The left and right-wing extremist don't take it far enough. Their stances are still too centrists for most Americans who really want an America they can be even more proud of, which will be evidenced when we see more American flags hanging from just about every place imaginable. That's how I know that Fox news is the most patriotic and the Food Network least. There are too few American flags visible on the Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter blogs.
Who on the left blogosphere trade in polemics as well as those two? Something from iVillage? The extreme left is equally guilty of being harsh and bloodlust wordwise as the right. And the hypocrisy.
The thing is, being hypocritical doesn't necessarily equate to being wrong. A mass murderer who advises people to not kill would surely be right while being a hypocrite. Politicians are just more frequent offenders. Yes, even Obama, and no one can be sure it's even less with him than most. Equivocation is also solid currency.
How do I segue back to Malkin and Coulter. Crap. Anyway, Malkin on immigration isn't taking her thoughts to the logical conclusion. Why stop at eliminating the citizenship rights for those born on US soil when we can turn back the clock and fix all our mistakes? Let it be retroactive and we'll take back the citizenship of every person who was not born from American citizens -every last one of those leechers: illegals, on work or travel visas. As it happens, obviously, Michelle's dear (assumption) parents were on visas and thus not real Americans in any sense of the word. Sure, that would also mean Michelle needs to move back to the Philipines if they'll have her. Wait, she's already got roots: one (real) American husband and two kids. But rules are rules. As she said herself, keeping families together arguments hold no water when we are dealing with a real encroachment of US sovereignty.
Next, the real American, and bestselling author (a claim that almost every published writer can make for some reason) Ann Coulter. She did a really brilliant post on her dad but had to ruin it with a dig at liberals by somehow calling upon the Almighty to smite them (not terrorists, not Osama but liberals). Not to say there's no play for baiting and fan service but as the closing of a rememberance of your dear (another assumption) of your recently deceased father. Well, everyone has different standards.
"Father hated puffery, pomposity, snobbery, fake friendliness, fake anything."
Um, nothing about whether he liked his daughter; I have only my informed guess but I like to fake friendliness. Oh, and ideas from Marx. And Adam Smith. Keynes. I like ideas and not the stifling of them. So I'd vote no on McCarthy who was apparently quite the hero in the Coulter household.
Ann also referenced Anna Karenina. Well-read, or perhaps just taken off Cliff Notes, the ten page summary. I do that sometimes. A lot.
"Father mostly had contempt for Soviet spies. In addition to damaging information, such as military plans and nuclear secrets, the spies also collected massive amounts of utterly useless information on things like U.S. agricultural production. These were people who looked at a flush toilet like it was a spaceship. He told me Soviet spies reveled in the whole cloak-and-dagger aspect of espionage."
Did he know they were spies. Did he think the US spies were causing a scene and drawing attention to themselves? Or better yet not taking any notes and just winging it? They were spies, that's all I'm saying.
"He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement."
Was he okay with corrupt governments? Halliburton wants to know. Wait, it doesn't.
"There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work."
Only strikers were violent; the suppressors were all manners.
Despite all that, even if you factor into who he created, he was probably a decent person. He made a much bigger contribution than a right or left-wing blogger ever will. Of course, me included.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Politics and Ann Coulter
Politics is something I didn't think I'd have all these useless opinions on but it's the big thing in this moment - even bigger than Roger Federer's decline (or more accurately, the rest of the field narrowing the gap).
The great thing about the political opinions being spewed nowadays from the hardcore liberals and conservatives is this: none of it - not the tens of thousands of hours of on-air radio, tv, internet and everything else - is in any way constructive. That is close to being completely accurate. And if there's one thing I love it's being unconstructive.
I think Bill Clinton was recently playing up the angle of the benefits of a healthy debate and how that's how society progresses. That's really true, you know, if the other side is listening and there's insight being shared back and forth. So I'm in no way accusing him of lying. However, that's really not the reality of the situation and the "debates" going on, in this case, the Hillary and Obama supporters are not really going to advance towards reconcialition. The only thing that settles the argument is when the winner is left standing. And the same applies to the general election as the liberals try to win for the first time in what feels like a century.
So real debate and dialogue betweens extremely ideological people is as dead as God (at least from what I can gather from Ingmar Bergman movies). No need to shed tears because it can still be great for filling time in the dull lives of the citizens and employ many people in the news media and make a small segment of those people really wealthy.
That's why people should stop bashing people so obviously trolling for media attention and to gather a devoted following for the frequent occasions when they need to shill a book for that new kitchen or swimming pool. And I don't think Ann Coulter is really part of the news media; I think of her more as a failed comic. Well, according to wikipedia (thus we can treat it as if it had been brought down from Mt. Sinai (sic?) by Moses) she has a law degree, but couldn't cut it as a real lawyer, so a failed comic serves probably as a complement compared to the truth. It's kind of frowned upon to treat opinion as fact in litigation so I think, honestly (and not to blog) that she chose the right field. On the other hand, taking statements out of context comes in real handy, so who knows? I think the nail in the coffin is that lawyers have to actually do research and not just create certain ideas of "truth". The man who spawned her was a decent enough lawyer, supposedly taking on unions with some fervor (Full Disclosure(?): I believe corruption in unions was probably commonplace, and at the same time I believe that bargaining position with regard to manual labourers with their employers is an empty term without unions), who knows what kind of influence it had on little Ann. It doesn't matter though because she didn't make it to a position of power except so far as to preach to the choir of people who already believe that liberals are just whiners who underachieved and couldn't deal with the real world.
Crap, that was a like Marc Antony coming to bury Caesar but really there to praise him. Oh, well. What I really wanted to get across was that Ann Coulter is quite smart to playing the outspoken conservative because think about it, how else would she get attention and from that money? Is she going to marry rich? I'm going to assume that ship has sailed. The ship of "Marrying for Love" is still available but then I remembered it's Ann Coulter I'm talking about. Can't help myself. What I meant is that the devil's advocate, playing contrarian and ruffling people's feathers is an easy way to get a devoted following. See Rush, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Franken (maybe?). You don't win fans by sitting on the fence or being centrist unless you're actually talented. Talented as in some combination of journalistic, comedic, and prosaic.
