Sunday, October 5, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
the clintons have to walk the high road.
all the other roads have been destroyed
by the lies and deceptions of the bush
and the richard cheney;
there is only one road they did not destroy,
one road to a future of any consequence;
the high road.
with our ignorance,
don't deserve the right
to walk down a road a certain one would take us down.
we can borrow against our good credit on the moral market -
and allow ourselves, like the great heroes of old,
and the fly wheel to gain momentum on our foes -
who is our foe?
the market yells an artistic scream when it loses from itself the monies of its providential experiments. there is only one real question here.
the president and his secretary want seven hundred billion dollars.
granted, the dollar isn't what it used to be,
but they want it for a reason we either will or will not accept.
regardless of this fact, congress, will or will not pass the monies to the interested parties.
the burning bush spoke to me,
and the others on the screens we were watching,
he said, and i would quote but i don't remember his words exactly, so drastically did they hit me when they where so desperately hurled across the country, seemingly directly toward me...?!
the bush with his chain-ee,
asked for his monies
and said we would make it back in profits.
(as though his cry of wolf was a business opportunity he wanted to present to the american people.)
the good gwb looked good with his red tie,
he had that "presidential look", people are always so apt to talk about,
there were his fingernails, so groomed and pintailed to his remarks.
like a good father to a nation, he was king of his video shot.
he had the sincerity of a finished letter,
one third of the nation wants to borrow seven hundred billion dollars to rescue corporate businesses who had not the ability or hiring power to save themselves from their present predicament.
one third of the nation does not see it in their interests to borrow seven hundred billion dollars from the chinese and other foreign investors, so that they can turn around and lend those monies to corporate interests who should have know better.
one third of the nation is either undecided or uninformed as to the seven hundred billion dollars the congress is asking the american people to borrow from what ever lender out there will take that bet.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
trying to get back into the rhythym of my life...baby, art, house, baby, walk, eat, baby, poop. i will try to stay current for y'all and let you know our daily musings.
Monday, September 1, 2008
sometimes i have a thought which doesn't come to me in a formal sentence contained with words.
it comes to me in a form which begins in a place before words, then is continued by words when the words are abandoned.
they are formed from a pulse which begins then ends before it begins,
then after it ends the rest of it comes, as one would see it as the seconds pass.
it is as if i know it before it is remembered;
the thought is at once a beacon, then the absence of all light,
as though it takes an infinite abandon to know the simplest truth.
the light is not light, it is only light as it dragged across the canvas of that which is completely abandoned.
i would sail across the sea of that distenuation, as a ship which has no compass;
as a ship sailing i would wait for a beacon.
when the beacon shines, then i would know: then also i would not know.
below the stars the wind sings and is not alone in that singing.
the other singing comes simply from belowness;
it is not a shallow hymn.
the words hear themselves then are spoken;
and the spoken words are like a veil to that which is meant.
the sea swells and envelopes the words;
the sand is the spongy form,
that is imprinted by the swelling.
i wish it weren't so blatantly revealed in the stark absence from meaning present in the lone horizon of abundance.
the course grit hurtles absence and uncomfort toward an opening letter,
then a gushing froth and full some quaint resilience.
there is no meaning, only resistance then the abandonment of resistance.
when there is complete abandon,
the absence of meaning is clear, like a lake where there is no water;
there is no ripple: time passes without knowing.
as the memory of it ceases to linger i also cease to remember.
like water over present rocks, the dream passes and leaves me impressed,
like the sand which passes under ocean.
there is something which remains, like that which lingers after fear,
i am here waiting to see the full thing which is revealed.
while i wait the ocean passes over the sand.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
casualties are so casual
as they are so taken.
as they are taken from us,
those souls with casual ties;
as for those souls,
we weep; are not casually.
the captured soldier
re sides to an enemy island;
must be there.
'i have the body'
said he, to the court.'and
i have a right to show the body'
that old swamp
drains today through a cheap white funnel
into the engine chamber.
liquid carbon is uploaded
to a video screen, a teleprompter.
the silky white words drift
upward toward the heaven.
at last the green backs
are at last barack's.
red states seethe in purple malaise
blue states are not so blue
as they once were blue,
when horror filled there days.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
the fire pit area
swmming hole and beach
mulched paths for tents
pinic area and tiki torches
the new shed...concession stand and future bathrooms
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
it would be something obvious.
it would be something you might predict.
senator clinton will suspend her campaign in the near future.
barack obama, the imminent nominee, will be the democratic candidate, for now.
mr. mccain might win the election.
and then there were three.
i would ask myself to give one good reason why i would not vote for any one of the three.
