I woke up early this morning. Difficult to wake up, when an entire day is staring me down; the only thing we want at such times is more minutes of sleep. I believe americans achieve 5 hours of sleep a night, on average. Most of us are dead tired when awaking, but getting up early, we certainly achieve some measure of competency.
Naps during the day, like cool, refreshing water, splashed against our face. It helps improve function, reduces the risk of heart disease, makes the sleeper calmer as well. It is strange, however, that we americans get less sleep, and yet waking up earlier often proves to energize instead of drain.
I do not mean that all people need to sleep less. Oversleeping has a marked effect on us, causing sluggishness, lost productivity, irritability. Getting not enough sleep, without siestas can cause the same reaction. We must get our sleep, but waking up early has it's advantages. I woke up early this morning. A grump. Yet I rose all the same, and as I walked out the door, hair neatly combed, my dirt-colored windbreaker sheilding my chest, I look up and see a sea of stars.
Driving to school, I get to hear the early morning show, and I fiddle the nob, turn the volume up. I eat a good, mexican breakfast. It helps.
And then, there are our dreams. We have dreams. Hardly think to wonder what they mean. Just dreams. And yet, the head of reasons to not get up is because we are rudely interrupted, not from our sleep, but from running fictive in our head. It is strange, that we always want to complete our dreams, but if we were to sleep longer, they still do not end.
Frued believed dreams were the unconcious way of telling us about our sexually repressed desires. Our incestuous motives and our wildest fantasies to ever come out of the bedroom. I do not agree, but with the idea that dreams are our own private musings, the minds resting and thinking things that we could never come up with while awake. Pay attention to your dreams, if not because they can be helpful, then simply because they are wonderful remnants of fatastic sides to ourselves, and our fascination with them can last a lifetime.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Ruled by Fear
The early days. The first british settlers landed in North America at plymouth rock; they built a settlement not to different from that of communist china. They might not have said it, but the collective was correct, and the collective was god.
But for the early pilgrims, the defining force behind their settlement and courage--was fear. Stranded in a new land, the natives were sons of the devil. The pilgrims were upon a holy hill, set up for all the world to see, and their failure was eminent unless they relied upon god to defeat the devil and his minions.
Look at the American Revolution. The British were the enemy. Look at world war I & II, and you shall see that we as americans were terrified of the Nazis. The Red Scare, as well.
It seems america can not function without an enemy to fight, and someone to fear and hate. Our entire history, after all has been structured after fighting our enemies. But what of other countries? Is it normal to fear, to hate, in order to unify a nation?
More importantly, we are running out of people to fear. Cocooned as we are on our own continent, it is not easy for anyone to invade or attack us. And if anyone did, they would swiftly be destroyed. In truth, terrorism is blown out of proportion, for the chances of another 9/11, statistically, never had any merit in the first place. The chances of having two, are less than miniscule. We would do better to ignore any Al Qaida organization and focus on outreach programs, donating support, encouraging democracy.
But will Al Qaida only grow stronger? It is doubtful. The truth is, Al Qaida is exactly similar to the united states; it is an organization that needs to hate somone, anyone, in order to stay unified, and if an enemy is no longer in sight, Al Qaida will quickly fall apart.
The same thing will happen with the United States.
But for the early pilgrims, the defining force behind their settlement and courage--was fear. Stranded in a new land, the natives were sons of the devil. The pilgrims were upon a holy hill, set up for all the world to see, and their failure was eminent unless they relied upon god to defeat the devil and his minions.
Look at the American Revolution. The British were the enemy. Look at world war I & II, and you shall see that we as americans were terrified of the Nazis. The Red Scare, as well.
It seems america can not function without an enemy to fight, and someone to fear and hate. Our entire history, after all has been structured after fighting our enemies. But what of other countries? Is it normal to fear, to hate, in order to unify a nation?
More importantly, we are running out of people to fear. Cocooned as we are on our own continent, it is not easy for anyone to invade or attack us. And if anyone did, they would swiftly be destroyed. In truth, terrorism is blown out of proportion, for the chances of another 9/11, statistically, never had any merit in the first place. The chances of having two, are less than miniscule. We would do better to ignore any Al Qaida organization and focus on outreach programs, donating support, encouraging democracy.
But will Al Qaida only grow stronger? It is doubtful. The truth is, Al Qaida is exactly similar to the united states; it is an organization that needs to hate somone, anyone, in order to stay unified, and if an enemy is no longer in sight, Al Qaida will quickly fall apart.
The same thing will happen with the United States.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Summation of Contemporary Times
The post-modern society is a hodge-podge of new ideas mixed with old. Our current situation denotes a completely different one from one thousand years ago, when the world was agrarian and farmers held the key to survival.