I've read Coulter and it's really just your average blog; I don't think there's a Nabokov underneath the controversial opinions. Oh, I'm not qualified to judge it's at once the most ridiculous opinion in this day and age, dealing with all the people who opine in the media, that anyone whould think that any qualification to bash a person of however great a standing. I think the world as a whole has rejected that notion. So logically, most of her readers then are there for the content. Is it funny? Depends on your sense of humour. Are there reasoned arguments and opinions derived from facts? Certainly, I mean not all, but some for sure, in my opinion. Sorry, I meant so far as I know. It's basically the "shock and awe" of op-ed so it's not as likely to cause deaths. But there are people who believe some of the things she writes and that's America.
Do I even think Ann Coulter believes all of the things she commits on paper? Probably not. But how do you get ahead as a writer when you have nothing to contribute to the argument. Well, yes, you could work hard, slave away at the small papers while honing your writing skills and working at the next big lead that'll make the headlines. Or better yet, the great American novel so you can tell the editor to do something with a flagpole. Thing is though life is too short. Getting ahead is not about earning your place as much as taking short cuts; and being contrarian and controversial is the journalistic equivalent of flashing your nipples on the red carpet. In this regard, you have to hand it to her. Money and fame. And scorn and wrath. And more money. Yay. That's the ultimate reward in life, no? If the mainstream media went conservative the next day she would gloat and then find herself a lot less marketable, at which point she would go liberal. It's not about beliefs and ideologies; it's about the dollars (btw, worth a lot less than what they were a few years back, but I'm sure they still love President Bush).
So everyone should just leave Coulter alone like Britney. Then people will actually get what they want: the end of Ann Coulter (from the media, not like death). I think she's made enough but I'm sure that's not in the conservative dictionary. Enough? That's not Christian. That reminds me, why is she proud of being a WASP? I mean Protestant? Please, there's only one way to heaven and that's on the Roman Catholic bus. I mean obviously the Anglo-Saxon (read: whitebread) heritage kind of means you start as a Protestant but that in no way means you can't improve and purify yourself with the ascension to Roman Catholicism. Everything else is just heresy, so good luck in purgatory. I mean that.
The great thing about the political opinions being spewed nowadays from the hardcore liberals and conservatives is this: none of it - not the tens of thousands of hours of on-air radio, tv, internet and everything else - is in any way constructive. That is close to being completely accurate. And if there's one thing I love it's being unconstructive.
I think Bill Clinton was recently playing up the angle of the benefits of a healthy debate and how that's how society progresses. That's really true, you know, if the other side is listening and there's insight being shared back and forth. So I'm in no way accusing him of lying. However, that's really not the reality of the situation and the "debates" going on, in this case, the Hillary and Obama supporters are not really going to advance towards reconcialition. The only thing that settles the argument is when the winner is left standing. And the same applies to the general election as the liberals try to win for the first time in what feels like a century.
So real debate and dialogue betweens extremely ideological people is as dead as God (at least from what I can gather from Ingmar Bergman movies). No need to shed tears because it can still be great for filling time in the dull lives of the citizens and employ many people in the news media and make a small segment of those people really wealthy.
That's why people should stop bashing people so obviously trolling for media attention and to gather a devoted following for the frequent occasions when they need to shill a book for that new kitchen or swimming pool. And I don't think Ann Coulter is really part of the news media; I think of her more as a failed comic. Well, according to wikipedia (thus we can treat it as if it had been brought down from Mt. Sinai (sic?) by Moses) she has a law degree, but couldn't cut it as a real lawyer, so a failed comic serves probably as a complement compared to the truth. It's kind of frowned upon to treat opinion as fact in litigation so I think, honestly (and not to blog) that she chose the right field. On the other hand, taking statements out of context comes in real handy, so who knows? I think the nail in the coffin is that lawyers have to actually do research and not just create certain ideas of "truth". The man who spawned her was a decent enough lawyer, supposedly taking on unions with some fervor (Full Disclosure(?): I believe corruption in unions was probably commonplace, and at the same time I believe that bargaining position with regard to manual labourers with their employers is an empty term without unions), who knows what kind of influence it had on little Ann. It doesn't matter though because she didn't make it to a position of power except so far as to preach to the choir of people who already believe that liberals are just whiners who underachieved and couldn't deal with the real world.
Crap, that was a like Marc Antony coming to bury Caesar but really there to praise him. Oh, well. What I really wanted to get across was that Ann Coulter is quite smart to playing the outspoken conservative because think about it, how else would she get attention and from that money? Is she going to marry rich? I'm going to assume that ship has sailed. The ship of "Marrying for Love" is still available but then I remembered it's Ann Coulter I'm talking about. Can't help myself. What I meant is that the devil's advocate, playing contrarian and ruffling people's feathers is an easy way to get a devoted following. See Rush, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Franken (maybe?). You don't win fans by sitting on the fence or being centrist unless you're actually talented. Talented as in some combination of journalistic, comedic, and prosaic.
I've read Coulter and it's really just your average blog; I don't think there's a Nabokov underneath the controversial opinions. Oh, I'm not qualified to judge it's at once the most ridiculous opinion in this day and age, dealing with all the people who opine in the media, that anyone whould think that any qualification to bash a person of however great a standing. I think the world as a whole has rejected that notion. So logically, most of her readers then are there for the content. Is it funny? Depends on your sense of humour. Are there reasoned arguments and opinions derived from facts? Certainly, I mean not all, but some for sure, in my opinion. Sorry, I meant so far as I know. It's basically the "shock and awe" of op-ed so it's not as likely to cause deaths. But there are people who believe some of the things she writes and that's America.
Do I even think Ann Coulter believes all of the things she commits on paper? Probably not. But how do you get ahead as a writer when you have nothing to contribute to the argument. Well, yes, you could work hard, slave away at the small papers while honing your writing skills and working at the next big lead that'll make the headlines. Or better yet, the great American novel so you can tell the editor to do something with a flagpole. Thing is though life is too short. Getting ahead is not about earning your place as much as taking short cuts; and being contrarian and controversial is the journalistic equivalent of flashing your nipples on the red carpet. In this regard, you have to hand it to her. Money and fame. And scorn and wrath. And more money. Yay. That's the ultimate reward in life, no? If the mainstream media went conservative the next day she would gloat and then find herself a lot less marketable, at which point she would go liberal. It's not about beliefs and ideologies; it's about the dollars (btw, worth a lot less than what they were a few years back, but I'm sure they still love President Bush).
