________

Site Feed

 
I'm going to paraphrase some stuff that came out in conversation at work yesterday. It describes my current sentiments, but the folks who constructed the imagery were describing themselves before yesterday's 14 inning marathon.

It's dark and windy in my heart, yet off in the distance I can faintly make out the spark of some guy trying to light a candle of hope. It's not there yet, but I know that if the sox win tonight that candle will burn. It will become a demented lighthouse guiding me onto a reef and the inevitable heartbreak.

posted by Ben at (0) comments 6:46 PM

 
I can't just keep plucking an open e on the ones of down with disease procrastinating, anesthetizing. Everything moves so slow... moves so fast. I complain about long hours at work, yet find little satisfaction or productivity. Of course I have little intention or ability to change my scenery. I just paid of my student loans and have little excess money. I need to save some cash now for down payments and the like. Of course, with my cars impending death - I need to squirrel money away for that too. So many expenses, so few resources.

Thinking of the car - I haven't written since I was rear ended on rt 3. I suffered three collisions during the course of my accident. My neck is still sore, but i went to my doctor today and learned some exercises. Maybe they will help.

This weekend was musically intense with two concerts. the Presidents of the USA rocked the paradise on Friday playing a set consisting of older material with a few new tunes. The guitar (3 string) player didn't seem to be an original member, but he had fun anyway. The openers were also decent. The Washington Social club was a purchasable pop-punk band with an attractive and talented bass player. Chicks with 4 strings rule.

Critters Bugging provided a more stimulating show. They were a 4 piece marching band of jazz weirdness. Skerik was ticked at the lack of intendance, or wild enthusiasm. He gave a loud and intoxicated chick $10 for more drinks. That was amusing - although bordering irresponsible. Whatever - he's skerik. Sensibility didn't cause him to develop insane saxophonics, or get him to hangout with Mike Dillon. The percussive madman was at it again - playing shirtless, but with a brain bucket. Dillon knows his priorities. I could also say some positive things about bass player Brad Houser, but my review would quickly wander. There was too much talent on stage.

Lottery, how can I win thee without wasting money on a ticket?
posted by Ben at (0) comments 9:03 PM

 
By some amazing act of coincident timing, this email regarding my Peaches website was at the top of a bunch of hotmail spam.

Obviously you've never experienced true freedom. Let me tell you a story. When I was small my brother and I found 3 Starling baby birds that were thrown out of their nests...unable to take care for themselves. Mom found a medium size cardboard box and lined it with twigs and straw. We placed the small birds inside and took the box into the basement. Every morning, noon and evening we found worms and bugs to feed the helpless creatures. Soon they trusted us and would hold their mouths open wide waiting for us to drop in the goodies. This went on for many days. As the birds grew, they began to hop out of the box, but still couldn't fly. This was dangerous so we found a screen and placed it on top of the box. We allowed them to hop out while we were present so as to keep a watchful eye as to where they would venture. After all, we didn't want to lose them. We watched as they flopped their wings getting the strength to fly one day. Though they became used to the screen above them and looked forward to a steady handout, we knew they would be thwarted if they were not allowed to make their own choices. I forgot to mention that we also had an adorable Cocker Spaniel by the name of Penny. Cocker Spaniels, as you know, are bird dogs. We took the box in and out of the basement so they could have fresh air during the day and warmth at night. Well at night when we brought the box into the basement, Penny would sniff in curosity at the very object she was instinctively geared to hunt. But because we admonished her to only take her instincts so far, she obediently behaved.
One evening, after collecting bugs, we went to the basement and picked the screen up to feed our three little friends they flew from their resting place and began a low circle around the basement with Penny looking on. Suddenly, much to our amazement, one bird perched itself on the back of our skiddish dog...then another one flew to perch itself. "Carefull.." Mother admonished Penny. I can still see Penny today as she carefully went up the basement steps and toward the back door. We knew the time had come to allow the birds to make their own choice. It was then we opened the back door, allowing them the freedom they deserved. Mom, my brother and I watched as the shiny black birds soared upward. Penny stood beside us rather bewildered. "Will they come back?" My brother asked. "I don't know...we'll have to wait and see." Mom answered. Yes, for a few days we saw them hover high above us in the trees where they belonged and then they were gone. We had provided care to give them every chance to be what they were meant to be...then we let them go. Loving freedom is in the heart of every living creature. Love is giving every living creature the chance to be free. Communisim is a method of controlling others and their right to be free. Right now, I bet you wish you could really be free and not feel that others should be controlled by a failed system. A system that kills the creativity and love of life in the hearts of all who are suppressed by it.
Hopefully you'll catch the vision and desire freedom for yourself, and then you'll allow others to be free.
Think about it.
A Friend


This is my response. From time to time, I enjoy replying to internet weirdness.

Thank you for your interest in my website. The piece that I feel that you are responding to was written when I was in high school, applying Marxist analytical techniques to critique a very silly song. The use of the toolset does not imply a belief or agreement in the conclusions of Engels and Marx. I simply like their methodology. Economic forces have significant impact on history.

I could easily apply objectivist principles to derive an interpretation. However, I can't imagine it would be all that interesting, and would require much more effort. A three-chord rock song isn't a sufficiently grandiose endeavor to allow easy identification of true creativity and intellectual work product that is overly derivative and complacent. If I could escape the conundrum, of whether the distorted but poorly strung guitars were an acceptable use of contemporary technology, my interpretation of the lyrics would seem secondary and dull. I would simply paint a rather loathsome critique of the narrator's character.