one good reason why not.
why wouldn't you vote for one of three?
i will give you mine.
i wouldn't vote for hillary because of the obvious reasons, as mccain.
i wouldn't vote for barack also because of the obvious reasons.
seriously, i wouldn't vote for obama because he summarily denounced some things that the reverend wright said, which he shouldn't have denounced without exploring exactly what it was that the reverend said which offended him, and saying what it was about said things, which couldn't be true. bla bla
i wouldn't vote for hillary for the same reason i wouldn't vote for john. they both cannot share their allegiance both with me and that other thing they are aligned with.
what is the best reason you could give me why i shouldn't vote for your candidate?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
She offers yellow to a morning wind
A jester-warble while the sun begins
Its rise above the sound of barking dogs
Her beak drawn back, irreverent grin she’ll stalk
The smallest chuckle hidden in the grass
Like insects wet from sprinklers’ morning laps
She’ll gargle dawn, go shameless in her walk
Why does she laugh when mourning dove will cry?
A milk-toned coo released from slender flute
Toward epiphany such bruises held
No golden bellow here, their pantomime
Like one and one make something out of two
This morning’s songs will mingle in the field
Thursday, May 8, 2008
there is much of she
in that yellow rhododendron bloom.
look down into the garden bed,
see how every bloom
lays upon the twilight air.
every time i see that shade of yellow,
i see the soft pedal;
you would wish to see it,
wish to see how every flower,
co-insides with her aesthetic meaning.
each is subtle soft white skin,
each holds the shade;
the golden light of middle spring butterfly wing,
tucks and seals the hue
as it is made.
the stolen light, sifts
this time on the rippled fingers of her touch.
a tender mouth,
has electric softeners,
it molds and preys, at times.
the courtyard greyii, senicio
two toned, a kiss
waits upon its own,
has a two level lift.
with the hybrid sunshine,
the four oceans at my feet.
wait upon you,
with your soul, my hand upon your cheek,
eyes meet, soul hardens,
as the humid air unsweats
the precious pod to perfect ripeness.
the river water makes down the cress,
lush, whole, seeded with the spicy avolander.
the heart of darkness, shed a light on.
the whole system in the breast
the sweet smell of breath,
and the way she would writhe, and moan;
how would angels sing of god
or men at any less a loan.
the good native snowberries,
with their flat and hovering leaves,
flatter the wind,
hold their shape in that refined logic
which holds together simple to immaculate.
the whole course of she to he
is causeway, byway,
the shoulder on the road would grow a certain grass,
or her subtle pass.
how wholesome and how intricate.
the soft subtle rhododendron flower,
yellow, full of hope.
the course slow,
day upon night,
it slumbers, nourished;
it knows that admiration,
the seer would entreat.
the chickadee or finch,
has a certain liker,
as she continues with her kind;
knows a certain nest,
a good yellow, pale.
he has been there with his mate.
they circulate and chatter,
then fly their bodies close, sail
as that which makes the fire hot,
in the sorrow of that scented mourning dove.
you or that sweet flower,
she or the woman that you love.
how are the pine needles situated?
do they fall with the wind's harbored holdouts?
as the tea leaves linger on the bottom of your bowl,
the angels of your destiny would
say the obvious first:
oh, she is beauty.
and also love.
the seven stars of that large ladel
shine, have upon their rim,
the beginning light form, brimming of,
as good, yellow, pale, dim,.
your watership is loft in time,
and hailing railroad lights are shining.
the soft trail moon, wanes,
and is aloft upon the light
of that yellow rhododendron,
with her flowers,
and their shade.
first image represents my corny nature...second is from a sketch and painting i am working on...i thought to style it graphically. it turned out nice...and once i have a printer i can add it to the list of things to print. both were colored in photoshop...yeah i think i am getting better.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
(a love poem)
Words do not well describe sorrow.
but words are the only,
the sole seed yet to sow.
The circumference belayed in inset, is
as though a via:
you is gone,
i has been made.
The charm smells to lilac,
and soft sponge is turf
at certain forest pansy;
Like the finch and lute in rhyme.
They do not hear, nor
do not see once the timid jester, wane.
They foreshadow self,
and uncertain do not sit,
nor do they learn to play.
As one self proclaimed,
the called bird would 'lieve,
and would be 'lieved.
But the dense grass, is hopeful,
as burden on life,
as the constant up turn
as baton wing:
the singing of fall song bird,
collapses as that sound to 'lance.
No interruption nor continuous animus;
a la viva sinco royale':
oh, the five regal exclamations!