So everyone should just leave Coulter alone like Britney. Then people will actually get what they want: the end of Ann Coulter (from the media, not like death). I think she's made enough but I'm sure that's not in the conservative dictionary. Enough? That's not Christian. That reminds me, why is she proud of being a WASP? I mean Protestant? Please, there's only one way to heaven and that's on the Roman Catholic bus. I mean obviously the Anglo-Saxon (read: whitebread) heritage kind of means you start as a Protestant but that in no way means you can't improve and purify yourself with the ascension to Roman Catholicism. Everything else is just heresy, so good luck in purgatory. I mean that.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Always stuck on Proust and Kafka
so I never actually end up being able to express my thoughts with any coherence or perspicacity (a word I learned from Lisa Simpson). Allow me to just say that Proust never had a real job (read: one that paid) but he worked, as in wrote, on some occasions. Apart from his one great feat, he also translated Ruskins (with help on the english which he didn't have a real grasp) and worked at some literary journals or whatever. Look, he was another one of those who was left with a fortune and didn't need to work. And just like the descendants of burgeoisies and aristocrats of this era, the ones in Proust's lifetime also were a bit averse to working. It's a little bit of a badge of honour to not have to work in that circle, instead filling their time with gossiping and socializing and the frequent parties. How quaint! Well, Proust didn't need to workand he chose not to. To be honest, what could a morbidly sensitive artiste like him do anyway? Would you have him work as an errand boy? The man had no hustle and that's that: if he lost all his money and needed a job, it was either living on his pen or dying without a third option.
All his gossiping and roming the streets of Paris and sitting down in some hotel for cakes and coffee or whatever all were cumulative in the attention to detail in his works. You don't just get the madeleine bit without having tea on occasion.
On his unrequited love, and mama's boy issues. Well, they're linked. Great surprise. With all his dependence and love for his mama he was bound to fall for anyone who took care of him. In this case it was his servant/errand-person (?) Albertine. So what the hell, that's how it had to happen especially with Albertine being married with kids and totally not gay. And who can blame him for taking any lavish gifts thrown his way? Not a coward as I. Proust probably didn't even want a match that could work, subconsciously anyway, because that would mean he found a replacement for his mother. If that happened what would he do with all those memories and how could he cherish all those moments that he kept like a bee hovering around his nest.
So he is who he is. He's not a loser because of his one great work; I wouldn't say his one great gift of writing because he had to produce something with it to rely on it and that's what he did. And it took him writing on his big bed with people bringing him meals and working through his infirmities. So that's one person who's a genius but not so adaptable in his environment.
Oh, so I guess I'm going to stick to a topic. I was going to blog about this Chinese movie I saw which unlike most of the rest I did like. It was similar to Searching for Bobby Fischer with chess being replaced by Go and some homages to Hikaru No Go. Anyway it was a good father-son movie like Field of Dreams or something. I'll get back to it later if I can remember. The title: "The king of Go and his son"
Kafka is sort of the anti-Proust. He was probably a lot more nice and approachable than a snobbish aesthete such as Proust. He also had father issues instead of mother ones although really they were just maybe orthodox Jewish issues complemented with even greater feelings of worthlessness.
Actually, and I have absolutely no basis on which or evidence to support me on this, but he probably didn't have such a low self-esteem as we'd like to think. Of course, the Jewish experience in Europe was not conducive to building esteem and his father was probably as domineering as any in a child's worst nightmare. But with a person of his self-deprecating sense of humour he probably tookk most of it in stride. I mean the man had a few lovers and got laid. Oh, Proust was no virgin as well though maybe we're talking about a few visits to the market for his needs...um, it's a market economy, n'est pas? I believe that Kafka dealt with whatever issues he had with being Jewish or being intimidated by his father or whatever else, on paper and through his imagination. And after he was done at 4am then he was sane again, nodded off for three hours and headed to work.
So he had a job as a lawyer dealing with injured workings for some company. He was the productive member of society that Proust was definitely not. Probably most of his money was turned over to his parents, so he was that kind of a good kid like the ones you'd want as your son-in-law. Except for his need to write in the middle of the night on these rather visceral stories of varying levels of terror, probably. he supposedly cam up with the worker's helmet that people still use today and saved many workers from accidental injuries. So like I said, a contributing member of society that fifty Prousts couldn't match. Proust is like the wasteful small child and Kafka the responsible eldest. Oh well, can't win them all.
Anyway, he didn't last too long on his diet of pressure and burden and he passed away rather young. I'm tired. The point is, there couldn't have been a Proust or Kafka without their accompanying circumstances. Proust could not write like Proust without being a wasteful person who lived in the past only nourished by his memories (and the gossips of society). Kafka couldn't capture so well the ideas of fear and terror and whatever other issues that he had according to Wikipedia, without a father whose love he could never ever hope to win. Now I can end with the can't win them all.
All his gossiping and roming the streets of Paris and sitting down in some hotel for cakes and coffee or whatever all were cumulative in the attention to detail in his works. You don't just get the madeleine bit without having tea on occasion.
On his unrequited love, and mama's boy issues. Well, they're linked. Great surprise. With all his dependence and love for his mama he was bound to fall for anyone who took care of him. In this case it was his servant/errand-person (?) Albertine. So what the hell, that's how it had to happen especially with Albertine being married with kids and totally not gay. And who can blame him for taking any lavish gifts thrown his way? Not a coward as I. Proust probably didn't even want a match that could work, subconsciously anyway, because that would mean he found a replacement for his mother. If that happened what would he do with all those memories and how could he cherish all those moments that he kept like a bee hovering around his nest.
So he is who he is. He's not a loser because of his one great work; I wouldn't say his one great gift of writing because he had to produce something with it to rely on it and that's what he did. And it took him writing on his big bed with people bringing him meals and working through his infirmities. So that's one person who's a genius but not so adaptable in his environment.
