Juggling=transcendental truth

I was talking to a friend yesterday about life, the universe, and everything and she mentioned that she was taking a yoga class (a university course). I said, "That's cool, but what's with the lacrosse balls?" She then replied that she was trying to learn how to juggle. I said, "What does juggling have to do with yoga?" She then said she didn't know, but that she had to learn for the class. I proceeded to question the logic, so she then blurted out, "It's transcendental." To which I responded, "WHAT?! Juggling is transcendental? Who told you that? That's crazy."

Or is it? Maybe juggling is the one thing I've been missing in life. Maybe juggling is what will help me discover that higher philosophic truth that has been alluding me all these years. Maybe juggling is that one small piece of the puzzle that Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Heidegger missed. I should have known. 

By throwing balls (or any other object) in the air we focus not on a single ball, nor on all the balls, but on the action of maintaining the balls airborne. We must focus, but not too much. We need to see the whole and the parts - simultaneously. It is a hermeneutical circle. To understand the whole we must understand the parts, and the meaning of the parts in sequence. Wow. 

I bet that juggling is only the beginning. I bet that there are amazing truths to be discovered in playing catch, jumping jacks, doing crossword puzzles, or eating oatmeal. And, now that I know the sources of all meaning, I can finally write the definitive work on universal truth. 

Genuinely Calculated

There are a lot of fakers out there. They put on a facade that they care, or that they don't care, while inside they feel conflicted. However, for all the superficiality out there, we should not confuse good calculated planning with insincerity. It is possible to be genuine in our calculation.

In fact, if you really care about an issue you probably should think about what you are going to say. Maybe even write it down. But, at the same time, I see the value of speaking from the gut, off the cuff. But neither method is an absolute indicator of heartfelt sentiment. This is because, often times our gut speaks what our mind would not, and in the converse, our mind speaks often what our gut would not.

This brings me of course back to politics, and more specifically politicians. There is nothing wrong with being coached on policy that you believe in so that you say what you want to say. However, it is bad if you are being coached to say something 'politically correct' when you don't agree with it. 

In Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson so far, you can tell she was coached, and you can see sincerity. However, she does come across as conflicted. This however, is not entirely her fault. Gibson asks tough policy questions (that would most likely not be asked to Obama or Biden as flatly), and is trying to paint her a certain way. Asking whether she thought Iran posed and 'existential threat' to Israel, Mr. Gibson tried to imply with follow ups that she would be hawkish. Palin repeated that she believed Israel is within its right to defend its sovereignty from a legitimate threat. She at no point claimed that the US would get involved, but didn't say it wouldn't either, and, given the delicate nature of the situation, it was the correct response. 

This brings me to a problem with these candid interviews. Regardless of who is being interviewed, there are certain questions that cannot be answered yes or no without limiting the ability of the state department in its negotiations, and putting our foot in our mouths. The issues, as much as they might seem black and white to some, are grayer than that. Trying to force a candidate to respond in an ideological way does not seem like a very revealing way to explore character. The best response therefore, in my opinion for whatever candidate would often be, "I cannot say exactly what position we would take at this time, because I do not have the full intelligence reports in front of me." Then of course, if given a more solid hypothetical, I could answer. For instance if Mr. Gibson were to say, "Let's say we knew 'x', would you do 'y'?" Then it would be easier to come up with a good specific response. When questions are to the point, but general at the same time, they are misleading and unenlightening. That is why hypothetical questions are good, because they provide a narrowing and also reveal the person being asked.

I know Gibson is being put in a difficult situation in this interview, but that is always the case with news reporters. They need to keep their opinions in check, remain objective, but get the goods at the same time. They have to tiptoe, and they have to be rough. It's a difficult job, but he knows the right way to do it. Having not seen the entire interview I cannot condemn and I cannot say I approve. So far my position is mixed. Gibson treats Palin with a certain condescension, like when he asked her if she was ready to be President. Palin said yes, 'without blinking' and Gibson then said that she then must have been showing hubris. But, at the same time, the initial question is absolutely fair and necessary. His further conjecture however, was perhaps not quite so journalistic, and showed bias, as did much of his demeanor. However, at the same time Palin's referring to Gibson as 'Charlie' to create a more comfortable intimacy that never existed to begin with didn't work either.