But now? Radical fundamentalism is clashing with Western Empicalism, and the whole world is gettting ready for the next transition of mankind. Even so, that is not what this post shall be about. Instead, we ask questions to understand ourselves. We ask questions to understand just how we got here, and only then can we know where we are headed.
* * *
It started with the industrial revolution. The enlightenment was a time of rational discourse and questioning new boundaries, where the majority of europeans completely rejected the church. Advances in mathematics arose. This was also around the time of the beginning of the American Colonies. The first types of industry were sowing houses, where women would work for hours at looms, creating cloth to sell and feed their family. The trick happened when the principles of motion were better understood. Thanks to Isaac Newton, we were able to harvest rivers and waterfalls. And we did.
The british created the first mechanized factories, powered by waterfalls which turned the large wheel out front. Suddenly, the amount of cloth the british were able to produce fell into the hundreds of tons. The cloth industry became highly profitable. The idea was sown, that machines could do our work much faster and more efficiently than we could.
The creation of semi-modern cloth mills was the key to the industrial revolution. But it wasn't the start of it. Miles away in france, enlightenment era thinkers were contemplating a new kind resource management, the likes of which the world had never seen. Laissez faire. At the time, many of the most important thinkers in france believed that resources had to be controlled from the top down. That was the way it had been for centuries, via the fuedal structure. Everything in the land belonged to the King, who was responsible for the well-being of his people.
There was a small minority, however, of emerging middle class. Around this time, the first modern businessmen began to appear, along with the mathematics to make it possible: accounting. They were dismissed as anomalies in the system. They would not last long, just a passing phenomenon.
Times changed however. The industrial revolution created such an abundance of resources that the emerging businessmen leaped at the chance. Entrepreuners, they became rich. It did not take long, but the industrial revolution was the start of modern commerce and trade, of which the massive amounts of wealth have been developed in countries that have become industrialized.
* * *
Along with capitalism, however, came socialism, the child of Karl Marx. Karl marx reviewed Capitalism and came to the conclusion that it abused and exploited the lower classes. This was because in previous fuedalism, class was extremely important. Marx looked at capitalism from the tints of feudalism, which was why he came to the conclusion of class struggle and such.
But capitalism is not like feudalism, and while there will always be the poor, it effectively erases class differences. The class barriers become much more fluid, and thus the poor may rise and the rich may fall. Socialism and Capitalism grew in influence, the two competing ideologies of the modern world.
* * *
World War II: Hitler had a vision of a new world order, ruled by the strong, where the weak did not exist. In theory, if there could be such a world, it undoubtedly would be atractive to the strong. In the 1940's, a war which ravaged all of Europe took place. And it ended with the unveiling of the most destructive weapon ever constructed. Now, the stakes are high, we possess the ability to end life on this planet. The world is a very dangerous place.
* * *
So what is the viewpoint of today's world? In the previous centuries, the western world achieved dominance, and know the asian countries, the countries that have been shit on all this time, want a slice of the pie. Some countries, like china, have decided that the way to gain respect in the international scene in to become an economic power. Others, like Iran, have chosen military strength.
In truth, however, the western countries have already given up war. There will never be another war between two industrialized nations again. This poses a problem for countries like Iran.
* * *
We also live in an age of Religious Fundamentalism vs. Athiestic thought. For the past centuries, there has been an uneasy tension between religion and science, and soon it will break out into all scale war. Pick a side, because one of them has to come out on top.
But now? Radical fundamentalism is clashing with Western Empicalism, and the whole world is gettting ready for the next transition of mankind. Even so, that is not what this post shall be about. Instead, we ask questions to understand ourselves. We ask questions to understand just how we got here, and only then can we know where we are headed.
* * *
It started with the industrial revolution. The enlightenment was a time of rational discourse and questioning new boundaries, where the majority of europeans completely rejected the church. Advances in mathematics arose. This was also around the time of the beginning of the American Colonies. The first types of industry were sowing houses, where women would work for hours at looms, creating cloth to sell and feed their family. The trick happened when the principles of motion were better understood. Thanks to Isaac Newton, we were able to harvest rivers and waterfalls. And we did.
The british created the first mechanized factories, powered by waterfalls which turned the large wheel out front. Suddenly, the amount of cloth the british were able to produce fell into the hundreds of tons. The cloth industry became highly profitable. The idea was sown, that machines could do our work much faster and more efficiently than we could.