Of course, using those tools wouldn't indicate that I believed and wholly agreed with them. In fact, I find that Rand's philosophy is almost as flawed as the Marxism she countered. Ironically, she and Marx have similar fallacies in that their idealized systems are based upon an incorrect and unobtainable model for human behavior. I haven't scrawled out a Unified Political Theory that allows freedom and codependency.

Thanks for your concern,

Ben

posted by Ben at (0) comments 8:39 PM

 
Dear Fox25,

While I understand that most area football fans would tune into today's patriots game on CBS instead of any NFC coverage that you choose to provide. As a green bay Packers fan, I was hoping that you would choose to broadcast the Packers - Giants game. I even thought that there was a pretty good chance that I'd get to see it as your broadcast area includes a number of secondary markets for NY teams.

If you selected a different game to broadcast, I would have been disappointed but understood. However, your choice to air reruns of Dharma and Greg simply dumbfounds me. You showed a Football pre-game show from noon to 1 and decided to air sappy syndicated TV. I don't understand.

Ben
posted by Ben at (0) comments 2:28 PM

 
This is a lengthy, and meandering response to Mark's views on the upcoming election. It's just a wee bit too long for aim.

Instant Run Off Elections would effectively eliminate the primary process and destabilize political parties. It's interesting, and would provide an opportunity for more extreme differences in opinion. Given the bland, and issue-ignorant campaign we see this time around, a reorganization of the political process might be necessary. however, I don't believe that this notion has much support outside of fringe parties and the internet. While I can see your criticisms of Bush's "core republicanism", I don't think you can blame that on Bush. Gingrich's neo-con revolution during the Clinton Era brought the religious right to power.

While Goldwater republicanism is better aligned with my New Hampshire roots, I can't fault the religious right for some of its social agenda. They are entitled to have religiously based ideas of socially correct behavior. At times, I feel that the left's idea of tolerance and diversity accepts only permissiveness. The left is too quick to mock the strongly religious as crazy. Why can’t they be permitted and encouraged to hold traditional views of family and marriage? How does that conflict with the human rights of others? A belief that homosexuality is not permitted by a person’s god, does not mean that they must act as a militant fundamentalist to strike it out.

I have no issue with homosexuality. I support equal rights for homosexuals, however, I find the notion of “gay marriage” to be ludicrous. Marriage has been a religious institution for centuries. It is a spiritual and social construct designed to encourage reproduction within an environment that provides support for children.

One may argue that the development of effective contraceptives has provided the opportunity to decouple sexual activity from monogamous and sanctified relationships. This decoupling has left people with a confused notion of marriage, increased divorce rates, and opened the door for talk of gay marriage.

The free love movement never stopped to think about the philosophical implications of it’s own agenda. Today, we’re left wrestling with the fundamental consequence of the sexual revolution. We need to evaluate and concretely define the notion of marriage and establish some understanding of the long-term impact of sexual choices. There are few absolutes in this realm.

One problem faced by the conservatives is that there has been no official political or religious doctrine that explicitly defines marriage and explains why the institution is fundamental to our society. The concept of marriage is anthropologically universal. While some definitions change with cultures, the institution has always been between a man and one or more women. Historically has been tied to reproduction. In fact, some African and native American cultures supported youthful promiscuity as a “try before you buy” fertility check. However, once the seed was sown, marriage was inevitable.

“Gay Marriages” have nothing to do with reproduction. There is no potential for natural progeny. The movement grounds itself on some legitimate qualms, and some highly questionable ideas. The first notion presupposes that homosexuals are barred from marriage. This is untrue. While sexual consummation is presupposed, it is not necessarily a requirement of marriage (although it is necessary to fulfill the reproductive potential of such a union).

The movement’s legitimate qualms are that the government offers married couples specific legal rights and privileges which homosexual couples are denied. This situation is unjust, and requires immediate remedy. However, “gay marriage” is a short sighted and ill-conceived solution. There is no need to redefine an institution that has such a strong religious foundation – disenfranchising millions of Americans that freely choose to believe in heterosexual marriage.

To government needs to separate its programs from the religious entity and support civil unions which would be defined so as to support long-term codependency.

That was a long winded tirade….

Mark My thoughts on the election

1)GW Bush – I disagree with many of bush’ programs. The Patriot act will be thrown out by the courts. In fact, I think that creating an overly aggressive piece of legislation was the correct response to terrorism. The only way to be certain that we exhaust no opportunity to capture our enemies is to cross the line and allow the noble system of checks and balances to appropriately define line between legitimate and unjust action. Not voting for Bush over the patriot act is silly. The will be no Patriot act II, and no candidate will repeal it.

2) J. Kerry – The “I’m Not Bush” campaign is wearing thin. If Kerry was interested in playing his ideological hand instead of standing on a generic centrist democrat platform, I might be interested. However, Kerry has a track record as one of the nation’s most liberal senators – even when he was flip flopping. I see no reason for Kerry to have abandoned his extreme liberalism and deference to European notions of international relations.

3) Fringe Parties: A vote for any fringe party candidate is a vote for Bush.

posted by Ben at (47) comments 5:54 PM