Oh, so I guess I'm going to stick to a topic. I was going to blog about this Chinese movie I saw which unlike most of the rest I did like. It was similar to Searching for Bobby Fischer with chess being replaced by Go and some homages to Hikaru No Go. Anyway it was a good father-son movie like Field of Dreams or something. I'll get back to it later if I can remember. The title: "The king of Go and his son"
Kafka is sort of the anti-Proust. He was probably a lot more nice and approachable than a snobbish aesthete such as Proust. He also had father issues instead of mother ones although really they were just maybe orthodox Jewish issues complemented with even greater feelings of worthlessness.
Actually, and I have absolutely no basis on which or evidence to support me on this, but he probably didn't have such a low self-esteem as we'd like to think. Of course, the Jewish experience in Europe was not conducive to building esteem and his father was probably as domineering as any in a child's worst nightmare. But with a person of his self-deprecating sense of humour he probably tookk most of it in stride. I mean the man had a few lovers and got laid. Oh, Proust was no virgin as well though maybe we're talking about a few visits to the market for his needs...um, it's a market economy, n'est pas? I believe that Kafka dealt with whatever issues he had with being Jewish or being intimidated by his father or whatever else, on paper and through his imagination. And after he was done at 4am then he was sane again, nodded off for three hours and headed to work.
So he had a job as a lawyer dealing with injured workings for some company. He was the productive member of society that Proust was definitely not. Probably most of his money was turned over to his parents, so he was that kind of a good kid like the ones you'd want as your son-in-law. Except for his need to write in the middle of the night on these rather visceral stories of varying levels of terror, probably. he supposedly cam up with the worker's helmet that people still use today and saved many workers from accidental injuries. So like I said, a contributing member of society that fifty Prousts couldn't match. Proust is like the wasteful small child and Kafka the responsible eldest. Oh well, can't win them all.
Anyway, he didn't last too long on his diet of pressure and burden and he passed away rather young. I'm tired. The point is, there couldn't have been a Proust or Kafka without their accompanying circumstances. Proust could not write like Proust without being a wasteful person who lived in the past only nourished by his memories (and the gossips of society). Kafka couldn't capture so well the ideas of fear and terror and whatever other issues that he had according to Wikipedia, without a father whose love he could never ever hope to win. Now I can end with the can't win them all.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sorry to self.
One more thing, it's this old Dennis Miller pseudo-joke. Well, it's not really a joke. What he said in his routine is that, referring to paedophiliacs, " if you feel a need to commit sexual acts with kids then please do us all a favor and take one for the team (gun in mouth gesture)." Favor because Miller is American. Despite being a heart-on-sleeve lefty I lean towards favouring capital punishment because there are some devious people in the world and the rehabilitation element of prison reform is not really effective at all. There's really no worthwhile argument on that point. All I want to say is this is something that gun crazy, trigger-happy, self-destructive types should look into that. No shame taking the coward's way out unless you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation or the wheels of Samsara (?). Just think about it.
Also, quasi-manifesto, no lists, regular reviews, or ranking crap of any kind should ever appear here.
Also, quasi-manifesto, no lists, regular reviews, or ranking crap of any kind should ever appear here.
The Broad and Narrow II
So I really can't finish a thought. Either that or I elaborate and retread the same lines of argument more than I should. I wished I had taken the time to look it over because I wanted to distinguish this broad and narrow definition of purpose of life from the idea of parents telling their kids to go business major or engineer because of broaden career opportunities. I'm not really worried about the career being the slacker that I am; I'm not invalidating the idea that accounting is a safer bet than mortuary school but I think that's only one factor among many and would be overwhelmed by, for example, a fear of crunching numbers for a living.
The broadness or scope of the meaning is really based on the personal idea of what makes life more than just tolerable (or worse as the case may be). More stupid examples, teaching can be a very rewarding experience for some but not all teachers would feel that way (my personal skew, the percentage is low). Same for a doctor. So it's not very quantifiable and thus it is not wise to try to label a field of work as more spiritually (in the secular sense) rewarding than others. Alot of the backlash towards celebrities and that group I tend to regard as falling in this area: whether it's purposeful or empty is really not for outsiders to judge.
I'm braindead quite frequently, or euphemistically termed as whimsical, and on one of the recent occasions I watched a John Stossel 20/20 report. It's obviously a misnomer because he never reports on anything with any semblance journalism skills; they're all op. ed. piece on camera portraying one side of a soporific (dictionary.com? I wanted to use somnabulistic or however it's spelled.) story. This time he was talking about a subset of the slackers population: the people with money to live that way without being called bums! His interviewee was a guy engaged to some rich heiress, not one with her own library of titles at the local video store, and he had never had a job in his life. Correction: he got a job at an investment company but quit before he had to use the loo on account of seeing those people actually having to work until 2 a.m. midnight. I think that he might have some money on his own, not from earning it or anything or I might just have assumed from the circle he's in. Actually, I'd be scared by that too. Anyway, he quit, and from then on has spent time partying and filling his time with nonsense. It's easy to find such a person disreputable or just downright pathetic, and that's what Stossel counted on when he decided to do this "story". But look, before you decide that it wouldn't be so bad have him put down for the sake or the working population, let's just consider what he's guilty of? Winning the lottery at birth? People have to put in an effort to achieve anything worthwhile, but it is always proportional to some degree of God-given talent, which is another form of lottery, the genetic one. And really, anyone who's born in one of the industrial or relative equal nations where they have an opportunity to work and play with a degree of freedom have already won some form of lottery from avoiding places of far starker conditions. How well would the most successful people you can think of have done if they were born to a desolate family in the third world? Would they even have a chance? Do the people there now have a chance? I mean, I know Oprah came from a bad situation but even she would say it's a blessing for her to have been born is the US; and it's very nice to see that she's giving back to the communities of Africa (it seems pretty evident she has nothing to do with the recent scandals and it's hard to expect complete oversight - even the, say, US government with all its resources suck at oversight (sometimes on purpose, perhaps?) So I guess hurray for genetic lottery. Back to the loafer, he's a loafer but he's been provided the means, albeit through no effort of his own, to be a loafer. So leavef him alone. And if he's a wasteful person, considering the multiplied(?) factor, he's probably doing more for the economy than he would be doing if he was a working productive member of society while spending thriftily. His partying and going to stripclubs is putting some stripper through college, and there's no punchline there because if it's really true and not just an outright lie then I think it's commendable.