The dense snow mound spirea,
as all the lush things of summer
in their floral bloom,
like the certain one in love,
unsteady to remain,
I hear the sound.
It is a quiet and not without hearing:
The crisp morning fog
rises o'er olympics,
then glides down to puget sound;
the distant silent quarter,
the icy mid march snow
makes glide the stiff glass.
in debt, i is beholden to a dream.
down by blueberry bog,
and strawberry field.
There is woman,
is most true friend.
She can hold in her heart the whole love.
She rises out of life.
There is figurine, and mirror,
as she is multiplied.
Imagine a star rock.
There are mountain passes where the aspen quake
where the plates tectonic,
shift and leave things different.
But some things stay the same.
where is i sorrow?
where is i pain.
something i took,
something you granted.
the rainbow gathers algebraically
toned to pastoral brilliance.
i would say the truth outright;
i would languish.
i would say in she,
perfect, like a rainbow, half;
A circle of complete inflection.
though one could wrap a sound, or scent,
in tones of she to modes which quiver lips,
and whole bodies writhe in agonies,
as fog which veils nothing.
the truth bare and revealed, is
the solid azalea row,
two diagonal, three straight a cross.
Hips on rose and alium seed,
the stiff smell of garlic and the sound,
butterfly bushes blowing in the breeze,
toast with fried egg,
a good stiff coffee been as roast.
An audacity can not hope.
one cannot recompense to that which is not seen.
such sits and waits,
having hung my head.
again the stiff mountain wind wails.
wait by the creek for water to pass;
while the water passes,
it discovers she, as though she were for i,
and even water cannot falter,
as tragedy were here beheld first.
the humans marvel in there able ties.
the cryptic modes,
and the ways of corn fields rowed;
when i was young and she was young,
i wondered where she was,
and now i knows.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
husband to Julie Goodman
father to Kanisha Goodman-Bruce
Ashanti Goodman- Bruce
Died in a motorcycle accident Monday April 14, 2008 at 4:00am in Boise, Idaho.
He was hit at twilight on the 13th by a driver who couldn't see him because of the glare.
500 people showed up to his funeral on Friday April 25, 2008 at 11:00pm.
40 or more from out of state.
Paul was a good friend to me.
he was a good husband,
an excellent father.
he was 41 years old.
i spent some of my time in Boise thinking about Ryan,
another friend, brother, son we lost too early.
it reminded me to hold dear those who i still am graced with to love.
see you all in June.
Friday, April 11, 2008
In this rare interview, Herbert spells out the metaphor of water as oil (which also parallels the greater metaphor in Dune - the scarcity of resource, melange specifically). Having read the series twice, and remembering specifically the connection Herbert states as..."he who controls the spice, controls the universe," I find it compelling and prescient that he placed so much emphasis on Arrakis - and in that light it reads similar to Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard.
He who controls Arrakis controls the spice. He who controls the spice, controls the universe. Sounds a bit like the Neocon attempt at global hegemony, eh? Arrakis as Iraq - and the spice as Oil...and the Padishah Emperor as the tragic ignorance of empire. Perhaps Herbert was only imagining possible futures, but it seems in hindsight that he imagined very well.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Seems KO backs up my previous post. Good to see someone in the MSM sees the madness gripping the Clinton campaign.
And then this from Hillary. I dare anyone to untangle the twisted logic riddling these words...
"If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November."
Downward spiral? Pot, meet kettle.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Language conveys nearly everything, we communicate with words and sounds and are equally understood. We learn to love through words, but we also learn to hate through words. We probe the fringes of society through language, but do any of us fully understand it?
If you look at the title of the post, you'll find demo, and you'll find rats. The C in the middle is like a greater-than sign, which suggests that rats are greater than demo. It's language, and we manipulate it as we like (though the above example can be rejected as being entirely fallacious). The alphabet can be manipulated for the betterment of the individual, or used to their detriment. Not all language is equal, and some language is decisively detrimental.
Now, politics circa 2008. Language - be it republican or democratic - is so guarded and calculated that the lines between manufacturing results and campaigning for votes becomes blurred. Manufacturing language through scientific algorithms tested with focus groups and then leaked to drudge does not equate a dialog with the American people. Language is being manipulated before our very eyes; on CNN and FAUX, and to a lesser extent MSNBC, language is being abused. Notice the commentator vs journalist coup on cable television. Language - on right wing radio, left wing radio (yea, I'm talking to you Air America), is divisive and partisan. Truth is spoken occasionally, but not often does an individual bridge the exclusive caverns of both camps.
