1
A man is employed stamping the papers of soliders being sent to war. Performing this job as a service to his country, he has purchased a comfortable upper class living for his wife and children. His Supervisor is a very patriotic man named Shepherd whose motto is, "let's win one for Victory and Freedom." One day like any other he arrives at work and finds his own son's papers on his desk. He hesiates for a moment, staring at them. He seems to falter just as Shepherd emerges, saying, "Well aren't you going to stamp those papers?"
He shakes his head as if waking from a dream and grumbles, "Of course, of course."
2
A man and a woman and their son were performers in a circus. They were trapeze gymnasts and performed inside of a massive, three-tiered tent. There were four trapezes, each at a different height. Their routine, a famous crowd favorite, went like this: all three would leap to the lowest swing, clinging to one another and acrobatically dangling upside-down, then each would toss the other up a level, until the family collectively occupied the first three swings. The son, displeased with what he felt to be an anticlimactic finale,always wanted to reach the fourth and uppermost swing. He was forbidden by his parents. One day, at the end of the family's act, the son leaped up to the top swing all on his own, defying his mother and father. His weight swung him up and through the highest wall of the tent, and he was gone.
They were going to search for him, but figured that leaving the tent was pointless.
3
Three fish were conversing inside of an shipwreck. One said, "I believe the things that lived inside of this were very square and probably noisy." The second said, "No, I think they were brown and quite possibly tube-shaped."
There was a pause and then the third said, "No, I don't believe anything ever lived inside of this."
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Politics, Artifical Sweeteners, and Zen
David Broder wrote an op-ed declaring that "it's not over for Obama." No, really? It's nearly three months until the first primary for chrissake. Jim Lehrer, the PBS newsanchor, was on Charlie Rose last night praising the longer campaign cycle. This way, his argument went, we won't be able to complain later on that we didn't know such-and-such about any of the candidates. But doesn't this presume that a longer campaign is also a more informative campaign? Is it more nourishing to eat three hot pockets instead of two? I submit that given the nature of modern presidential campaigning, longer is not better. Who needs an additional six months of prepackaged soundbytes, phony debates, and "expert" analysis? This just in: Clinton raised more money than Obama! Barack hasn't been wearing his American flag pin!
I can't help but suspect that the media's consistent portrayal of Clinton as "the Frontrunner" serves to reinforce her lead in the polls. As Broder points out, when Obama gave his big foreign policy speech on October 2nd, the headlines splayed across every front page the next day were not about his stances on these issues, but rather the fact that Clinton's camp had raised more money than his.
Regarding the obsession with constant polling, I think we'd be better off without it. A pipe dream, I know, but think about it: the "major" candidates (ie, the ones with money and press coverage) are slaves to poll results, creating a situation in which their handlers discourage authenticity in favor of carefully managed public relations statements. The end result of all this is that instead of a campaign designed to inform voters, we get an extended advertisement. As Noam Chomsky said, the techniques used to sell these wannabe presidents are the same as those used to sell toothpaste. Some call broadcast news "infotainment." I agree with that, except for the "info" part. that's right, it's tainment.
I've been wondering whether or not aspartame is bad for you. Aspartame is a chemical used in many products as a low calorie sweetener ("Nutrasweet.") Or how about sucralose (Splenda?) I found a website (aspartame.org) intended to assuage fears spawned by what it refers to as "myths." But who pays for that website? Is it really an unbiased arbiter of hard facts? It's difficult to know what to believe when there's so much contradictory information floating around. Perhaps we are suffering from what the great Murray Jay Siskind termed "brain fade." Too much information. More "facts" available than ever before, so consequently we know less and less. And just what does it mean to "know" something anyway? Two people are walking. A small bird flies by. One person says to the other, "I don't know what kind of bird that is." The other says, "It is a dove." Does knowing the name of something indicate any real knowledge of that thing? The same bird could be called "sparrow"; then one would know that it was a sparrow. Words are not things, they are symbols. They point to something beyond themselves. The thing-in-itself might be essentially unknowable, like Kant thought. Or is that a meaningless statement? Zen says that behind forms is empitness. Void. This sounds absurd but modern physics suggests it could be in some sense correct. Take a rock for instance. Nothing better exemplifies our notion of matter than a rock. It's hard, it's heavy, it's solid. It's made of stuff. But take a closer look and things get confusing. Almost all of the rock is actually empty space. Vast tracts of nothing with the occasional proton or electron or other subatomic particle. But those particles aren't really particles in the usual sense of the word. Take the electrons as an example. They're constantly in flux, whizzing about. The electron is more of an energy cloud than a particle; it only takes on particle like properties when observed (ie, interacted with physically.) Otherwise, it has no well-defined position in space. This was a big point of contention between Einsten and Neils Bohr; Einstein said that the electron "really has" well defined properties such as position and momentum, even when nobody is looking. Bohr said these properties do not exist until an observation takes place. It was later shown that Bohr was right (sorry Albert old sport!)