To explain with more incoherent ramblings - more name-dropping of the poser variety - with an example from the world of literature. And not English literature because it isn't limited to a less than refined, piecemeal language which, yes, also happens to be the only one I'm semi-fluent in. If I were less of a poser I'd say blow moi. My evidential lineup consists of Proust (that's pronounced proost and not praust, I'm looking at you, Daniel Henney or whoever it was on the Samsoon crew that told him it was praust!) and Kafka. I'll get back to this; needless to say Proust is the narrow and Kafka the broad. Both were amazing, but one was obviously mroe complete than the other - meaning his writing wasn't the only thing that defined him in any meaningful way, in my humble opinion. But I like Proust more - prodigals stick together, not in reality but in spirit.
The broadness or scope of the meaning is really based on the personal idea of what makes life more than just tolerable (or worse as the case may be). More stupid examples, teaching can be a very rewarding experience for some but not all teachers would feel that way (my personal skew, the percentage is low). Same for a doctor. So it's not very quantifiable and thus it is not wise to try to label a field of work as more spiritually (in the secular sense) rewarding than others. Alot of the backlash towards celebrities and that group I tend to regard as falling in this area: whether it's purposeful or empty is really not for outsiders to judge.
I'm braindead quite frequently, or euphemistically termed as whimsical, and on one of the recent occasions I watched a John Stossel 20/20 report. It's obviously a misnomer because he never reports on anything with any semblance journalism skills; they're all op. ed. piece on camera portraying one side of a soporific (dictionary.com? I wanted to use somnabulistic or however it's spelled.) story. This time he was talking about a subset of the slackers population: the people with money to live that way without being called bums! His interviewee was a guy engaged to some rich heiress, not one with her own library of titles at the local video store, and he had never had a job in his life. Correction: he got a job at an investment company but quit before he had to use the loo on account of seeing those people actually having to work until 2 a.m. midnight. I think that he might have some money on his own, not from earning it or anything or I might just have assumed from the circle he's in. Actually, I'd be scared by that too. Anyway, he quit, and from then on has spent time partying and filling his time with nonsense. It's easy to find such a person disreputable or just downright pathetic, and that's what Stossel counted on when he decided to do this "story". But look, before you decide that it wouldn't be so bad have him put down for the sake or the working population, let's just consider what he's guilty of? Winning the lottery at birth? People have to put in an effort to achieve anything worthwhile, but it is always proportional to some degree of God-given talent, which is another form of lottery, the genetic one. And really, anyone who's born in one of the industrial or relative equal nations where they have an opportunity to work and play with a degree of freedom have already won some form of lottery from avoiding places of far starker conditions. How well would the most successful people you can think of have done if they were born to a desolate family in the third world? Would they even have a chance? Do the people there now have a chance? I mean, I know Oprah came from a bad situation but even she would say it's a blessing for her to have been born is the US; and it's very nice to see that she's giving back to the communities of Africa (it seems pretty evident she has nothing to do with the recent scandals and it's hard to expect complete oversight - even the, say, US government with all its resources suck at oversight (sometimes on purpose, perhaps?) So I guess hurray for genetic lottery. Back to the loafer, he's a loafer but he's been provided the means, albeit through no effort of his own, to be a loafer. So leavef him alone. And if he's a wasteful person, considering the multiplied(?) factor, he's probably doing more for the economy than he would be doing if he was a working productive member of society while spending thriftily. His partying and going to stripclubs is putting some stripper through college, and there's no punchline there because if it's really true and not just an outright lie then I think it's commendable.
To explain with more incoherent ramblings - more name-dropping of the poser variety - with an example from the world of literature. And not English literature because it isn't limited to a less than refined, piecemeal language which, yes, also happens to be the only one I'm semi-fluent in. If I were less of a poser I'd say blow moi. My evidential lineup consists of Proust (that's pronounced proost and not praust, I'm looking at you, Daniel Henney or whoever it was on the Samsoon crew that told him it was praust!) and Kafka. I'll get back to this; needless to say Proust is the narrow and Kafka the broad. Both were amazing, but one was obviously mroe complete than the other - meaning his writing wasn't the only thing that defined him in any meaningful way, in my humble opinion. But I like Proust more - prodigals stick together, not in reality but in spirit.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The Broad and The Narrow
I can never finish my thoughts properly. Also, I'm deluding myself by pretending there are people reading this. I don't even read my own blog, because I can't, but even if I could I probably wouldn't.
Anyway to complete my thoughts: I was only suggesting in general that sociopaths and misguided homicidal maniacs be given some direction. They want to do something that'll etch their name in history, or barring that, a week's worth of coverage on Fox news and CNN and the whole cabal; and they're willing to shed blood to do it. So what seems to be ludicrous and cruel in other circumstances may not be so when it comes to these folks. They want some glorious cause and they don't possess the imagination or discipline to think of something on their own;as a result they copy what other sociopaths do after they see all the media coverage and exposure. They think they've arrived upon the early days of the Klondike goldrush.
What the government, or the media if they want to do something to help, is to show the potential killers alternative causes that could meaningful; hopefully without the bloodshed. So if they can be procured the Sudanese militias in Darfur, or something more realistic like working at the local food bank, that'd be swell. But I'm trying to be more realistic, and no ones is going to want to say the government should send them on some death mission; and as for the food bank or volunteering, if they wanted to do that they would do it on their own.
Then I remembered Battle Royale. Everyone loved that movie albeit just for the gore and hyperbolic premise. But this could work. The sociopaths want fame and attention so what better way than to get them to volunteer to be on a Battle Royale program. People objected to the idea of the movie because they were a random class of misfits in school, but in my scenario they'd all be potential killers. Would they really commit themselves to Battle Royale? If MTV covered it I'm sure they'd even wake up early and lineup to tryout for the program. It's fame and fortune - I meant to say there'd be a million dollars for the winner so that'd he or she wouldn't feel like a burden to the family if they survived but instead HEROES or at least quasi celebrities with a few bucks to their name - who could resist? (This is also like that Sliders episode where the lottery winner got money but then had to die after a week or so of living the high life.)