The creation of semi-modern cloth mills was the key to the industrial revolution. But it wasn't the start of it. Miles away in france, enlightenment era thinkers were contemplating a new kind resource management, the likes of which the world had never seen. Laissez faire. At the time, many of the most important thinkers in france believed that resources had to be controlled from the top down. That was the way it had been for centuries, via the fuedal structure. Everything in the land belonged to the King, who was responsible for the well-being of his people.
There was a small minority, however, of emerging middle class. Around this time, the first modern businessmen began to appear, along with the mathematics to make it possible: accounting. They were dismissed as anomalies in the system. They would not last long, just a passing phenomenon.
Times changed however. The industrial revolution created such an abundance of resources that the emerging businessmen leaped at the chance. Entrepreuners, they became rich. It did not take long, but the industrial revolution was the start of modern commerce and trade, of which the massive amounts of wealth have been developed in countries that have become industrialized.
* * *
Along with capitalism, however, came socialism, the child of Karl Marx. Karl marx reviewed Capitalism and came to the conclusion that it abused and exploited the lower classes. This was because in previous fuedalism, class was extremely important. Marx looked at capitalism from the tints of feudalism, which was why he came to the conclusion of class struggle and such.
But capitalism is not like feudalism, and while there will always be the poor, it effectively erases class differences. The class barriers become much more fluid, and thus the poor may rise and the rich may fall. Socialism and Capitalism grew in influence, the two competing ideologies of the modern world.
* * *
World War II: Hitler had a vision of a new world order, ruled by the strong, where the weak did not exist. In theory, if there could be such a world, it undoubtedly would be atractive to the strong. In the 1940's, a war which ravaged all of Europe took place. And it ended with the unveiling of the most destructive weapon ever constructed. Now, the stakes are high, we possess the ability to end life on this planet. The world is a very dangerous place.
* * *
So what is the viewpoint of today's world? In the previous centuries, the western world achieved dominance, and know the asian countries, the countries that have been shit on all this time, want a slice of the pie. Some countries, like china, have decided that the way to gain respect in the international scene in to become an economic power. Others, like Iran, have chosen military strength.
In truth, however, the western countries have already given up war. There will never be another war between two industrialized nations again. This poses a problem for countries like Iran.
* * *
We also live in an age of Religious Fundamentalism vs. Athiestic thought. For the past centuries, there has been an uneasy tension between religion and science, and soon it will break out into all scale war. Pick a side, because one of them has to come out on top.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Vindictive Few
Small communities breed hatred; the vindictive few boil with resentment, and they plan. I speak of school shootings. A few weeks ago, National Public Radio aired a program analyzing the subject and the factors that create them.
It is true, one of the professors says, they happen in small suburban schools. The shooting is usually publicized in some way, and the shooter is almost always condemned by the majority of society.
The shooter is usually lonely, as was the case with virginia tech. He sits in the back of the school with his lunch strung over his arm, and his ratty torn jacket strewn over his shoulder. He sits on the curb, staring at the brick wall in front of him with intent eyes--and slowly places food in his mouth. After classes he goes back to his dorm and locks the door.
The shooter is always ostracised. He trips, faceplanting on cold tile. They laugh, strutting in polo shirts. The other kids carry on with their lives, ignorant of him. When he's not bullied, he is ignored. Still, regardless of the callousness of cliques and high school culture, he would never think of joining the crowd.
And as he puts the gun to her head, as she kneels at his feet. He asks her, in an almost calm sort of voice, "Do you believe in god?"
There is no God.
* * *
Just think, imagine if you will, how delicious their deaths are. And remember that it feels good to kill, when you are vindictive.
It is true, one of the professors says, they happen in small suburban schools. The shooting is usually publicized in some way, and the shooter is almost always condemned by the majority of society.
The shooter is usually lonely, as was the case with virginia tech. He sits in the back of the school with his lunch strung over his arm, and his ratty torn jacket strewn over his shoulder. He sits on the curb, staring at the brick wall in front of him with intent eyes--and slowly places food in his mouth. After classes he goes back to his dorm and locks the door.
The shooter is always ostracised. He trips, faceplanting on cold tile. They laugh, strutting in polo shirts. The other kids carry on with their lives, ignorant of him. When he's not bullied, he is ignored. Still, regardless of the callousness of cliques and high school culture, he would never think of joining the crowd.
And as he puts the gun to her head, as she kneels at his feet. He asks her, in an almost calm sort of voice, "Do you believe in god?"
There is no God.
* * *
Just think, imagine if you will, how delicious their deaths are. And remember that it feels good to kill, when you are vindictive.
Fuck You.
A liberal's voice. Not to be persuaded, to find open minds, to exchange ideas, and to create new realities by one's own responsibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