Language. It is Hillary's crutch. She can't say anything that will encourage republicans to join her, and the more she talks the less democrats want to vote for her. She has said recently that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, handing the opposition live fuel and then laughing it off as silly and reinforcing the necessity to stick to the issues. Ferraro, a supporter of Clinton, said recently that the only reason Obama is where he is is because of his skin color (yea, Geraldine, everyone understands the overwhelming advantage African Americans have in the US). Wow, the power of words. The Clinton camp seem to be using the sub-genius strategy of ninja wordsmiths. Words are important - and when you use words which represent the opposite of what you say, your either deceiving us or yourself - so which is it?
Words matter. Clinton cannot continuously shout 'wolf' with impunity. Her surrogates can't decry his advantage because of race and at the same time expect to remain above the fray of racism. For Clinton to repeatedly maintain that she and McCain were qualified to be president because of their outstanding service to this country, but Barack only offered a speech in 2003 and thus has yet to cross the threshold of commander in chief, is patently absurd. Words matter. We are all judged by them, given grace or pardon by them. Perhaps we forgot words are actions, that our words preview our actions.
Language matters most when it remains consistent, a thing nearly forgotten in politics. Barack is consistent in his argument, and doesn't descend beneath the fray except to defend himself. Watch the exchange, watch when they say one thing but exhibit another. McCain was vehemently against torture but has now acquiesced to the administration, and seems to think no one remembers his previous position.
Language is an action. Remember that, and judge the candidates upon the entirety of their character. None of them are perfect, but then we aren't electing a savior or messiah. We can only know them by their actions and words (and even then can be deceived - you have to be shrewd), and the most trustworthy now appears to be Barack Obama. His language and action appear positive and consistent. Words do that, they convey hope or fear depending upon their users intention. In the Clinton campaign, fear has surpassed hope, and she is betting that America will be convinced.
Fear is a 3am phone call. Fear is Barack's middle name - Hussein. Fear is loosing. Fear manifests into strategy, and strategy into words. Clinton's words are bowing like serfs beneath her anxiety. Words are our barometer to truth or falsehood. When they are misused, purposely or not, it is found out. Clinton has repeatedly misused words in order to gain momentum - a kind of audacity of fear.
Yes, words matter. People declare their intentions by their words, and then set out in an effort to accomplish those intentions. Remember we are trapped in a war of aggression upon another nation, unprovoked, which is costing us 12 Billion dollars a month to sustain, and remember that words and actions brought Hillary Clinton to vote for that war, and to not since reject it, and to pronounce words that suggest Obama had only those poor judgments (actions) and speeches (words) to oppose the inevitable debacle. Yes, words and actions matter.
By a raise of hands, how many of us support the war in Iraq? Exactly. Words matter, votes matter, actions matter. How can we allow those who contributed to the problem to be in charge of the solution? Really, I wonder. Even Einstein wondered...
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Lets be honest. Words lead to actions. Hillary voted for the K-L bill, for the Iraqi war, supported NAFTA and accepted millions of dollars in exchange for killing her universal healthcare plan during Bill's administration. She has been on the boards of both Walmart and Monsanto (two ethically challenged corporations), been involved in shady dealings in Arkansas, been husband to the man who oversaw the demoralization of the modern democratic party (sorry, guilt by association is a weak argument); and who will do nearly anything to attain power, even if it means imploding the party she is running to lead.
My analysis isn't based on race or gender, but on actions and words. Because of that, the rational choice is Obama. Can you make a more convincing argument?
Monday, March 10, 2008
"I may have grown up thinking conservativism was grand and Democrats were evil, but now I know better, and that is mainly due to Barack. That is why he is so important."
Of all the red states in the US, Utah has got to be the reddest. Despite the emergence of the neoconservative movement, Utah has consistently voted Republican in recent decades, tending it seems to give the pro-war wing of the Republican party justification even in light of such monumental failures as the Iraqi war and, perhaps more troubling, the housing-economic meltdown manifesting exponentially.
Has political affiliation become the equivalent of religious identity? Is it written in stone or otherwise canonized that we should respect one political party? Why are political ideas synonymous with theological beliefs, and why do red states remain red, and blue states blue? It makes you question, reading the above account - that someone could reconcile belief with something his community has suggested is against their belief...but is it really? Is having a country insured with proper health care against anyones belief system?