I can't remember now how I got off on this tangent. Oh yeah, aspartame! So it would seem that putting an artifical chemical in your body has potential for harm. It's hard to trust the FDA, which is an organization infiltrated by money and politics. How can they really be sure it's safe if no longitudinal studies on humans have been performed? Also: it tastes terrible. Unnatural, like one would expect a laboratory made chemical to taste. Are my tastebuds trying to tell me something? In their own inimitable tastebud language? Do they know something I don't?
Check out aspartame.org. The website has all the appearances of a big PR scam: witness the photos of children happily lapping up foods and beverages full of aspartame. Do I smell a rat??
I can't help but suspect that the media's consistent portrayal of Clinton as "the Frontrunner" serves to reinforce her lead in the polls. As Broder points out, when Obama gave his big foreign policy speech on October 2nd, the headlines splayed across every front page the next day were not about his stances on these issues, but rather the fact that Clinton's camp had raised more money than his.
Regarding the obsession with constant polling, I think we'd be better off without it. A pipe dream, I know, but think about it: the "major" candidates (ie, the ones with money and press coverage) are slaves to poll results, creating a situation in which their handlers discourage authenticity in favor of carefully managed public relations statements. The end result of all this is that instead of a campaign designed to inform voters, we get an extended advertisement. As Noam Chomsky said, the techniques used to sell these wannabe presidents are the same as those used to sell toothpaste. Some call broadcast news "infotainment." I agree with that, except for the "info" part. that's right, it's tainment.
I've been wondering whether or not aspartame is bad for you. Aspartame is a chemical used in many products as a low calorie sweetener ("Nutrasweet.") Or how about sucralose (Splenda?) I found a website (aspartame.org) intended to assuage fears spawned by what it refers to as "myths." But who pays for that website? Is it really an unbiased arbiter of hard facts? It's difficult to know what to believe when there's so much contradictory information floating around. Perhaps we are suffering from what the great Murray Jay Siskind termed "brain fade." Too much information. More "facts" available than ever before, so consequently we know less and less. And just what does it mean to "know" something anyway? Two people are walking. A small bird flies by. One person says to the other, "I don't know what kind of bird that is." The other says, "It is a dove." Does knowing the name of something indicate any real knowledge of that thing? The same bird could be called "sparrow"; then one would know that it was a sparrow. Words are not things, they are symbols. They point to something beyond themselves. The thing-in-itself might be essentially unknowable, like Kant thought. Or is that a meaningless statement? Zen says that behind forms is empitness. Void. This sounds absurd but modern physics suggests it could be in some sense correct. Take a rock for instance. Nothing better exemplifies our notion of matter than a rock. It's hard, it's heavy, it's solid. It's made of stuff. But take a closer look and things get confusing. Almost all of the rock is actually empty space. Vast tracts of nothing with the occasional proton or electron or other subatomic particle. But those particles aren't really particles in the usual sense of the word. Take the electrons as an example. They're constantly in flux, whizzing about. The electron is more of an energy cloud than a particle; it only takes on particle like properties when observed (ie, interacted with physically.) Otherwise, it has no well-defined position in space. This was a big point of contention between Einsten and Neils Bohr; Einstein said that the electron "really has" well defined properties such as position and momentum, even when nobody is looking. Bohr said these properties do not exist until an observation takes place. It was later shown that Bohr was right (sorry Albert old sport!)
I can't remember now how I got off on this tangent. Oh yeah, aspartame! So it would seem that putting an artifical chemical in your body has potential for harm. It's hard to trust the FDA, which is an organization infiltrated by money and politics. How can they really be sure it's safe if no longitudinal studies on humans have been performed? Also: it tastes terrible. Unnatural, like one would expect a laboratory made chemical to taste. Are my tastebuds trying to tell me something? In their own inimitable tastebud language? Do they know something I don't?