Positives would be that they want to kill and this would satisfy that urge. To clarify, I don't think that they actually have an urge to kill like Dexter Morgan, rather it's just ennui and aimlessness leading to unrest. But I'm not a professional pschiatrist or anything, in fact, full disclosure-wise all my knowlede on psychiatry is from wikipedia and the links from there. So, that's that.
So gather them up, no entry fee, and ship them to an island like Survivors and give them random weapons and provisions before starting the melee. This sounds like it'll costs alot of money but if you can imagine the ratings then you should see the next step: let the coverage go to the highest bidder! How much did NBC pay for the Olympics"? And CBS for March Madness? Battle Royale would outdraw those things combined. People would condemn it in public and secretly watch it, just like Baywatch. Of course there'd be massive protests against such perceived cruelty but note that: a) they would all be volunteers, nobody will be forced to join, not even serial killers in prison. b) they should also go through psychiatric tests just to make sure they are not just depressed and lethargic but genuinely pose a threat to society at large. c) a million other reasons.
Okay, enough craziness. The broad and the narrow is something I figured out at 26.5. I think most people figure this out when they're in high school. Also it's not profound in any real sense. It is just a simple way to explain the Holden Caulfield Syndrome of living in a trance and feeling everything is phony and meaningless. For myself, I call it the Claire Fisher Syndrome named for the Six Feet Under character because it's where I got the idea. And I realize this is slightly narcississtic and self-righteous and pretentious. At the same time though, I think it's great and clarifies all the instances where some confused teenagers tells their family that they just don't undertand what they're going through. It's like this gifted kids I saw on tv, a successful kid who graduated with honours but decided to work work public authorities on social reform rather than get some high paying job with great perks. Anyway, he coyingly said something about how none of his classmates could understand his decision, at which point I spoke to the tv set as I often do and said, "What's so difficult to understand? You want to work for something that you think is meaning and will boost your ego in a way which money couldn't."
The point is not that he was a jerk (he wasn't). The point is that people have a broad or narrow perspective on what gives life meaning. It depends on your experiences. You know how the well off parents force their kids into drama club and piano lessons and social functions? They might think it's for networking or better communication skills, and it might be true. But I think a benefit that they don't see is that exposure to a variety of what life has to offer broadens a person's sense of the meaning of life. If a father stuck his son with a golf club when he's three and took him to the links everyday and didn't give him any other choices then it's likely the kid will grow up thinking that the meaning of his life could only be to succeed at golf; that'd be the narrow. If the kid succeeds then it's no problem (see Tiger Woods or "The Wolf Man" Mozart) but if not then it might lead to trouble (hopefully for her sake not Michelle Wie), an example would Todd Marinovich.
The broad definition will allow one to seek out other avenues (or settle if viewed negatively) like if they wanted to be a writer but were perfectly satisfied being a chemist. It's a way of ensuring that you don't get stuck in a rut for too long of think that you have to have this one career or none at all. Of course, deriving meaning from family and friends and spouses is also part of it; but let me be the devil's advocate and say that without a job that you respect yourself, those other elements are likely to be less fulfilling. Question: how many marriages, looking to the future, will not end in divorce where there are money troubles? They say that the most likely thing to lead to depression is having a job that does not fulfill your expectations (so disappointment in career beats love-family-friends coalition); in other words, as many will tell you, aim low - at least you'll be happy.
I would like to further my blogger-pedant fetish and use some Plato. I think this is from Meno, where Socrates asks Meno to define colour. Meno states blue, red, etc. to which Socrates responds that those are examples and not the definition. And then Socrates gives his answer (one of the rare occasions) and I think it has something to do with pigments. I guess today the scientist would say something about light and pigments and the light spectrum. Anyway, I'm doing a poor job of showing off wikipedia knowledge, the gist is to define colour is much like defining the meaning of life; you ask people and they'll give you their opinion and it'll be like Meno's answer. They'll all be examples of how life can be meaningful without having an overarching concept to draw out the complete defintion. I guess I'm just trying to say that life has the meaning that you seek to give it. If you like blabbing your opinions to the world when nobody asked you - you blog. You make your judgements all everything and make your choices - that is essential to the nature of man as the existentialists say (I think). My final random statement is this: don't spend time worrying about some grand concept of the meaning of life, as long as you know what it means for yourself (no small feat) then just go with it. I mean, nobody thinks about what colour is, right? When somebody asks you about colour you just blurt out your favourite: Blue! (What? No way! That's my favourite too! Ughh... Time to throw up again.)
Wow, I completed a thought. I think.
Anyway to complete my thoughts: I was only suggesting in general that sociopaths and misguided homicidal maniacs be given some direction. They want to do something that'll etch their name in history, or barring that, a week's worth of coverage on Fox news and CNN and the whole cabal; and they're willing to shed blood to do it. So what seems to be ludicrous and cruel in other circumstances may not be so when it comes to these folks. They want some glorious cause and they don't possess the imagination or discipline to think of something on their own;as a result they copy what other sociopaths do after they see all the media coverage and exposure. They think they've arrived upon the early days of the Klondike goldrush.
What the government, or the media if they want to do something to help, is to show the potential killers alternative causes that could meaningful; hopefully without the bloodshed. So if they can be procured the Sudanese militias in Darfur, or something more realistic like working at the local food bank, that'd be swell. But I'm trying to be more realistic, and no ones is going to want to say the government should send them on some death mission; and as for the food bank or volunteering, if they wanted to do that they would do it on their own.