So, I suppose all I can do now is watch and see what happens tonight.

Do you eat rocks?

Here are some strictly hypothetical questions for you:

What if rocks tasted good and had nutritional value? Would you eat them? Would you grind them into powder and pour them on your cereal?

Some rocks of course, are edible, and nutritional, but the taste leaves something to be desired (that something is probably real food). However, the rocks that you can eat do not by any means taste good, and if they are eaten whole, they'll be the last thing you ever eat (teeth are nice to have, but rocks and teeth don't get along as well as they should).

Whether you think eating rocks is a bad idea, good idea, or something you are currently doing while reading this, you have at one point or another eaten rocks in your life. The denials have started. But really, you have. Every time you have a beach picnic. Every time you eat near dust, and whenever you have a vitamin, or vitamin enhanced orange juice or cereal. The first two seem obvious, but the second two not so much. The fact is, zinc, calcium, copper, iron, etc. all come from rocks, and get into our food. With good and bad results. The Romans liked rocks with lead in them, and even made pipes out of the stuff. 

So be careful when eating rocks. You can't avoid eating them, so just be careful. And eating them is sometimes just as rewarding as throwing them.

The World doesn't elect America's President.

You know what I just love? Don't answer that (that could lead to a number of crude responses). I love the media's use of polls. The media loves them. Politicians love them. Or, they hate them. If the poll says what they want, they put it on the front page. If it doesn't, it gets put in the classifieds. Well, a recent poll that has no relevance at all says that the people of the world want Obama as President.

First off, just a little FYI to media people who thought that poll somehow mattered, this is an AMERICAN election. In this election, who matters are the AMERICAN candidates, and what the AMERICAN people want. 80% of the French want Barack (This picture of Barack comes from the French magazine Le Monde. 

Well guess what France, you can have him after the election, if he defects and becomes a French citizen, but for now, we decide. Obviously the percentage is just as high in Kenya, but once again, Kenya is not the US, and neither is Russia, another country that also wants him to be President.

And, if it weren't enough that we have to hear about how the rest of the world wants to run our country, the beleaguered British PM Gordon Brown praised Obama's charisma and economic platforms, in a time when his party is anything but motivated. He claims that he has not endorsed Obama, but in the article that was written by one of his party's junior staffers, there was no mention of McCain. Seems like a 'not so discreet, under the table, while handing the goods to the wrong hands' type of endorsement to me. 

At any rate, while some may argue that the Presidency of the US is a global issue, because we are the world's lone superpower (excluding an emerging China, and a resurgent Russia), the fact remains, that the responsibility and privilege to elect OUR head of state, does still reside in the hands of the American people, and not in the world's hands. It is not the United States of the World. But the United States of America. Now let's stick to the issues, and let America figure out its own domestic affairs (I know we don't always let the rest of the world do it, but if I were president, sovereign states would remain that way under most conditions, and as far as I know the US is a sovereign state).

Read. It's good for you.

All I do is read. 

When I'm done reading, I pick up another book and read. After my reading for classes is done, I read the economist, online articles from Drudge, the London Times, or ESPN (for fun mind you).

Often times, before I go to bed, if my room mate (my brother) is still doing stuff, I pick up another book or article that was sent to me by a friend, or quite often, my grandmother. 

So, what if I were illiterate? My life would be impossible. Meaningless. Futile. My life to this point has largely been defined by what I read, how I read and interpret it, how often I read it, and what I write and speak about in regards to that reading. I'd like to think I'm expanding my mind. Reading is like a drug that opens the mind, activating dank, dark, unknown corners of the cerebrum. And if that's truly the case, my brain is as open as the internet in Amsterdam (as compared to the internet in China). 

