Hello again.
Because of previous attention paid to my posts on the politico-economic situation (both in support and in contempt), I have decided to share my thoughts and the economic philosphy of the Austrian School. I expect at least increased interest in my blog here (though, like anything new, it will undoubtedly fall off exponentially) and perhaps even a greater appreciation of my own views. (I am not wishing praise. No. Appreciation, as in, awareness, not admiration.) I have even drawn fire from certain persons, on my naivete and my apparent lack of understanding. And while I am in no position to declare myself "educated" or "expert" (seeing as I have only begun to educate myself in economic thought), I am in a fitting position to defend my position and redefine it for clarity and logical following.
It is here, then, where I begin.
Perhaps I was too simple in my post entitled about "the bailout business." Actually, I am quite sure that I did not put forward my best foot. Pulling back my left, then, and extending my right in a montrous stride, I will try to lay out a reasonable (and logically argued) defense of my previous (and current) position.
Why is it still important? Because it is still happening.
Because the intellectual status quo still believes in it.
Because such economic arguments are almost always horrendously illogical and false.
Because our future relies on it.
Because I believe it is.
I think that the best way to approach any problem, a problem of action, as it is, is to analyze it. No brainer. But what many 'economists' fail to do is respect history, both of the current problem and of the kind you find in real history books (not the crap they shovel into schools). History, then.
As I understand it, our current problem is a massive downturn of the classic, recurring business cycle. In such a cycle, the economy, spurred by one thing or another (apparently), grows tremendously in GDP and size; our stocks go up, home values soar, and the public (but especially bankers) are happy. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the economy always crashes. Why does this happen? For decades after these cycles began in the late 1800s (for before crashes could always be easily attributed to war, drought, etc.), economists were at a general loss. Many blamed the free market. Some looked elsewhere. However, one who did not was John Maynard Keynes. Pressured by the blossoming statism of his time, or perhaps blinded by arrogance, Keynes concluded that the business cycle of boom and bust must be a natural characteristic of the free market. He then proceeded to back up this theory with his economics. I will not spend too much time in a Keynes-tirate, but I will at least explain all the false assumptions he made and present the clear solution to this original problem of the business cycle.
First of all, Keynes made the assumption that any problem in the economy must originate in the market. While many do, it is pure silliness to dismiss the role of government. Especially at his time, when he was at the lead of government expansion, in both the U.K. and the U.S. It is quite easily seen that, in a free market, fluctuating with supply, demand, and changing interets, that certain sectors or industries could fail, even suddenly. The problem was that ALL the sectors were falling during a recession, or at least a great many of them. There is simply no way that investors and businesses in so many sectors could all make the same mistakes at the same time. It is, after all, the job of a business economist to predict! Anyway, back to the business cycle. A very clear explanation can be had when one studies money, capital, banking, and government's role in economic policy.
A "boom," as we call the artificial growth of a manipulated economy, begins always with the government. The production of money is under the control of an omnipotent organization which is largely responsible for the economic ruin of the twentieth century: the Federal Reserve. The Fed essentially gives the banks free reign to produce money ad lib, without regard to deposits, through the money multiplier effect of fractional reserve banking. Needless to say, this grossly inflates the money supply. Now, in a boom period, this new money is taken by the banks for investment. Most of this investment is overinvestment, and most of it is malinvestment. This is because all traditional economic predictors have been distorted by the creation of new money. Businesses see demand where there is none and invest under false confidence. This can go on for years.
Eventually, the boom stops; the money supply stops expanding and the market begins to realize what has happened. Naturally, the market will adjust back to an equilibrium state, where the consumer investment finds peace with capital investment. At this point, there is far to much production capacity, especially in the malinvested sectors, and resources must be reallocated. Left alone, it would happen quickly and dramatically. The false economy will adjust back down to the actual levels of market demand and the economy could continue on in peace. Unfortunately, because those of the Keynesian type see the business cycle as a market characteristic, they see the need to "fix" the recession. Apparently, they do not see the recession, depression, whatever as THE fix.