A couple of years ago I took a class on the history of Christianity. I learned a few lessons, small tokens of gold that now allow me to spend my way through this argument. Christians were for the first 200-300 years practicing communists. They shared everything, and if you wanted to join their esoteric movement, their community, you would have to give everything to the community, including you financial net worth (or most of it). That is why Marcion became such a pivotal figure in early Christian history, because he was able to buy a voice for his important ideas by giving his inherited fortune of 200,000 sesterces (to the credit of Marcion, though he was not allowed to stay within the community, many of his ideas were incorporated into later Christian theology. His insistence on a limited canon encouraged the church to set limits on what could, and perhaps more importantly, what could not be included within the official canon, what has today become known as the New Testament). Certainly the church changed after that, after Constantine. They became less a share-based movement and more an individual-based movement.
Christianity has had a long and politically bizarre history, especially seeing its effects on the politics in Utah circa 2008. It was at various times an agent of the state, the king, the emperor, the pope, the revolutionary, the conservative. Take your pick, Christianity has been politically used to justify an enormous swath of belief, and is being presently used to justify a war of aggression on another nation, in spite of its ill effects on the aggressor and aggressed. Tree, meet fruit.
Obama and Clinton represent a more egalitarian approach to society - democrats in general today carry the torch for the poor, the needy, the sick and hungry. The democrats are fighting for universal health care, and tax cuts for the poor, not the rich. This approach seems to more represent the early days of christianity - where all people were taken care of, and treated equal - than to the neoconservative approach that suggests capitalism is the answer to everything, that the free hand of the market will keep all above the rising waters of political and economic disparity. An early Christian would say when my friend and neighbor is hungry, I share my food. Wouldn't Christ himself, the benefactor of Christianity, tell his followers to give before you get, to make certain that all are treated with a modicum of decency.
Most western democracies have embraced some form of universal health care as a societal necessity. Here in America, the place of the discovery of general anesthesia - perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science and medicine - we still are in the dark ages of social progress. A rising tide raises all ships. Responsible social democracies, like Norway and Sweden, should be our example in how to proceed. Yes, they are taxed more than us, but in exchange the decency of every individual is preserved. Isn't that more important than personal success?
So back to the story of the Mormon in SLC who is voting for Obama. I have to ask, why aren't more Mormons voting for a better life for everyone, instead of better life for only a few. The Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world are trying to make you think that conservatism-republicanism is the skin on a bleached skeleton, that theres meat where there is only bone. They sell war as conservative, spending as saving. It is Orwell's nightmare revived, and animated. Doublespeaking people toward their own financial and political ruin. Let me ask a few questions:
Does spending 10+ Billion in Iraq per month equate financial conservatism.?
Does nation building seem politically conservative?
Does enacting the biggest spying operation ever know in the US appear conservative?
Does lying US toward war follow a conservative philosophy?
Does torture now equate Christian conservatism?
Christians in America are being robbed by a two-bit thief. I really wonder what the title conservative has come to mean. I think I know what Christian means, and it is not the evangelical preachers who have enlightened me, it is the words of their great savior. I've read the New Testament; I don't remember any wars of aggression. I don't remember a footnote accompanying the old testament commandment thou shalt not kill (even though, paradoxically, there was plenty of killing to be had in the OT). I think, according to the very beginnings of Christianity, that early Christianity represented community and responsibility, a philosophy that emphasized the needs of everyone other than yourself.
But we are a needy culture, and an individualistic country. It is one of our memes, our social proclivities. America, the land of the free. But as we are learning, nobody is free unless we all are free. You can't have a country that flat out denies health care to its poorest while with the other cheek claims to be free. You can't justify agricultural slaves and claim to be a nation of free people. You can't justify paying CEO's 20 Million dollars a year and continually reject raising the minimum wage beyond 5.5 dollars (as the republicans have done). It is not healthy, nor is it Christian, it is not free.
So I understand this one Mormon's journey toward the Democratic party. It is simple. It is an understanding that community is as important as individual, politics and religion aside. Simple. It is a Christian/rational idea, it is humanitarian, it is reasonable and well-meaning. My question to all Utah Mormons is this. What theology allows you to continually justify your subservience to the Republican party? Is it healthy? Have you looked at the long term consequences of supporting war and aggression? Difficult questions, all of which the diarist considered in making his choice. My hope is we will all make this choice for our own self-interest, which, interestingly I think, is nothing more than the needs of the community at large, be they rich or poor. Again, a rising tide raises all boats. Investment in society is our one way out of the dark room Bush has lured us in to. It is the humanitarian approach, I hope everyone sees that.