I am 100% certain that my future career will only require more reading, so I might as well learn how to overload the system now. Send me your summer reading lists, class book lists, favorite novels, poets, etc. and I will read them and give you 'Cliff's Notes' like synopses free of charge (Don't worry if you're reading selection is dry, I read anything, from boringly elitist ramblings of wanna-be philosophers, to telephone books and encyclopedias).

I'm inflammatory

It was Sunday. I was en route to a dinner with friends, and my friend Bob* was on his cell phone. I overhead him saying, "Oh, yeah. I know. Well Michael's right here, you want to talk to him? Ok."

So I get the phone. It is Bob's and my mutual friend Georgina*. We dispense with pleasantries, then I say, "I read your blog all the time." To which she replies, "I read yours sometimes, but it's really inflammatory." Then she said, "Come to think of it, you're pretty inflammatory, and I don't know why I'm saying this, but yeah." So I said, "Could it be because we're on the phone and you can't say it to my face?" To which she said, "I think that proves my point. I don't think I could say it to your face."

So I'm inflammatory. I get that. In some ways that is fair. Everything I touch burns. It's a general statement, but it could easily be agreed upon by more than one person I'm sure. So not long after the phone call, I thought of how I could maintain my newly discovered 'inflammatory' status. Well, the most obvious thing is to react adversely and take the opposite position on anything and everything anyone around me says, and then do all that is humanly possible to get a rise out of them. But I think it would probably be even more fun to be literal. I could let out my inner 'Pyro' and burn things. Now that would be fun.

But before I indulge in either of those possible methods, I would like to break down my own psyche for the average reader. I am a student of political science, philosophy, and I love good arguments (not screaming contests, but methodically logical/sometimes flawed discourse), and debate. For example, to this point in college I have taken three parliamentary and world debate classes, and I am currently taking a class on Alexis de Tocqueville and another class on the philosophy of the social sciences. What that entails is a lot of reading, digestion of information, and then a careful, logical, analysis, often followed by discussion in class. Now this discussion is not heated. I in fact find it quite easy to detach my emotions and biases to look at the merits of the arguments. Philosophically I like to deconstruct arguments and poke holes in them, putting forth my best critiques not to detract from the other side, but to understand it better. If I do not put forth a good argument, I expect my fellow students will find its flaws and help reconstruct or negate it thoroughly. Again, it's hardly personal. In order to get the best feedback and counter-arguments, I have found that I need to put forth a good, well-conceived argument of my own. 

Now here's the problem. With this mindset, often times I take umbrage with friends, colleagues, and family members when they put forth weak arguments. I sometimes unwittingly offend, because I'm trying to understand their argument, and so I question, and even brashly challenge their line of reasoning. But instead of getting it handed to me, and hearing a good argument in return, as I would with my political science/debate/philosophy student colleagues, I get a flustered response and often times extremely bothered friends or family members.

So I am a confrontational person. I know I should let more things go, and remove myself from the philosopher/debater mindset sometimes. But, for now I think I'll just light things on fire, and apologize with a bucket of icy water.

*note: real names not used to protect the people who think I'm inflammatory

Welcome to the Beach house!

Welcome to the beach house. 

We (my brother and I), have renamed our house to remind us of our homeland. The beach house. We have tropical plants, shells, shell mobiles, framed postcards of tropical beaches, surfboards, sweet posters of surfing, sailing, and tropical oases, a solar-powered fake stained glass fish lawn ornament in the window, a fish tank, and we are just now considering filling the fireplace with sand. Seeing as a sand-filled fireplace might be messy, we'll probably just make a custom sandbox to fit in front of the fireplace, and put hermit crabs in it. Contractually we aren't allowed to have pets, but I hardly think it fair to call hermit crabs or fish pets (depending on the fish or hermit crab I suppose). Hermit crabs are ornamental pets. They hardly move, and when they do it's usually a life changing event for all involved. 

Fish on the other hand are also mostly decorative, and at least to me are only exciting when they are aggressive or ill-tempered.

Now perhaps you ask why we decided on making it a 'beach house'. Well, we are in possibly one of the most land-locked states possible in the union. Surrounded by mountains, desert, stupid people, and occasional livestock and wild bears, 

Utah has fenced us in. But, our souls are escaping through our homestead. The ocean lives in the walls, in the bathroom, and now, even in the fireplace (kinda freaky for newcomers who need to visit the lou).