And so we get to our current crisis. Bailouts. For the homeowner who must go into foreclosure, it is unfortunate. But unfortunate events do not dictate economic reality. Contract law requires you to default the property to the lender; your loan was simply a misallocation, a malinvestment, perhaps. If it was not, then blame the bank we must for their incredibly stupid actions. But I do not see how it is the bank's fault that you cannot pay, so give it up. For the banks, seriously, grow up and get real economists in your ranks. Economics is far more than jus applied mathematics (second rate anyway if we look at the results). For the companies so desparately begging the American public, who have been systematically robbed for almost a century, for money, go to hell. There should be not a penny of public money going to the failed business policies of a decade. For the laborers who will inevitably be laid off in this ensuing mess, you will find new jobs. It may be completely different from what you currently do, but it is only the economy adjusting to where it wants to be. You, too,have been a misallocatied resource these past years. Obviously, no one required your services, or the company you worked for would not have tanked.
To appease the loquatic among us, I can address a more "pragmatic" side to this issue. I have been accused of being too idealogic or naive in my analysis of this crisis. Rest assured, I realize the implications of taking this position. The economy will ineveitably tank. But our general wealth will not decrease. Wealth is capital and production, not money or stock numbers. Those are inflated by the boom and killed by the bust; real production and investment in capital cannot be so easily reversed. Too, there is the typical "Krugman attack," as I have termed it, in which the consumer-producer model is brought in for discussion. "If people stop spending (as they will definitely readjust their spending), then more jobs are going to be lost and the economy will fall into an endless cycle of doom!" Paul Krugman, himself a Nobel Laureate (apparently undeserving), has levied this very claim. It is, however, a collossul misunderstanding of the time aspect of economics. The economy is not static, it always must be considered with the perspective of time, the future. If people hold back on spending now, that is a choice to spend in the FUTURE, not a choice to not spend. This is an economic prediction on the part of the consumer, who apparently feels the need for saving for future purchases or investments. If people are layed off in a certain industry, the market should compensate by predicting the future demand of the consumer. Thus, human resources will be redirected to the new sector. It is very simple.
On purely emotional grounds, yes, this theory is harsh, maybe even cruel, but economics should not allow for distributive justice. Laborers should have a right to work, but they do not have a right to work in the job in which they are currently. When enterprises fail, they must fail. Society calls for such justice of responsibiltity. Furthermore, it is of no use to waste capital, human or otherwise, on failing, unwanted businesses. Better prop up the services and industries that the market desires. And any government aid is special interest, and therefore immoral. Why not aid to the farmers? Why not aid to so-and-so? It is nothing but theft. Even if it is created money.
Which brings me back to the Fed. Just kill it already. That organization, and its cohort of criminals, from Greenspan to Bernanke, should be locked in prison, and the key thrown away. They have caused untold numbers of recessions in the U.S. and around the world, catered to the special interests of government and corporations for decades, and stolen laughing the money and wealth of Americans everywhere. That the Fed still operates is a testament to the embarassing state the USA is in today. We are truly a nation of sheep.
Certainly this post has bored most anyone to death by now. And with my explanation powers, you were probably better off just picking up a book, anyway. But I felt the need to reassert my position, and define it more clearly. If I have not yet satisfied you, please, do ask questions and beat my illogic to a bloody demise if noted. If I have satisfied something within you, I hope it was the appetite of your love of liberty, because only if you stand up against the daily atrocities in our nation can anything ever be solved.
Again, I really would like all the hate mail that you can tolerate wasting your time on.