Check out aspartame.org. The website has all the appearances of a big PR scam: witness the photos of children happily lapping up foods and beverages full of aspartame. Do I smell a rat??
Saturday, October 20, 2007
I-Am-A-Lazy-Sonofabitch, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Condoleeza Rice
I haven't posted in eons, because I've been busy practicing my nostril flaring in the bathroom mirror. I figure it's important to know how to give a really good nostril flare....you know, just make the old honker throb for a while to stay intense and limber. There is so much to comment on that I don't know where to start, or even where to finish or stop for a pee break or what-have-you. Here goes.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, and this fills me with a nameless dread. Why? Well, her chief P.R. hack is the same guy who's advising Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater. I rest my case. I'm sure the right will cart out the usual dreck about how she's a crazy tax raising liberal, but she's so in bed with Corporate power and globalization and privatized healthcare that calling her a liberal is a, like, total misnomer dude. Regarding her proposed healthcare plan, I believe that it functions through standardization and tax breaks. It is certainly not "socialized medicine" as the wingnuts would have you believe. It would probably be an improvement, much like a blow to the head from a small rock would be an improvement over a blow to the head from a larger one. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate proposing a comprehensive universal healthcare plan, and the media keeps him around for comedic purposes only.
Condoleeza Rice ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange is an image that haunts my dreams. Wearing a sensible suit of earthtones, she grinned maniacally as she rang-dang-a-langed. Witnessing this tableau, I could not help but entertain beliefs that maybe Wall Street really is run by the CIA and maybe Paul Wellstone was murdered, etc. How appropriate, though. Good old 'Doleeza ringing that bell. What other image do you need? It's all right there. All those wicked suits applauding like unthinking rubes as she rings that goddamn bell. Jesus!
I bought a xylophone. This is very exciting for me. Here's my favorite thing about the xylophone: the notes are written on the keys. Clearly intended for those disinclined to commit things to memory, like me. I've never played percussion before and frankly I don't know how great I am at it. I'm trying, dammit. Shortly after I bought it I realized something: the xylophone is not a cool instrument. Other instruments, like guitar and all that, are, you know, cool. Not so with xylophone. The xylophone is not a "pussy magnet", as the kids say. Just YouTube search xylophone players and you will see a homely, awkward lot beating out ragtime melodies without meeting the audience's gaze. You never think of hotshot xylophone players, spinning their mallets and striking cocky poses. I hope to change this.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, and this fills me with a nameless dread. Why? Well, her chief P.R. hack is the same guy who's advising Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater. I rest my case. I'm sure the right will cart out the usual dreck about how she's a crazy tax raising liberal, but she's so in bed with Corporate power and globalization and privatized healthcare that calling her a liberal is a, like, total misnomer dude. Regarding her proposed healthcare plan, I believe that it functions through standardization and tax breaks. It is certainly not "socialized medicine" as the wingnuts would have you believe. It would probably be an improvement, much like a blow to the head from a small rock would be an improvement over a blow to the head from a larger one. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate proposing a comprehensive universal healthcare plan, and the media keeps him around for comedic purposes only.
Condoleeza Rice ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange is an image that haunts my dreams. Wearing a sensible suit of earthtones, she grinned maniacally as she rang-dang-a-langed. Witnessing this tableau, I could not help but entertain beliefs that maybe Wall Street really is run by the CIA and maybe Paul Wellstone was murdered, etc. How appropriate, though. Good old 'Doleeza ringing that bell. What other image do you need? It's all right there. All those wicked suits applauding like unthinking rubes as she rings that goddamn bell. Jesus!
I bought a xylophone. This is very exciting for me. Here's my favorite thing about the xylophone: the notes are written on the keys. Clearly intended for those disinclined to commit things to memory, like me. I've never played percussion before and frankly I don't know how great I am at it. I'm trying, dammit. Shortly after I bought it I realized something: the xylophone is not a cool instrument. Other instruments, like guitar and all that, are, you know, cool. Not so with xylophone. The xylophone is not a "pussy magnet", as the kids say. Just YouTube search xylophone players and you will see a homely, awkward lot beating out ragtime melodies without meeting the audience's gaze. You never think of hotshot xylophone players, spinning their mallets and striking cocky poses. I hope to change this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
