Time Heals All Wounds.. And Then Kills the Patient
<Previous Next>
Fri Dec 12 20:39:40 2003
Prisoner of the Lamb

I may fade into the background... My entry in life a detail the Cliffs notes find too unimportant to mention.. But I am not a prisoner of the lamb

The wind flows over my head It has forgotten.. everything.. I want to join it But I am too attached to things.. But I am not a prisoner of the lamb

I see happy people, laughing, hugging They are with friends, singing to each other, song of slaves.. But I am not a prisoner of the lamb

I recently had a conversation.. and yes, Gaelynn, you're right. Gaelynn: it is that you have people you connect with, but they can no longer be there for you and you can't find others to fill those roles

And I'm giving everything I can, when asked, and taking nothing. It's even more frustrating, because I think (hope) I've learned to take when I need, and not to hold my breath, but I'm now beyond that. Learning to be honest is a lesson that is more about something else, later on the path. The surface lesson is honesty, and it's one you never learned, but the deeper lesson is, well, I'll let you come to understand it on your own. There's am abstraction of honesty that has nothing to do with communication, I don't know if it has a good word in English.

The ACLU called me about a week ago about an event they wanted me to attend this past wednesday... and they said they were going to email me the info. They never sent the mail, so I didn't go.. I have no idea what it was for, but oh well. Tomorrow, on Walnut Street in Shadyside, the Dean folk are holding a registration event. I'll probably show up -- it's at 15:00.

Today, on the way back from work, I noticed a Libertarian Poster.. They were bragging that they're the only party that said they were for people keeping 100% of their paycheck. I guess it really acted as a kind of measure of how far I've moved from their position -- I was just pissed at it. To be fair, I'm not sure if the official party position was ever this, and most libertarians I've known didn't believe in this.. But yes, I've turned the libertarian skepticism of big government to also worry about big business, and I think I worry more about business than government nowadays, and my green concerns became a wedge that very neatly jammed the door open in understanding that economic interests cannot express other interests. Of course, the vanilla liberals are wrong on two counts... people are still stupid, and 'rationality' won't result in all the disagreement in the world going away. In the eyes of some Liberals, Rationality has become their mantra in the same way that Liberty is the mantra of Libertarians -- a magic way to hide disagreements in a terminology that makes it bloody hard to actually talk about them. I remember, when a Libertarian, talking with another on an issue where we disagreed -- privacy.

A: "I believe that one should be (free/at liberty) to keep information about anything I see, and pass that information around as I see fit" B: "I believe that part of Liberty is to be free from intrusive eyes, and what you're talking about isn't a true part of liberty"

If you know me well enough, you can guess which one of the above I was. The point is, we were using really stupid terms for what's much more naturally thought of and talked about as two seperate values instead of aspects of a single, complex-as-hell term. Anyhow, I'm different than I was.. Hell, maybe someday I'll end up being a socialist -- stranger things have happened, but for now, I've come half-circle, from something resembling objectivist-republicanism (when I was young) to libertarian (high school through college), to liberal. I do, as mentioned previously, think a time will come when scarcity of labour will be eliminated, and at that time, a socialist state of some kind will need to be established, or technology will be the end of our economic system. At that time, perhaps a Leninist or Trotskyist socialism, in any case, a liberal one, might be a good option, although other social/economic arrangements might be worth experimenting with. Does this make me already a socialist? Ahh, definitions are best at capturing simple cases.

Now, on to current events.. All talk about theoretical communism aside, this has me really pissed off. I imagine the Chinese government feels emboldened by recent statements by BushJr that they won't support Taiwanese independance.. If China were to invade, what would happen now? Hell, BushJr, is the Taiwanese government eventually going to, because of your business interests in dealing with China, be declared a terrorist organization?

Here's a novel tactic to fight for the green cause... I don't really approve though -- this is the side of the greens that's repugnant to me, the thought that many entire ways of life and culture should be legally protected... although, I have recently come to understand the full implications of what I'm saying, and I do understand how people could go the other way on this. It is kind of a painful thing to decide that that much culture is out of bounds for strong protection, but on this issue, I think it's worth it. Ahh, who are you to judge, shouts a little part of me.. and to you, little part, I spit in your eye. I sympathize with the pain, but not with you -- every decision or position we take has consequences. It's unavoidable, and the most purile, stupid thing we could do to say things like "who are you to judge?" and pretend that that should lead us to a fast victory in an argument. Sure, you might make someone stutter, confuse them perhaps, but all you're really doing is providing confusion -- it's not an argument.

Perhaps on-topic, France, always the country to agressively get involved in law to protect their way of life, is working to ban overt religious symbols from schools. It's interesting though -- I feel a new sympathy for France. I am undecided if my aims of providing what Stanley Fish calls boutique multiculteralism is itself a kultur. It's at least an element, so getting stuck on the terminology would be a distraction. I dream of a lot of seperate cultures existing, in weakened forms if necessary, inside of a large modern liberal kultur, with no ability to influence the laws, which would be designed and managed by some liberal folk at no obligation to listen to folk from the individual cultures, who would otherwise attempt to sway them to give them strong advantage or introduce their customs into law. The subcultures could enforce their whims on their participants, who would always have the ability to leave said cultures, and no contracts that would bind them too strongly into said cultures would be valid. Religions and such could continue to play the people, but not through them the state.

Some dark humour for ya.

Here's an interesting insight into the evolution of humans -- it suggests that the development of some of the mechanisms of hearing may have been a watershed event, acting itself as a very slippery slope to rapid advances in other areas of brain development..

Is this a balanced report on issues in Israel? The idea of watchdog groups sounds like a good idea -- much like copwatch in several cities here. Better monitoring of what actually happens at check points should be, in theory, in everyone's interest. Having publically accessible (webcams maybe?) randomly visible coverage of all checkpoints would provide, in many cases, good ways to know when abuse happens, and when people are abusing the system.

Here's the latest BLOG I've started reading: Ali Mohammad Abtahi. Apparently, he's one of the vice presidents of Iran.. It's interesting that it puts a face on Iran, helps us understand things in a very different society, and that it's from someone so high up.. It's available in 3 languages too.. I wonder if he's trilingual, or if someone translates it for him.

Oh, incidentally, some language nazis apparently are delighted to flex their chicken little urges again. Of course, it's always pathetic to go after the dictionary as if it's responsible for new words and phrases coming into being. It's still funny ;)

Here's some pretty worthless technology. I honestly don't understand the big deal about gas-based fuel cells for laptop computers -- it really seems to me to be a big step backwards. Laptops and cellphones, the two targets mentioned for the technology, whereby people get gas cannisters and plug them in, and by consecutive use of the fuel, can keep their stuff going for ~20 hours, are the absolute last devices I'd ever want to require a nonrenewable power source for. Why? I USE THE FRICKING THINGS EVERY DAY. WHY THE HELL WOULD I WANT TO NEED TO KEEP HEADING TO A STORE TO GET MORE FUEL FOR THEM? It's a wonderful thing that right now they're both rechargable, and it was a really stupid thing that my first digital camera was not (until I got the optional rechargable battery for it). So, someone explain to me why methanol fuel is a good thing, because I'm stumped.

Apparently the Communist party in russia is having problems holding together, with an interesting divide between theories of communism tugging at it from a few sides.

So, another weekend. Apart from the Dean thing tomorrow, what to do? Hmm. I think I might head out to a more distant park, putting my car to use, and spend some quiet time just sitting. I used to do that in Columbus... walk to somewhere remote, and just sit for a few hours, sometimes with a pen and pad, sometimes without. I hope it's not too cold for that. On the other hand, if it rains, that's pretty too.