Then I remembered Battle Royale. Everyone loved that movie albeit just for the gore and hyperbolic premise. But this could work. The sociopaths want fame and attention so what better way than to get them to volunteer to be on a Battle Royale program. People objected to the idea of the movie because they were a random class of misfits in school, but in my scenario they'd all be potential killers. Would they really commit themselves to Battle Royale? If MTV covered it I'm sure they'd even wake up early and lineup to tryout for the program. It's fame and fortune - I meant to say there'd be a million dollars for the winner so that'd he or she wouldn't feel like a burden to the family if they survived but instead HEROES or at least quasi celebrities with a few bucks to their name - who could resist? (This is also like that Sliders episode where the lottery winner got money but then had to die after a week or so of living the high life.)
Positives would be that they want to kill and this would satisfy that urge. To clarify, I don't think that they actually have an urge to kill like Dexter Morgan, rather it's just ennui and aimlessness leading to unrest. But I'm not a professional pschiatrist or anything, in fact, full disclosure-wise all my knowlede on psychiatry is from wikipedia and the links from there. So, that's that.
So gather them up, no entry fee, and ship them to an island like Survivors and give them random weapons and provisions before starting the melee. This sounds like it'll costs alot of money but if you can imagine the ratings then you should see the next step: let the coverage go to the highest bidder! How much did NBC pay for the Olympics"? And CBS for March Madness? Battle Royale would outdraw those things combined. People would condemn it in public and secretly watch it, just like Baywatch. Of course there'd be massive protests against such perceived cruelty but note that: a) they would all be volunteers, nobody will be forced to join, not even serial killers in prison. b) they should also go through psychiatric tests just to make sure they are not just depressed and lethargic but genuinely pose a threat to society at large. c) a million other reasons.
Okay, enough craziness. The broad and the narrow is something I figured out at 26.5. I think most people figure this out when they're in high school. Also it's not profound in any real sense. It is just a simple way to explain the Holden Caulfield Syndrome of living in a trance and feeling everything is phony and meaningless. For myself, I call it the Claire Fisher Syndrome named for the Six Feet Under character because it's where I got the idea. And I realize this is slightly narcississtic and self-righteous and pretentious. At the same time though, I think it's great and clarifies all the instances where some confused teenagers tells their family that they just don't undertand what they're going through. It's like this gifted kids I saw on tv, a successful kid who graduated with honours but decided to work work public authorities on social reform rather than get some high paying job with great perks. Anyway, he coyingly said something about how none of his classmates could understand his decision, at which point I spoke to the tv set as I often do and said, "What's so difficult to understand? You want to work for something that you think is meaning and will boost your ego in a way which money couldn't."
The point is not that he was a jerk (he wasn't). The point is that people have a broad or narrow perspective on what gives life meaning. It depends on your experiences. You know how the well off parents force their kids into drama club and piano lessons and social functions? They might think it's for networking or better communication skills, and it might be true. But I think a benefit that they don't see is that exposure to a variety of what life has to offer broadens a person's sense of the meaning of life. If a father stuck his son with a golf club when he's three and took him to the links everyday and didn't give him any other choices then it's likely the kid will grow up thinking that the meaning of his life could only be to succeed at golf; that'd be the narrow. If the kid succeeds then it's no problem (see Tiger Woods or "The Wolf Man" Mozart) but if not then it might lead to trouble (hopefully for her sake not Michelle Wie), an example would Todd Marinovich.
The broad definition will allow one to seek out other avenues (or settle if viewed negatively) like if they wanted to be a writer but were perfectly satisfied being a chemist. It's a way of ensuring that you don't get stuck in a rut for too long of think that you have to have this one career or none at all. Of course, deriving meaning from family and friends and spouses is also part of it; but let me be the devil's advocate and say that without a job that you respect yourself, those other elements are likely to be less fulfilling. Question: how many marriages, looking to the future, will not end in divorce where there are money troubles? They say that the most likely thing to lead to depression is having a job that does not fulfill your expectations (so disappointment in career beats love-family-friends coalition); in other words, as many will tell you, aim low - at least you'll be happy.
I would like to further my blogger-pedant fetish and use some Plato. I think this is from Meno, where Socrates asks Meno to define colour. Meno states blue, red, etc. to which Socrates responds that those are examples and not the definition. And then Socrates gives his answer (one of the rare occasions) and I think it has something to do with pigments. I guess today the scientist would say something about light and pigments and the light spectrum. Anyway, I'm doing a poor job of showing off wikipedia knowledge, the gist is to define colour is much like defining the meaning of life; you ask people and they'll give you their opinion and it'll be like Meno's answer. They'll all be examples of how life can be meaningful without having an overarching concept to draw out the complete defintion. I guess I'm just trying to say that life has the meaning that you seek to give it. If you like blabbing your opinions to the world when nobody asked you - you blog. You make your judgements all everything and make your choices - that is essential to the nature of man as the existentialists say (I think). My final random statement is this: don't spend time worrying about some grand concept of the meaning of life, as long as you know what it means for yourself (no small feat) then just go with it. I mean, nobody thinks about what colour is, right? When somebody asks you about colour you just blurt out your favourite: Blue! (What? No way! That's my favourite too! Ughh... Time to throw up again.)
Wow, I completed a thought. I think.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Meaningless Existence v. Riding It Out
Another shooting, this time it's Nebraska. But these tragedies all retread the same ideas of meaninglessness of life and the need to do something to gain some notoriety at the expense of the lives of others. Even if you think life is meaningless that's no excuse to terminate someone else's for they may not have the same view, and even if they did it'stheir choice to ride it out. If suicide is the coward's way out, then I think this latest fad is the heinous way.
I lean towards accepting suicide even though it is a selfish way to conduct yourself in respect to people who care about you; but if there aren't any or few in number and you feel the rest of the offerings of this world (that are legally available to you) aren't enticing, then why the hell not. I'm not saying it's honourable, but how many things in life are (not that that's a logical argument).
So I'm not so resistant to suicide but when a massacre of innocents is involved then the idea is no longer supportable. I know this is a redundant question because the perpetrators obvious are reckless to any wrongs so long as it serves their inner desires, but do they even consider how many lives they could potentially be ruining? The victims, their close ones, their acquaintances, the community in general, and the next person who decides to copycat the violence and massacre another dozen in their own communities. I think life is bad enough as is without having to grieve losses, but that's what violence begets is grieving. Well, also more violence, but grieving too. Sorry.