Sincerely,
Brandon
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Bailout Business (and other miscellaneous topics)
Good evening,
So although I promised I would talk about the road forward, this post is much more than just that. Do not worry; I'll get to that. But I'd first like to talk about books I've been reading as of late.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I'll start with something interesting: Nietszche. I am currently working my way through his On the Genealogy of Morals, and, although I'm sure I can't properly understand it page for page, I absolutely enjoy it. Nietszche's logic is so definite (it is rare to get lost in his prose), his breadth of knowledge so expansive (his subjects of choice, of course, include classical philology), his analytic prowess so spectacular (I find myself giddy with excitement), and his humor so unapologetically cynical (just matching myself), that the only thing preventing me from reading more quickly is my general sloth. And that is too bad. Imagine if I could read a book a day, or at least every two days! By now, I'd be done with Nietszche, past criticizing Kant, through with Camus, and on my way to writing my own book! But seriously, it is an infintely interesting book to read. I should go back and read Beyond Good and Evil, but my interests are still too sporadic too focus in on him for too long a period of time. I'm not writing a paper on existentialism, really.
Just to think aloud for a bit. The first essay in the book, "Good and Evil; Good and Bad," explains how Nietszche sees two distinct moralities in the history of man. He sees the classical "master" morality and the reactionary "slave" morality of Judeo-Christianity. Obviously, he condemns the "slave" morality of the past thousands of years, but such a move is still working within me. Is assertion of oneself bad? Is humility and sacrifice good? If the power of Christianity lies in the crucifixion, willing on His part, of Jesus, God, is such a sacrifice something really to strive for? Nietszche despises such "slave" thinking. He sees it as cowardly and unbefitting of the greatness of man. I think ultimately he seeks to raise up all of humanity to a higher moral standard. Indeed, his studies in morality were partly an attempt to replace Judeo-Christian values with more empiracal or true ones, considering what he saw as the death of God in our society. His morality seeks to do that.
As I said before, I'm still reading, so my ideas are probably really rough. Maybe I'll comment on it later on when I finish, but, for now, that's my understanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side note: SO DO READ The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne. IT IS THE FUNNIEST BOOK I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE OF READING.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 2nd quarter (yes, some time age), I read Thomas Pynchon's Slow Learner. A collection of five short stories from his early years of writing (four of the five while he was still enrolled at Cornell University), it is an excellent fictional read. For any familiar with Pynchon's style, you can almost see it developing here over the course of the book. I didn't take to all the stories; "The Small Rain" was good, "Low-Lands" was OK, "Entropy" was good, "Under the Rose" was excellent, and "The Secret Integration" was very good. My fave is obviosly "Under the Rose," a story about facing the uncontrollable forces of history, coming to terms with oneself, and living in anonymous love for others (i.e.: Porpentine loves "humanity," though can't love individual persons). The characters are realistic, humorous, and well developed for the length of the story, the setting and plot is exciting, and the language and style classic Pynchon -- intelligent, allusiatory (is this a word?), and memorable. This is the second book by Pynchon I have actually read (though the third I own). Some day I will dig up the courage to read Gravity's Rainbow, a massively intimidating masterpiece that has since conquered me twice, each time before I was 50 pages in. :( It has been almost a year now since then, so I may just find the time. Until then, I encouage Pynchon reading whole-heartedly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I've bored you with my reading interests, I'll move on the topics of promise. First, bailout business (as the title suggests).
To "bail out" a private corporation in the United States is nothing short of criminal. America was founded on free market principles. This means that government should not interfere in the economic business of the people. (I will put aside all other U.S. anti-capitalist atrocities, for the time being.) This I will defend until the end: freedom. And freedom of economics is most fundamental of all.
Even though one could argue that this current financial (turning systemic) crisis was actually caused by government policy, I will (for argument's sake) enter at the point of "corporate salvation." AIG needs money. BoA needs money. GM, Ford, Chrysler need money. Heck, I need money. "But our company is critical to the stability of the U.S. economy," they tell me. "We employ 200,000 workers in central Michigan." Well . . . you should have thought of that 5 years ago, 10 years ago!
