this blog is intended to be an online journal. i consider myself a public man and as such, i think it is fitting some part of my views are available to the public. i hope my blog is positive and constructive rather than derisive or political.
i may write about politics or sports or my childhood or what it is like to long to be a citizen of the world.
mark was in the bath tonight and he was flicking his penis with his forefinger and so i reminded him of something we have been working on, which is not to play with his weenie. his response was to ask me a straightforward question: "this, weenie?"
"yes mark. that weenie," i grunted back as if rehearsing for the stage production of clan of the cave bear.
"what deez," he countered grasping one testicle in each hand as if they were wads of cash?
"uhhhhh," (damn, i thought.) (he's two and he is asking me about his reproductive equipment? wtfa?!) (already.) "those are your bolz," i stammered. i figured if i masked "balls," somehow, i would be giving him a straight answer but playing on his horrible pronunciation skills. (i'm serious. sometimes he sounds like he's one.)
"bahdz?" he asked.
"no. bolz," i answered intoning the sounds as clearly as i could, "buh-ohhhh-llllllllll-zzzzzzz."
"bolz!" mark shot back with a big smile.
he went on to repeat both words over and over for at least three minutes. maybe five.
"the weenie and those bolz," he joyfully exclaimed while flicking the little genitalia around like a gnarled boxer working the speed bag. "those bolz and the weenie."
indeed little man-weenie and bolz. laugh it up because tomorrow those are going to be the new words you are not allowed to say for a season.
i just heard that "senator ted kennedy lost his battle with cancer," four times on msnbc. i take exception to this person on the television news program depicting his last act in life as defeat. can't we be past that?
everybody dies. everyone. so how can death be considered "losing," if it is as natural as birth? it should be verboten to refer to the end of life as a lost battle whether the perceived battle is with cancer or addiction or heart failure or any illness.
life is not a battle. it is a series of struggles with varying degrees of success.
ted kennedy was a human life lesson. he had great ambition that reached as high as the presidency. he had a frail quality in how human he was, which is to say how public and how tragic a figure he was.
he was known to be a drinker, which is probably something that had diminished recently and should also be outside of any consideration of the measure of the man. he lived the role of the public servant for nearly 50 years and without discussion of how healthy a thing that is for a democracy, the tone of his work is admirable. he senator'd quite well.
he probably got drunk, may have been getting a blow job for all we know, then he drove his car off a little bridge with a woman in the car. ted kennedy got out of the car and made it to safety. his friend, mary jo kopechne, did not get free of the car and she died. ted kennedy did not report the accident until nine hours later. he was already in congress and a drunken driving incident resulting in a death was certainly political death for him and he likely realized that. he probably panicked. there were probably a bunch of phone calls from influential family members and friends to those who could help. ted kennedy probably slept it off.
it is horrible and as kennedy's life bears witness to, it is not unforgiveable. it was a mistake. these things happen. they are random. they hurt. they hurt people. she deserved to have him report the crash immediately. she deserved to have him swim down and try to rescue her. (maybe he did try.)
i wonder if maybe he pulled on her and she was dead weight, knocked unconscious maybe by the impact. i wonder if he got his door opened and sensed growing concern over his held breath. i wonder if he kicked into the free water, completely submerged, or if he worked the door open as the car was half-submerged, and felt the car slipping away and pushing into the depth, and climbed around the swinging door and went for air, went for the shore. i wonder if he arrived at the shore and upon realizing he would survive, went back into the water if only half-heartedly, wanting so badly to see his friend paddle to the surface, a nightmare averted. i wonder if he plodded home swaying back and forth along the road in a haze of intoxication and shock or if he screamed and cried out into the frosty night. i wonder if he sat on the shore waiting for her to come out from behind him, from behind a bush or something, whimpering and holding on to hope like a knave at a magic show wanting so much for the magic to be real. i wonder if he called a friend, a wealthy or powerful friend who woul help and who would give advice such as, "nine hours is about as long as you can wait. "go get some sleep. "you got six hours until you get up, take a shower and make the phone call. "your story is you were in shock, you were delirious, and you took a sedative to calm you and you fell asleep, after which you awoke and called." i wonder if he executed a plan the way we would expect it to occur today, (kind of like how dick cheney reacted and controlled the situation when he fired buckshot into his friend while hunting, probably drunk.) i wonder if momentarily or longer, he thought he might get away with telling a story that he was not in the car with kopechne.
i admire wealthy people so much who take on the values of the other class. this is the kennedys. they fought for moral causes and used their wealth to gain influence and to pursue change in the name of virtue. i do not mean to beatify ted kennedy-i merely think it should be agreed that this man made choices which tended to help the lowly, which is in and of itself virtuous.
he should not be vilified for chappaquiddick nor for being a man who drank alcoholic beverages. he should be remembered primarily for what he did, his legislation and his inspiring speeches, his kindness and his example.