Drum beats

I dance to the beat of my own drum. If the beat of my drum happens to be American Indian tribal dance, Zulu wedding dance, Depeche mode, Led Zeppelin, or Berlin night club...that is what I will dance. Just as I dance to the beat of my own drum, so does McCain (however, I don't think he is quite so literal).

I am not a devout McCain supporter. Let me start with that. He has a habit of frustrating me. He doesn't dance to his own drum beat. He marches forward with it. He has a history of reaching across the aisle to get reform done. He works with democrats, independents, and republicans. That is something that cannot be denied. He is nobody's b*tch. And, although it can be frustrating to a lot of people, it is a good sign. It means he puts his own judgment and America above that of partisan politics. Aside from drawing in independent and democratic voters, there is a bit in the maverick image that attracts even conservatives (some would argue that what really attracts them is Palin, and that's true too - she's hot), but knowing that he is not anyone's puppet is comforting (I know Bush has been everyone's puppet at one time or other). And, as much as I like puppet shows, I don't want to see that happen again.

McCain's speech last night was a responsible one. It pointed blame where it needed to, - he accepted that his party became corrupt with power in Washington - and he called for unity (and given his habit of bipartisan reform, he can really claim that call more than Obama, who has no such record), he called for energy independence, he called for transparency and accountability, and he called out for controls on government spending and excess taxation. 

On the topic of energy independence his approach is all-encompassing. The energy question does not need to be mutually exclusive, and he proved that. It's not fossil fuels versus green energy. A responsible plan uses both. He called for clean coal technology, natural gas, nuclear power, wind and solar power, electric and flex cars, and drilling. There is a responsible way to do all that. There is a sustainable way to drill, to use coal, and other fossil fuels (and if we don't use them, we are wasting our own potential and shooting ourselves in the collective foot). And, while we use the more economically feasible and well-studied techniques involving fossil fuels, we can concurrently develop more sustainable green energy so there is a smooth transition. 

But the big issue my friends is medical care. McCain said Obama's plan puts a bureaucrat in between me and my doctor. That's true with universal healthcare. Why do people seem to think the government will do a better job with our medical system than competitive, hard-working, private individuals? It boggles my mind. On that point alone I see it imperative to vote for McCain, who claims to have a much more useful reform in mind.

PS - I will continue to dance to the beat of my own drum, right now it's t.A.T.u. - for McCain it's whatever is in the best interest of America, and it will take him to the Oval office. Do the research people! Just because Obama is good-looking and speaks well, doesn't mean he should take the reins over the most powerful nation on the planet.

I am a feminist

(These ladies pushing for women's rights look a lot more like Palin, than Hillary - baby and all)

Let me just start by saying, the Los Angeles Times is the most biased newspaper in America. Secondly, aside from the fact that it rarely seeks to be even remotely objective in its 'news reporting,' the quality of its news, sources, and even opinions leaves much to be desired.

I was reading an editorial from the LA Times this morning. It started off with a sneering remark from Gloria Steinem in reference to Sarah Palin: "Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing - the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party - are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president." NEWS FLASH to Steinem: You don't have to be a democrat, or a liberal to be a feminist. SECOND NEWS FLASH: You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

But if that were all Steinem had said I may have just chuckled, but she decided to hit the same old talking points about Palin. She's inexperienced, she is from a small state, her record. All of her points have been addressed thoroughly. Don't tell me Biden has more experience. If we're comparing legislative experience to executive experience she wins. And, executive versus legislative is like apples versus oranges. And, personally I think Palin will win any debate with him easily.