There is nothing wrong with states rights, or personal property rights (juices in the spinal fluid of modern conservatism), as long as they contribute to the betterment of everyone. Perhaps that is the lesson. A kind of do unto others for the 21st century. Heres hoping we do just that - reject war and useless military spending in exchange for better social programs. Isn't it time we surpass political differences and finally elect a candidate who will take care of the poor- the health needs of all in the US? I think that is the fundamental question.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
"The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the US railroads. Whydid the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did “they”' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? Roman war chariots first made the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels and wagons. Since the chariots were made for, or by Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder which horse's rear came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war-horses. And now, the twist to the story. There's an interesting extension to the story about railroad gauges and horses' behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. Thiokol makes the SRBs at their factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horse’s behinds. So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's ass!”March 2, 1931: Mikhail Gorbachev was born. An hour with Gorbachev and Charlie Rose produced a few interesting moments, though it's hard to find anything much in Mikhail that equates the Reganesque revolutions here in the US.. Perhaps he was nothing more than a doppleganger, a sinsiter form of bilocation parodying the Regan administration. Umm, yea. But this might further elucidate my point....Regan's Evil Empire speech addressed to the 41st annual convention to the National Association of Evangelicals, on March 8, 1983.
March 3, 1934: John Dillinger escaped from the county jail in Crown Point, Indiana.
On March 3, 1934, Dillinger cowed the guards with what he claimed later was a wooden gun he had whittled. He forced them to open the door to his cell, then grabbed two machine guns, locked up the guards and several trustees, and fled.A documentary on Snake Eyes, the illusive bandit, can be found here.
March 3, 1959: Ira Glass is born. In this thread-bare interview, he confesses his vegetarianism as caused by a chicken stalker, or more precisely, a poultry advocate. Or find him here, as an advocate for the art of storytelling.
March 4, 1925: Inaugural Address of Calvin Coolidge. Here is the text, and here, for the first time on radio, is the Presidential Inauguration. Per the verse...
These results have not occurred by mere chance. They have been secured by a constant and enlightened effort marked by many sacrifices and extending over many generations. We can not continue these brilliant successes in the future, unless we continue to learn from the past. It is necessary to keep the former experiences of our country both at home and abroad continually before us, if we are to have any science of government. If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge of the old foundations. We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament if we expect to hold a true course. If we examine carefully what we have done, we can determine the more accurately what we can do.
March 5, 1897: Soong May-ling is born, and a year later, Zhou Enlai. Two hero's of the Chinese revolution, though one ended up in Taiwan, while the other stayed on the mainland. Madame Chiang is represented here (without sound), while Zhou is shown announcing the four modernizations.
March 6, 1926: The boy behind the global economy is born, leading to the knighting of post-modern madness. This piece is pro bono for the likes of him.
March 7, 321: Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis — day of the sun, "Sunday" — as the Roman day of rest.
March 8, 1917: Senate agrees on rules of cloture:
On March 8, 1917, in a specially called session of the 65th Congress, the Senate agreed to a rule that essentially preserved its tradition of unlimited debate. The rule required a two-thirds majority to end debate and permitted each member to speak for an additional hour after that before voting on final passage. Over the next 46 years, the Senate managed to invoke cloture on only five occasions.March 8, 1817. Constitution drafted by an organization that chose to call themselves "New York Stock & Exchange Board," later shortening the name to the New York Stock Exchange.
The first central location of the NYSE was a room rented for $200 a month in 1817 located at 40 Wall Street. But the volume of stocks traded had increased sixfold in the years between 1896 and 1901 and a larger space was required to conduct business in the expanding marketplace. Eight New York City architects were invited to participate in a design competition for a new building and the Exchange selected the neoclassic design from architect George B. Post. Demolition of the existing building at 10 Broad Street and the adjacent lots started on 10 May 1901.If only they had some prescience to foresee the balloon-housing market of 2008. But alas, 2008 will exceed anyones guess, I presume....
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Mrs. Clinton, you have your credentials laid out before you, as though your life were a red carpet on which you have always walked. I do not mean to say you have not laboriously worked to put yourself in a position to have the substantial credentials you bring to the table. I do not doubt that you would preside over America with confidence and beneficence; what I do doubt however is the ultimate commitment you have to yourself, and, your commitment to the people who support your self; the people who's needs you'll pursue and meet before you engage to lead America forward in what you deem to be a positive direction. The reason I doubt this is simple: you are the Clinton Presidency Revised. There is no way politically, to separate you from your husband, just as, like it or not, there is no way to separate Bush Jr. from Bush Sr.
I also think that your approach is to repair the unfixable and trashable part of America, whereas Barack's is to make the best of (to idealize) the America which we have left from the Presidential Plunderers of the Past. I can't not think of you and your husband as plunderers, if for no other reason than this: you had political capital to fight Bush Jr. in 2002-2003 and your sorry ass went along: this says more about your judgement than anything else you have done: you are committed to the perpetuity of the American government more than you are committed to the real needs of the American People.