wifey watches some of the pop culture tv and i noticed that references to bjork's infamous swan dress are always ridiculed on the e channel or vh1 or such shows. of course. the dress was intellectual and it was easy to construe as being anti-fashion so no wonder the industry vilifies it.
the swan dressed mocked the idea of designer dresses. because there is this paparazzi media for awards shows and people who love them, there is a little industry around shaping public fashion opinion. their authority is self-made and unenforceable, as bjork proved.
instead of a famous designer, bjork's friend made the dress. just think if every person at the academy awards wore something made by a friend, (ideally by someone who knows how to make clothing.) who would the paparazzi cover? would they create public interest stories, (like they do for the olympics,) to accompany the artists as the make their ways into the kodak theatre?
the point is sometimes the famous designers make dresses that are appealing but as taste is subject, it's a crap shoot. moreover, the idea of consensus in matters of fashion is representative of a sheep mentality. so who wants or needs that?
i liked the swan dress. it did not take fashion seriously and it was fun . bjork is cute so of course, she looked cute in the unconventional dress.
i flipped the channel to the ifc this evening and came across'man bites dog,' a belgian film from the early '90s. i remember the night i watched this movie, my apartment teeming with friends and acquaintances all somehow on the make, attending the 2nd or 3rd in a series of weeknight get-togethers called "movie night." in fact, i think 'man bites dog,' killed movie night.
before i go further i should mention the mere sight of the trailer i embedded could make you physically ill. 'man bites dog,' is a dark comedy to say the least. it is done in documentary style as a film crew follows a serial killer around various french locales as he goes about his business, some of which is violently killing any number of unsuspecting victims, and rants constantly on his world view, replete as it is with nuggets of wisdom and advice as only a psychopath can deliver.
BenoîtPoelvoordeis a juggernaut as benoit, the pianist, philosopher, serial killer whose life rages throughout this mockumentary. the heart of the movie however, is in the perspective and perception of the viewer. i think anyone who watches 'man bites dog,' experiences a moment when they imagine themselves in the scene as a member of the camera crew, intent on filming this man and telling an untold if semi-known story, but crossed by the responsibility of acting against an illness disguised as cult of personality. eventually the film goes off the rails and ventures well beyond the ridiculous as the young filmmakers are either killed or become killers and rapists themselves.
on the other hand, it is just another slasher/cult film, only infinitely more clever than those which seasonally grace the screens of american multiplexes. when poelvoorde and directorremybelveauxmade 'man bites dog,' on a nearly non-existent budget as student filmmakers, they may have peaked, which is not meant to be a derogatory remark.
in the end 'man bites dog,' is a remarkably inventive movie that demands to be watched, which is an accomplishment in itself.
noun unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness
Ethicsthe doctrine that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual's actions
a visitor to my blog recently referred to it as altruistic, (or perhaps he said he saw moments or flashes of altruism-my memory belies my age.) the question is; does my blog exhibit an unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness? does it promote a doctrine which considers the general welfare of society as the proper goal of an individual's actions?
i do have something of a belief system. it does not involve any magical creatures or even ancient texts, per se. it is simply a belief in humanity as exhibited through a tendency to act in ways which push forward and positively impact the evolution of mankind. in my thought, individuals who act in such manner are saints or are saintly in those moments when they achieve such action. some of the eastern philosophiesregard right action as noble and i can certainly go along with that.
in a way i think the comment is more about my writing than about the content. i have a unique style of writing, one that is not particularly palatable to most people. i write simply. i try to put forth ideas that are basic. i want to distill things down to love and innocence and building blocks and earth, which is to mean, if all that is sacred comes from truth and truth is discerned by children, then i want my ideas to be discernible to children. i have no interest in pleasing the intellectual. i am only interested in him challenging me.
it was meant to be a compliment, this altruism remark, and i received it as such. still i know that some are bound to view my writing style, (if not in some cases my subject matter,) as somehow sophomoric and off-putting. (i don't like everyone's writing style.)
regardless of any commentary on my writing, i do like the idea of altruism. i want to be altruistic. i want my blog to promote the general welfare of society. i do think society at large, or the human race, is far more important than me. i reject out of hand absurdist and other views that consider life meaningless. and yes, i do think people's decision and everyday choices should be based in a broad way on the welfare of others, which is to mean, the welfare of our kind.
the health care industry is spending $1.4 million per day on defeating health care reform, olbermann tells us in his inimitable style. it is the moment of crystalline message and if this fact does not in and of itself convince you of the need to get big business out of our health care you may not be one of the literally millions of people who have come to prefer olbermann's left-leaning imitation of rush limbaugh, (the difference being olbermann merely stands up for what is right and moral, whereas limbaugh, a man whose career was started by huge seed money from right wing think tanks and donors, who funded it through two years of loss, after which it turned in to the giant edifice of profitable propaganda it has become even if showing cracks today, plays down to virtually all lowest common denominators and bears comparison to smut,) to limbaugh himself.