We must first see the situation for what it is: recession. There, I said it. Now that we know what we have, let's try and figure out where it came from. "Where it came from?!" "Why do we need to know that? Let's just fix it, already!" personally, I would rather not have experiments performed on the economy when people's lives are at stake. Let's actually do the right thing first. The right thing. That is, what is right. Get it? Now what works, not what saves homeowners, ro businesses, or my seat in congress. The right thing. Is it right for the mob to take your money at gunpoint, see how they want to use it, and invest in companies that, not only serve a special interest in the economy, but actually are founded are terrible business models? I guess this is where we either agree or disagree.
Disagree-ers? What do you have to say? You want MY MONEY, the FRUITS OF MY LABOR, put malinvested in the stocks of your best-friend's corporation? Do you think that YOU know better than the market? There is a reason why that company (AIG, GM, etc.) should fail: OBVIOUSLY no one wants it! Otherwise, they wouldn't be having money problems. Let it go. The market is yelling, "LET IT GO!" Have our money invested as we want it, in education, in food, in fuel, in a new house (that we can afford :) ), in a car, or in another company. Maybe we'll just hold it up in our homes, under our beds, for a while. So what, it's still in the system; it's just not in use at the moment. Why don't you find somewhere for it, the money in existance now, to go, instead of dreaming up new money for people to spend elsewhere. Stop the madness! Stop the madness! Stop the madness!
GM must not be bailed out. GM will be bailed out.
We must not "create" another trillion dollars this year. It's done.
The United States must not yield to international pressures (especially from Sarkozy). Obama loves the French.
America is the greatest capitalistic nation on earth. America is no longer capitalistic.
I love America. I hate America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you work on an essay assignment 10 minutes a day, it will be easily finished by the time the due date arrives.
If you work on your college applications 10 minutes a day, you'd be finished by May of your Junior year.
THAT, my friends, is the advice of the week.
So, yes, I have been working for weeks on my apps. No, I am not finished. I won't go through the laundry list of places I'm applying to, though I do say that the nerves are rattling. My apps aren't in, the deadline's a month away, and I have to wait months to hear anything. If anything, this is a great reason not to go to college and just work your way up to VP of Starbucks from the cashier's position.
All in all, though, I enjoy my application. It's tedious, infuriating, and mind-numbing. I hate my days (and can't sleep at night). I don't write about myself well. I suck at the whole interview-thing. I'm not good at meeting deadlines. I procrastinate (even on that which I should never!). And yet, I am learning a great deal about myself, and so I relish each new day of work.
I don't think colleges really care about letting people in. The apps are there as another learning experience, as much as math tests, finals, and research papers. With so many questions, and essays which force you to think about yourself, the application is the perfect learning tool. I won't be surprised if they start using it in classrooms down to the fifth grade as an exercise in maturity.
Of course, I guess I am wasting time that could be used for applications by maintaining this blog, but, eh, so what.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever watch Ovation! channel?
I don't usually, but this weekend were two very good documentaries on two very good architects. I guess this appeals mostly to me (but what on this blog doesn't). The two were on I.M. Pei and Daniel Libeskind, American architects of foreign birth that have revolutionized the world or architecture. I.M. Pei, of course, has done famous buildings as the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong and the renovation to The Louvre Museum. He is certainly one of my favorite architects. Daniel Libeskind, while his works are less known (at least to me), was presented awesomely in the program. You should especially check out the Jewish Museum, Berlin, as it is amazing in the story it tells just as a building.
Blah, blah, blah. architecture is difficult to talk about. It's too visual and sensual.
Some small photos, then.
First. The Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong
Second. The Jewish Museum, Berlin
I have to say, I can't wait to tour the world and be able to stand inside and touch all the remarkable structures I can only see in pictures today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this will do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To close my article today, I think I will make a short observation of my surroundings, to bring you into my life a little (because honestly my posts are often way too political).