I can't say whether Barack has or doesn't have this commitment, because I am bewildered as his message rises out from himself idealistic enough to make up for his lack of experience: i mention this because we can't know what Obama will bring: we know what he wants to bring and by all accounts it seems he knows the dangers of "just wanting to do good, in a world which wants to be mostly bad."
You say you are committed to the American People, but your record, from my perspective, shows otherwise. Maybe, despite this, you still have good intentions. If you could put yourself in my place for a moment and see how I doubt you and your husband's sincerity, and then return to your place, and then think about what I am asking of you, (for only one vote out of 100,000,000),... I don't really have a question for you, because I know there is nothing you could say at this point to win over my trust.
You do have one thing going for you: you have the added responsibility of the First Female Presidency.
My question for Mr. Obama: You too have capitalized on your credentials: you put forward your vote against the War in Iraq as the quintessential vote you have made in the Senate. You also play to the American people's need for change in the wake of the sea of plunderers in fleet around Washington D.C., as they have not ceased to continue taking untoward advantage of the American people. You claim the slogan as your own: "Change we can believe in." I doubt little your intent, as you seek the office of the Presidency: you have even said over and over again that the change we need is beyond your power to complete: you need the Congress, the Courts and the People at your back.
"First, do no harm" is the slogan I can't help but consciously stream, as I think about the many times in Human History when some one or some group have gone out to help someone or some group, only to leave those people worse off in the end despite an attempt to help them.
You admit your organizational skills are wanting when it comes to "keeping your desk clean." The American Presidency is more than ideas and more than slogans, more than even your desire to do good. How well are you insulated from the D.C. scum? Are you going to go to Washington and rely on D.C. types to keep you organized? How do we know your Iraq war vote wasn't a political calculation just in the way we we know Mrs. Clinton's vote was a political calculation? If you cannot even keep your desk clean and your life organized without help from others, how can you convince enough Americans that you both know what is good for them, and, know that your attempts to provide it for them are going to work in the way you want them to? I am painfully aware that your advisers and helpers carry more power with you than I am comfortable with. Bill Clinton's thoughts seemed to be generated from himself, and yours more so than the other candidates and even the current occupant for that matter. Are you smart enough to know when the advice of your advisers has risen above your advisers' self interest? Also, who needs you to survive and flourish, and will go to every length to make sure you survive and flourish? (Mr. Bush's survival is made and realized by those corporate, international and secret interests, who have more at stake in Bush surviving, than even Mr. Bush himself).
I don't really have a question for you Mr. Obama either, because your words bewilder me with hope, as I venture to make a rational decision on the present matter.
Mr. McCain, the most true thing I can say about you is: you are a mirage. I look at your face and I see George Bush and a hundred more years of war. You stand there audaciously like a statue and co invent yourself as though you were authentic. It is clear to me that that is the last thing you are: authentic. Ironically, this is what you are most known for. Who are you so mad at John? Why do I get the feeling someone has done you wrong?
I know you are a military man. You endured pains for what you would deem service to our country. Perhaps you are scowling at me as I detest the way in which you went to Viet Nam and militarized your ideal upon another country. I can respect someone who defends his family on his own soil. I cannot respect a man who would aggress another person's family and soil, on behalf of his own occupation and ideal. You continually play the sympathy card as the only red carpet you could find leading to the American Presidency. I am sorry you were tortured by your captors. But you dropped bombs on their children...
I agree, there is no room for torture in a civilized society. But what is worse, being tortured and living to tell about it, or being collateral damage from a war of aggression and being dead? You claim there is a threat to America by radical islamic extremists. You claim we went to war in Iraq to protect Americans from this threat. You claim it may take one hundred more years of the occupation of the sovereign state of Iraq. War is such a blunt instrument. You will claim to use this instrument as one of the tools of your Presidency. I will say what I see: I see a mad man running for president. How do you ride the sympathy train all the way to the White house? especially when as far as I can tell, your being tortured pales in comparison to the torture you have already doled out? Be careful of the beam in your own eye before you start pointing out motes in other people's eyes. The sympathy you would have from me is no red carpet...
Please, now, tell me how naive I am again.