To sum up, you're allowed to brood about how life is unfair, or laze around and think existence is empty and unfulfilling (so long as you can leech off someone...uh, I'm not trying to validate my own existence...woah, what's that? Look at that UFO-thing behind you!). You can even talk to yourself on the bus or whatever and smoke pot all day until your can't keep your eyes open for five seconds. But you cross the line when you hurt other people. Okay, I mean other than the ones that volunteered to care for you. What am I saying? Go back to stupid school or get a stupid manual job. God, I've been reduced to say something I'd never have said but for self-centered scumbags.
What to do. What to do. Maybe the government can fund a hybrid institution - a mix of prison and mental institution. So you call for all the people who think life is meaningless and feel an urge to pick up a gun and start firing. Anyone who felt that they could snap at a moment's notice would be welcome. The recruited people will be put to labour and given three square meals a day and a bed in a bunker. Come to think of it, this is also like the army. They can have minimum wage but all the money is put into some sort of pension plan as they'll have no need to use money inside. The type of labour they do can be filling pot holes to cleaning the streets.
All this sounds pretty trivial and exploitative of desperate, confused individuals for cheap manual labour. It's almost Bill O'Reilly-esque and you have no idea how painful that idea is to me. But I think the key to remember is that these people are like ticking timebombs but in a way all they want is not to be a burden to their families. For an example, see AJ in The Sopranos from his suicide state to his working for a B-movie company "glad to be alive but still whining about getting people coffee" state. Oh, and getting laid was pretty helpful too. The key element is when they feel like they need to be put out of their doldrum. Then you ship them to Afghanistan with proper provisions and send them to explore those tunnels that the Taliban are supposedly using and where Bin Laden was supposed to have hidden. You can train them to do this or just let them go in raw; they do have experience with firearms.
Clearly, they'll feel alot more self-important and experience life as something less meaningless after hunting for Osama. This is also something that AJ wanted to do. It's not important that they catch anyone, with all the press reports and special-op gear they are bound to feel better about themselves. It might be a waste of money but this is the military we're talking about. If it makes any difference you can make them pay for the guns out of their pensions. Of course, you have to announce to the general population to stay clear the tunnels because the target is only "terrorists". And if in the unfortunate event that the AJs get hit, then they would have died for something worthwhile, at least in their eyes. It sounds kind of cruel when I reread it but is it not like something JD Salinger wrote in Catcher in the Rye, to paraphrase it: young men want to die for a grand and noble cause while adults only want to live for a small and even insignificant cause. At least with this plan, unlike the army, there'll be no lies and no disillusions about the purpose which is to remove the crazies from the rest of the population.
Note to self: Next topic - The narrow and broad approach to meaning of life.
I lean towards accepting suicide even though it is a selfish way to conduct yourself in respect to people who care about you; but if there aren't any or few in number and you feel the rest of the offerings of this world (that are legally available to you) aren't enticing, then why the hell not. I'm not saying it's honourable, but how many things in life are (not that that's a logical argument).
So I'm not so resistant to suicide but when a massacre of innocents is involved then the idea is no longer supportable. I know this is a redundant question because the perpetrators obvious are reckless to any wrongs so long as it serves their inner desires, but do they even consider how many lives they could potentially be ruining? The victims, their close ones, their acquaintances, the community in general, and the next person who decides to copycat the violence and massacre another dozen in their own communities. I think life is bad enough as is without having to grieve losses, but that's what violence begets is grieving. Well, also more violence, but grieving too. Sorry.
To sum up, you're allowed to brood about how life is unfair, or laze around and think existence is empty and unfulfilling (so long as you can leech off someone...uh, I'm not trying to validate my own existence...woah, what's that? Look at that UFO-thing behind you!). You can even talk to yourself on the bus or whatever and smoke pot all day until your can't keep your eyes open for five seconds. But you cross the line when you hurt other people. Okay, I mean other than the ones that volunteered to care for you. What am I saying? Go back to stupid school or get a stupid manual job. God, I've been reduced to say something I'd never have said but for self-centered scumbags.
What to do. What to do. Maybe the government can fund a hybrid institution - a mix of prison and mental institution. So you call for all the people who think life is meaningless and feel an urge to pick up a gun and start firing. Anyone who felt that they could snap at a moment's notice would be welcome. The recruited people will be put to labour and given three square meals a day and a bed in a bunker. Come to think of it, this is also like the army. They can have minimum wage but all the money is put into some sort of pension plan as they'll have no need to use money inside. The type of labour they do can be filling pot holes to cleaning the streets.
All this sounds pretty trivial and exploitative of desperate, confused individuals for cheap manual labour. It's almost Bill O'Reilly-esque and you have no idea how painful that idea is to me. But I think the key to remember is that these people are like ticking timebombs but in a way all they want is not to be a burden to their families. For an example, see AJ in The Sopranos from his suicide state to his working for a B-movie company "glad to be alive but still whining about getting people coffee" state. Oh, and getting laid was pretty helpful too. The key element is when they feel like they need to be put out of their doldrum. Then you ship them to Afghanistan with proper provisions and send them to explore those tunnels that the Taliban are supposedly using and where Bin Laden was supposed to have hidden. You can train them to do this or just let them go in raw; they do have experience with firearms.
Clearly, they'll feel alot more self-important and experience life as something less meaningless after hunting for Osama. This is also something that AJ wanted to do. It's not important that they catch anyone, with all the press reports and special-op gear they are bound to feel better about themselves. It might be a waste of money but this is the military we're talking about. If it makes any difference you can make them pay for the guns out of their pensions. Of course, you have to announce to the general population to stay clear the tunnels because the target is only "terrorists". And if in the unfortunate event that the AJs get hit, then they would have died for something worthwhile, at least in their eyes. It sounds kind of cruel when I reread it but is it not like something JD Salinger wrote in Catcher in the Rye, to paraphrase it: young men want to die for a grand and noble cause while adults only want to live for a small and even insignificant cause. At least with this plan, unlike the army, there'll be no lies and no disillusions about the purpose which is to remove the crazies from the rest of the population.
Note to self: Next topic - The narrow and broad approach to meaning of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)