But let me get back to my news flashes. I am a devout feminist. I believe that women not only can do the jobs that men do, but should and can many times do them better. I also believe strong women who know what they want are the most attractive people the human race has to offer. Now, it is true that I am a registered republican. However, that is more for convenience than anything else. I more closely affiliate myself with the Libertarian party, and the conservative branch of it. More John Stuart Mill than Barr. But, as a republican I am painted as some chauvinistic, overweight, white, CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Guess what folks? I'm not. I am probably only one of those things, and being white isn't a crime yet in this country. And, I might get fat someday. But generally speaking, the republican party is made up of average everyday Americans who simply believe in limited government, strong families, religious freedom, free markets, and moral consciousness. Most people who have studied the history of the world, politics, and the United States know that our roots in this country go back to classic 19th century liberalism, which is almost a mirror of those attributes I just listed. 

We trust the government, but keep it in check because we don't entirely trust it. It needs to protect us from foreign oppressors and injustice, create a some what decent and functional infrastructure, but otherwise stay out of our business. That is the American way. Sometimes we forget that, and believe the government should rock us in our cribs in our infancy and then hover over our bedsides at death. That cradle to grave mentality is irresponsible and wrong. We have agency, our own minds, opinions, and capabilities. The government is just a framework. 

But, before I get too far along with my praise for the ideals of our forebears, let me return to feminism, and equality. Question: Which party freed the slaves? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party founded the policy idea of environmental responsibility and the national park system? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put the first woman on the supreme court? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put more minorities in its Presidential cabinet for the past 3 decades? Answer: the republican party. Hmmm. So how is it that the democrats somehow get to lay claim to environmentalism, minority rights, and women's rights? The Answer to that is obvious. They like to take hold of the republican party's good ideas, then say the ideas were their's to begin with.

Well, I don't think America is stupid enough to be duped into believing that. All I want people to do this election cycle, and every other that follows it, is to be completely informed on the candidates, look at their proposals, and think which will do the better job at keeping America American. I tend to think the democrats are pushing for America to become another European country. In my opinion, that's a terrible idea. 

My love affair with Sarah

Well, I say if the media can have a love affair with Barack Obama, then I certainly can have a love affair with Sarah Palin. The difference of course would be that my affair would be strictly platonic. I wrote a brief about her on the day McCain picked her as a running mate, but now I'm going to give a more thorough break down on the night she is to accept the republican vice presidential nomination.

Many say that she was not vetted appropriately or carefully enough, and now McCain's camp is supposedly 'reeling' from the recent news about Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant out of wedlock. Folks, this really is a non-issue, and a weak attempt to discredit her through her kids (it has nothing to do with her ability to lead, or run a government). The second big one that people say is that she's inexperienced. Guess what? She has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. None of them have held executive office. She has since 1992 (as both Council Member and Mayor of Wasilla, AK and as governor of Alaska for 2 years). The next way that people try to discredit her is by saying that she's neglecting her children and cannot be both a mom and a governor or Vice President. That is blatantly sexist and wrong. Does anyone question Obama's ability to be a father and President? 

But, something I do love about the recent ads, and counter-ads by both campaigns recently is that they are pitting Palin against Obama, rather than McCain against Obama, as if she were going to be President! I love it. In fact, I would vote for her as President over McCain, Obama, and most certainly Biden. 

(By the way, this is a picture of Sarah in Kuwait, visiting the troops, long before Obama did his bogus trip around the world - and the generals were impressed with her shooting accuracy)

Some of my friends and readers think that I like her because she's pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-drilling (energy independence), and supports this country's ability to defend itself (pro-military - not pro-war, because c'mon, no one is pro-war). And, my friends and readers would be mostly correct.  Except, strangely enough, the reason I most like Palin is because she's a mother of five. 

For me, that says it all. She is raising five kids, running the largest state in the union, dealing with international affairs (Russian and Canada both border Alaska, lest you forget), drives her kids to hockey games, and all the while is unabashedly imperfect. The best part about the attacks against her (her pregnant daughter, the state police scandal, her inexperience and small-towniness) is that they are the exact reasons people are attracted to her. She is one of us. That, and she'll kick the crap out of her own party when it's wrong. She shook up the old boys club, and ratted out a corruption ring with the Alaska's state oil revenue practices. She's a lady with chutzpah, cajones - or to be callously vulgar, but at the same time completely appropriate, she has balls.

Palin 2012.