Writings

Going through old journals. I was really angry at the snow one day.

Small deft flakes
bring us your cleanse
release us from our warmth
which clouds our hearts like alcohol

Make us see clearly
show us the paths of those to trot before
so that we may decide:
is this the path we are meant to take,

or must we stand up for freedom
and move away from the path
and into the snow

Base:

A physical resolution to the game at hand. To read: Murder.

To wit: some shall revere my name, all should despise it. In truth the antichrist will be more beautiful and lovely than we can imagine.

What then, say you to the gods? For if there is any task more Sisyphean then I pray, tell me, for I have not yet had my fill.

[Inspired, R. Moses]

“Just tell me that this isn’t what you wanted. Just tell me that.”

There was a pause on the other end. “Of course this isn’t what I wanted.”

I didn’t know if it was true, but it didn’t really matter. The fact that she said it made it true enough. She said more, but I don’t recall anything of grave importance. In this uncertainty, I found something new. Do we really live our lives searching for what is true, or what is true enough?

In my world

one does not sing, but screams songs of joy to God.

Three

1. When I am sad, there is only despair. It is lonely, I cannot see the path ahead. The weather in the midwest is cold, and never ending. Constantly changing, it gives us no security.
2. When I am happy, I can see the future. There are plans, there is possibility. The sun gives us warmth; brings warmth to our bodies, energy to our soul. My skin is comfortable, and is willing to soak up the sun.
3. When I am calm, I can remember what is is to be happy; I can remember what it is to be sad. I feel at peace with the world, because I know that life will take care of me. The sun is hidden behind a thin veil of chilling clouds and a light fog. I needn’t worry about the past, nor the future. This is the day I enjoy. This is a day like today.

This Side of Public Discourse

I

If you ever call Obama a so­cial­ist, your be­liefs are ne­ces­sar­ily fringe. You are not a mod­er­ate. This is not be­cause of the title of the ac­cus­a­tion. Obama may or may not lead to a more so­cial­ist-like gov­ernance than you want. The prob­lem is with the ad hom­inem—the name call­ing. If you are a true mod­er­ate, you would judge each is­sue on it’s own mer­its, and try to find the best solu­tion, and you would find that you fall some­where in between the ex­tremes. However, if you judge each is­sue on it’s own mer­its, and you find your­self most of­ten fall­ing with one side or an­oth­er (con­ser­vat­ive or lib­er­al) than you must la­bel your­self ac­cord­ing to the side of the spec­trum which you lean—if you want to be hon­est with your­self and oth­ers.

II

If you don’t judge each is­sue, and in­stead as­so­ci­ate your­self with a party, you are noth­ing. You are a sheep, and for these pur­poses, I choose to find no dif­fer­en­ti­ation between the people that blindly fol­low.

III

When it con­cerns polit­ics, I find that people are afraid to be hon­est with them­selves. If they say they are mod­er­ate, it rarely holds up to scru­tiny. If they say they are con­ser­vat­ive or lib­er­al, people don’t want to ex­pose that be­cause they will of­ten be ques­tioned by oth­ers that dif­fer in their be­liefs and not be able to sup­port their opin­ion with rig­or, facts and prop­er rhet­or­ic. They are not afraid to tell them­selves—when alone—that they be­lieve their po­s­i­tion to be true, but they are afraid to broad­cast it.

IV

I be­lieve that the world would be a bet­ter place if people could be judged morethroughly in the pub­lic sphere. There is an in­her­ent value to judge­ment when made ra­tion­ally and wisely.

V

Why is this so hard? Be­cause of the nature of pub­lic broad­cast­ing (even with the in­ter­net per­vad­ing our lives and me­dia) there is still much ob­fus­ca­tion and con­fu­sion about stances. Ref­er­en­cing a per­sons use of Face­book, a friend can oft be defined by the their pub­lish­ing pat­terns and state­ments. Not only can we judge what they say them­selves, but we can also see and re­flect on what they choose to cur­ate and share with oth­ers.

However, it is hard to sort through this data, and that makes it hard to syn­thes­ize and com­pare it. The nature of broad­cast­ing (FB, Twit­ter, blog­ging, etc) is of a con­ver­sa­tion­al nature. This is also true for politi­cians (the oth­er side of the polit­ic­al equa­tion), but these people have a group of people that con­stantly re­cord and com­pare state­ments across time. The cit­izen is rarely im­port­ant enough to have this done for them, and they re­fuse to do it them­selves. This cre­ates a va­cu­um in pub­lic dis­course.

VI

I want to solve this prob­lem. De­tails later.