when olbermann earnestly summons ire and bluster to condemn this industry that spends so freely, he says americans in any region overwhelmingly support health care reform and, "the essential, great levelling agent of a government funded alternative to the unchecked duopoly of profiteering, private insurance corporations." by this rhetoric olbermann has come to be the single most prominent mouthpiece of an entire movement.
no, this cheese and crackers and birkenstock and vino class of americans are devoid of a leader. to their credit, it may be a thoughtful choice on their part not to seek or become leaders who would blur the purity of their message. in any case, the americans of future history who elected obama, who let things get completely out of hand but then retaliated on an out of touch party decimating it in 2006 to near irrelevance, the americans who called for the closure of gitmo, the withdrawal from iraq, the investigations into so many crimes and misdemeanors, the americans who became energized by the bush administration and poured their protestations into the campaigns of obama and hillaryclinton, who stemmed a tide of apathy, self regard and corruption, will be regarded by history as significant and course changing.
no martin luther king stood at the head of this movement. the time was not marked by colorful protests that hooked the media and counterbalanced another war, a previous story of (republican,) corruption. in fact, in as much as this movement began in the idleness of the time when bush came to power and half the nation voted for him twice, in as much as it matured by enduring 12 years of conservative, republican rule in congress, it can be defined by its shortcomings in large part and all that was involved in moving it. still, in the end credit can be assigned.
yes, there were the markos's and the arianna's, the naomiklein's and the michaelmoore's, the ronreagans, thomhartman's and noamchomskys, the krugmans and the marshalls, and so many other voices which guided and propelled this movement but one voice can be heard above all, that of keitholbermann.
olbermann is not the leader of the movement, rather he is just a reporter but as such he is the most listened to, most discussed, most referenced word from this movement. he is in certain ways the conscience of it.
he is difficult to ignore, too. he broughthis showto msnbc, (an obscure network to begin with,) in march of 2003, and by maximizing a powerful format that allowed him to touch on five large stories nightly but then also provide an angle on as many more stories as warranted in the hour-long format, he arced from poor to respectable ratings and a four-year contract extension in 2007.
unlike the raging, screaming disseminaters of republican values such as o'reilly or hannity, olbermann's path was been carved for him by these wolves who would argue against things like health care reform. it works like this; beck, limbaugh, scarbrough and the others fly in the face of overwhelming support for this reform by picking out little areas they think they can make headway in order to sway americans away from supporting what they clearly want. in spite of how much we spend on health care per person in this country and how poorly that ranks compared to many countries that do not even have private systems, they use fear to pull away a segment of would be supporters by suggesting that health care will be rationed or that senior citizens will euthanized. on the face these arguments are bogus and baseless but they work. individuals and small groups are affected and the overwhelming support begins to erode.
big picture arguments that illustrate a broken system get lost for some who see only these terrible possibilities presented by what are essentially the tools of the corporatocracy and the republican think tanks. the unknown of change becomes less palatable than the devil known. while the republicans are good at strategy and have been exceedingly effective at cuckolding working class americans, their positions are so bad it can only work for so long.
enter olbermann. when olbermann arrived, (albeit for a second stint,) it could be said republicans were at their apex. bush was the war president who enjoyed broad support in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. there were voices in the din which could be heard even then declaiming the move to war in a land unrelated to the terrorist attacks or any number of backwards policies but with congress under republican control, everything looked rosy on the conservative front. things were anything but rosy however.
republicans were spending taxpayer's money at unprecedented rates, (andrefusing to account for it.) they manufactured a war against a woefully inadequate enemy. they politicized the presidency. they tortured. they retaliated against political enemies. they covered up.
for their part, many americans recognized these things happening but lacked the power to do much about them. it can be a long time to wait two years just to try to vote someone out of office, (just ask the democrats of connecticut who tried to cut lieberman only to have him run as an independent and beat an outstanding candidate in nedlamont.)
as another example, i live in the district of daviddreier, the elder statesman of house republicans. he presides over a gerrymandered district carved out of the foothills of the sangabriel mountains. never an odder shaped district did one see but in foothills can be found the houses of the wealthy and so, despite neighboring districts represented by the likes of the sanchez sisters and adamschieff, dreier has a leg-lock on his constituents. honestly, i don't even bother to call his office. health care reform? why waste my breath? dreier was so lock-step with bush he probably had one of those nicknames bush handed out so freely. (bandar bush comes to mind.)
in any case, keitholbermann came to prominence by widely expressing the outrage of these otherwise impotent feeling americans who were embarrassed by all america had become.
nightly even those who tune in regularly likely just think olbermann is a newscaster or a pundit, a guy doing a good job and a voice in his time, but they probably are not seeing the historical significance. in fact, olbermann is the thomasnast of his day and the bush administration to include the hangers-on who are boehner and gramm and others, is boss tweed. olbermann is in no way the leader of a movement but he is a chronicler and an agitator on some level and ultimately he will be seen in a favorable light, certainly far more favorable than him who he flatters by imitation nightly.
