Completely different:
Whistler: "Your majesty is like a stream of bat's piss."
(all): "What?!"
Shaw: "I-I-I meant that your majesty shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark!"
Monty Python are not remembered as comedic geniuses for no reason. Recently I have been reminding myself of that; If I can figure out a Halloween party to go to, I will probably dress up as Cardinal Ximenez; for sure, nobody would expect it.
There are a few things going on of late worth mentioning; my struggle for self diagnosis (or: My fight with the night), the presidential debates, and my frequent forays into the land of the hip. For the sake of adequate blockquote spacing, they will be discussed in that order.
I can't really figure out if I have a real (read: medical) problem with sleep, or if I am just good at fooling myself, or what it is. I can, however, present you (and myself) with the following facts:
-
95% of the time, it takes me over an hour to fall asleep
-
I find it fairly easy to stay up for over 20 hours
-
left to my own devices, I live on 28 hour days (10 sleep, 18 awake)
-
I find it easy to convince myself that 5 hours is "enough"
-
I find it almost impossible to sleep before midnight
-
I fidget constantly (knee shaking, hand wringing, etc.)
-
I almost always set overly lofty goals and get heavily dissapointed for not meeting them
I feel that I might have some manner of anxiety problems, which explains fidgeting and lack of sleep, but the problem is that they never improve, regardless of my situation. If I am incredibly anxious, I will stay up later; when I do not conciously feel anything, the condition doesn't really improve.
The other explanation (in the scenario where there is actually something wrong) is that I have some kind of mild insomnia and that my difficulties with this somehow create my neurosis. Of course, I might be fine in which case I basically lack any and all self control and should really make a conscious effort to fix things. Still this pattern of behavior has been extremely difficult for me to deal with lately; and I've known about it and tried to understand it for the better part of 10 years with little or no success.
On the subject of presidential debates (!), I watched the first two and (regretfully) only the last 40 minutes of the third one. Before the debates had started, I was effectively sick and tired of the whole process; did not care one bit for either Bush or Kerry, and in fact was so turned off by the innability to enact any progressive change when in the past 4 years it has been so obviously necessary that I had stopped reading even my usual (quite liberal) stops.
I knew plenty why I and nobody I know should be voting for Bush: he's incompetent, dangerous, quick to wage war and equally quick to erode civil rights. But why bother with Kerry? Why bother in an election between two coorperation friendly old-money billionaires?
The only thing I knew about Kerry before the debates was that having ties to the ketchup industry seemed like it would ammount to less sinister actions than having a cabinet full of Big Oil Barons (tm). I doubt Theressa would be pushing for war in New Jersey to liberate its people, basing economic questions on the ability to take over the famous Jersey tomato fields.
After the debates, I suppose I know a little more about Kerry. I know that, while he soundly won the first and last debate, many of his complaints about Bush were not that his policy initiatives were flawed (which I believe they were), but that they were underfunded. It seems that liberals in this country no longer believe that our ideals are fit enough for mainstream policy; that in order to win against conservatives, they (we?) must claim to be able to better administer conservative plans rather than offering more traditionally liberal counter-plans.
Not to blow steam without examples, take the No Child Left Behind act. The act didn't work; it leaves more and more children behind, and not only that but oddly (as the children left behind are high school dropouts who are encouraged to drop out to increase high school scores) enough it puts these children that are left behind beyond the elaborate testing mechanism (which by the by made George's brother Neil profit handsomly) that the act itself created. Why, then, can it only be argued that the act failed because it was underfunded? Why can't you pose the logical thought that inflicting rigorous testing standards on understaffed schools is a mistake and the money is better spent on teachers and books?
The Clear Skies Act, or whatever (to quote Kerry) Orwellian name Bush and his cronies came up with (most likely in order to disparage political opposition; Kerry voted against the clear skies act? He is not in favor of clear skies?!) for their environmental plan, is broken. Why argue that it is underfunded or ignored? Why not just say it is stupid and broken? You do not protect swampland by changing the definition of swampland to include that which is not swampland; you do not, contrary to what the president thinks, protect forests by cutting them down. You do not liberate Iraqi's (which of course was not even the reason to invade, anyway) by killing a great number of them.
I found that this was a disturbing trend in the debate; that liberal ideologies were not used to fight conservative ones, instead opting to point out the presidents gross inneptitude and claim that the plans would work under different stewardship. What was I supposed to get out of this? That if I like Bush but concede he is an imbecile, I could just vote for Kerry?
What about those of us; like what I am only assuming was a large portion of the 1 million people who were with me on the streets of New York City on the ides of February a few years ago; who think that these policies are just bad? You know; maybe we are not down with the doctrine of preemption, or an ill defined, mostly unilateral global war. Maybe we'd rather have higher paid teachers and text books that feature presidents beyond Nixon than standardized tests? Maybe we want accountability and a working Superfund rather than weak, volluntary coorperate polluter cleanup programs.
What the conservatives, but more precisely the handlers in the Republican Party, have managed to do is create a political climate in which not voting for their initiatives is considered unpatriotic bordering on treason; worthy of public ridicule and scorn. They've made public ridicule and scorn of their own policies taboo; all the while being reclusive in their responsibility to report to their boss, the average citizen of the United States. In this kind of climate, this "either with us or against us" mire, they were able to ensnare many a spineless democratic senator; and now that they've all voted together for what have turned out, even in this tightly controlled media, to be widely held as idiotic initiatives; they have to argue in favor of them for fear of being called a flip-flopper.
What we need is strong resolve? Steadfast, resolute, principled leadership? Who the fuck made those a presidential requirements? A group of people who would most definitely be destroyed if it was suggested that a good leader be flexible and be able to adapt to different situations and new information; be able to incorperate the views of those who do not agree with them into their own, or to weigh all viewpoints in a discussion before making a decision.
Enough of my political ranting though; I end with recommended listening and a most flattering (and coincidentally funny) quote:
(Screen Name Hidden To Protect The Guilty)
(02:08:13) Christian Tsuraun: your stylishness is a plague
(02:08:31) Christian Tsuraun: I've gotten two people addicted to woxy
(02:08:40) Christian Tsuraun: if they get two people addicted in turn
(02:08:45) Christian Tsuraun: you know the math
(02:09:08) Christian Tsuraun: you're in danger of becoming mainstream at this rate ^_^
Recently, I have reached out to people in an effort to get them to listen to the Woxy (internet) radio station; and it seems that people are actually listening. I'll have to find some utterly unlikeable music to attach myself to soon.