Oh, Mr. Nader, How deep is your concern? Your argument is laid out before you as profound as a bed of red coals is hot. Like nature's rush to fill a vacuum, the sound of your footfalls seem to echo every four years. The elephant and the donkey fill the room you want to enter because they built the room only big enough for two. So Ralph, as you wrap your head around the problems which America faces, are you smart enough to know whether you are smart enough to build an argument assailable to citizens, democratic and republican, which will do more than just convince partisans to adopt that argument, but will also motivate them and arm them with the power to rise out of their need to vote their own interests? Will your penumbra reward them with enough of a dialectic to convince those they know how your argument against the parties brings their long term interests to bear?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Soft hips expanding by grace
You bore down
In a sieve
And you stayed at stop
For such a long time
Your groans grist
Your moaning lush
We waited the length
Of your pain
Not without blood
In our palms
How you died
On all fours in the tub
Trolling the underworld
Like a crustacean
As we stood upright
Against your mirror
And you gave us frankincense
As the vernix-white baby
Rushed our cavern
Leaving us changed
Monday, February 11, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
the principle is simple: vote.
cast your ballet to the box and hope the box remembers your cast.
this is my question:
am I to vote for the candidate who represents my interests?
should I vote for the candidate who represents the best interests of the group?
only a fool would assume that his interests and the interests of the group are always the same, so....
does it ever happen that the my personal interests are best served by disregarding my own personal interests and voting in favor of the best interests of the group?
i would argue: every time.
p.s. the argument only works if your grandchildren are "your personal interests." (the group will have more say toward their interests than you ever will).
afterword: vote for the best interests of the group even if your personal interests aren't always served. this is how you can vote for a democrat or john mccain if you are opposed to a woman's right to choose if she would have her child aborted.
(who would i vote for? i will comment in the appropriate arena.)
Friday, February 1, 2008
He has no intention of winning.
His only intention is to ensure a Democratic President;
as was John Kerry's intention in 2004, for Rebublicans.
We are being played.
You wanted to know what I thought.
I said the Republican nominee would be John McCain.
I knew this because I could see that he was Insulated,
as Bush was insulated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.
Hillary Clinton is also Insulated.
Is Barack Obama Insulated?
Why was not the twenty year curse on American Presidents enabled on the Presidency of GWB?
Whose interests are so wrapped up in Hillary Clinton's Presidency that they will see to it that she lives to see those interests manifested?
I worry about Barack Obama.
Who out there will risk everything up to their own life to maintain Barack Obama?
Who's interests require: President Barack Obama?
Are the American People's Interests worth anything in this matter?
How naiive are you?
It will be Hillary v. McCain.
McCain will win the Presidency.
Will his V.P. be Insulated?
Be Seeing You.
P.S. Willard Mittt Romney Is Insulated.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Who is he really?
Who was supposed to rescue the constitution as it was foretold to be hanging from a thread and much in need of rescuing?
What is a prophecy?
"In 2012 the world will end and Willard Mitt Romney will be President of the United States," some have thought, or, "someone else will be President", some have thought.
Oh' John McCain, "how do you blast an asteroid from its trajectory?"
How is it that stiff conservatives and liberals alike are tainted by you and Mr. Lieberman?
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has experience.
If Barack Obama had a son, where would he live?
Little Barack Arkansas.
What is Barack Obama's favorite vegetable?
What is Barack Obama's favorite genre of music?
Either Baroque or Barock and Roll.
How many Presidential candidates does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
This is a better close up of the last commissioned piece I did. I thought to add a little more information about the man Vitruvius...I detailed the work to fit his life rather than the very famous Leonardo Da Vinci image.
Here is some more information about him from wikipedia...
Vitruvius is most famous for asserting in his book De architectura that a structure must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas — that is, it must be strong or durable, useful, and beautiful. According to Vitruvius, architecture is an imitation of nature. As birds and bees built their nests, so humans constructed housing from natural materials, that gave them shelter against the elements. When perfecting this art of building, the ancient Greek invented the architectural orders: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian. It gave them a sense of proportion, culminating in understanding the proportions of the greatest work of art: the human body. This led Vitruvius in defining his Vitruvian Man, as drawn magnificently by Leonardo da Vinci: the human body inscribed in the circle and the square (the fundamental geometric patterns of the cosmic order).
Vitruvius is sometimes loosely referred to as the first architect, but it is more accurate to describe him as the first Roman architect to have written surviving records of his field. He himself cites older but less complete works. He was less an original thinker or creative intellect than a codifier of existing architectural practice. It should also be noted that Vitruvius had a much wider scope than modern architects. Roman architects practised a wide variety of disciplines; in modern terms, they could be described as being engineers, architects, landscape architects, artists, and craftsmen combined. Etymologically the word architect derives from Greek words meaning 'master' and 'builder'. The first of the Ten Books deals with many subjects which now come within the scope of landscape architecture.