. no.
clarity.
That is what I meant.
I am constantly astounded at the things people (including me) say and do. So I thought this might be a good place to think out loud. Try to find some clarity.
Oh, yeah... and to talk about beer.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