I'm lying sideways on my bed, legs awkwardly dropped like a dead weight, head crooked to the left, arms stretching to let my fingers find the noisy keys of my computer. It hums noisily, too, as it, annoyed by the heat in the room (our heater's on for the first night tonight) tries to cool down with its internal fan. Down at my legs, there is a consicuous sucking, licking sound. Only my cat, Shasha, as she cleans up for the fourth time tonight, body contorted as if in Cirque du Soleil's Saltimbanco performance, one leg high overhead resembling a derigible, seemingly swaying in the wind. I look up from the computer screen, at my room of five years, to the darkly stained bookshelves (in my mind, only, emburdened by the massive weight of too many books). Overhead, an insect buzzes frantically, a stupid fly, I think. My window is closed. It will die tonight. My room, all-in-all, is messy, clothes thrown about, telling the story of the past week: jeans, sweatshirt, UT shirt, khakis, pajama pants, white tee, dirty socks, underwear. Sometimes I wish I didn't have a TV in my room. Like now. It looks really stupid when not turned to a good show, like Top Gear. The corner of the room, where all my windows are, is empty and dark, my paintings only shadows on the wall, the outdoor night hidden behind the glare off the glass. And still I'm lying on my bed, really waiting to finish writing so I can get to sleep. Stupid. I still haven't finished by chemistry lab report.
Brandon
So although I promised I would talk about the road forward, this post is much more than just that. Do not worry; I'll get to that. But I'd first like to talk about books I've been reading as of late.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I'll start with something interesting: Nietszche. I am currently working my way through his On the Genealogy of Morals, and, although I'm sure I can't properly understand it page for page, I absolutely enjoy it. Nietszche's logic is so definite (it is rare to get lost in his prose), his breadth of knowledge so expansive (his subjects of choice, of course, include classical philology), his analytic prowess so spectacular (I find myself giddy with excitement), and his humor so unapologetically cynical (just matching myself), that the only thing preventing me from reading more quickly is my general sloth. And that is too bad. Imagine if I could read a book a day, or at least every two days! By now, I'd be done with Nietszche, past criticizing Kant, through with Camus, and on my way to writing my own book! But seriously, it is an infintely interesting book to read. I should go back and read Beyond Good and Evil, but my interests are still too sporadic too focus in on him for too long a period of time. I'm not writing a paper on existentialism, really.
Just to think aloud for a bit. The first essay in the book, "Good and Evil; Good and Bad," explains how Nietszche sees two distinct moralities in the history of man. He sees the classical "master" morality and the reactionary "slave" morality of Judeo-Christianity. Obviously, he condemns the "slave" morality of the past thousands of years, but such a move is still working within me. Is assertion of oneself bad? Is humility and sacrifice good? If the power of Christianity lies in the crucifixion, willing on His part, of Jesus, God, is such a sacrifice something really to strive for? Nietszche despises such "slave" thinking. He sees it as cowardly and unbefitting of the greatness of man. I think ultimately he seeks to raise up all of humanity to a higher moral standard. Indeed, his studies in morality were partly an attempt to replace Judeo-Christian values with more empiracal or true ones, considering what he saw as the death of God in our society. His morality seeks to do that.
As I said before, I'm still reading, so my ideas are probably really rough. Maybe I'll comment on it later on when I finish, but, for now, that's my understanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side note: SO DO READ The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne. IT IS THE FUNNIEST BOOK I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE OF READING.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 2nd quarter (yes, some time age), I read Thomas Pynchon's Slow Learner. A collection of five short stories from his early years of writing (four of the five while he was still enrolled at Cornell University), it is an excellent fictional read. For any familiar with Pynchon's style, you can almost see it developing here over the course of the book. I didn't take to all the stories; "The Small Rain" was good, "Low-Lands" was OK, "Entropy" was good, "Under the Rose" was excellent, and "The Secret Integration" was very good. My fave is obviosly "Under the Rose," a story about facing the uncontrollable forces of history, coming to terms with oneself, and living in anonymous love for others (i.e.: Porpentine loves "humanity," though can't love individual persons). The characters are realistic, humorous, and well developed for the length of the story, the setting and plot is exciting, and the language and style classic Pynchon -- intelligent, allusiatory (is this a word?), and memorable. This is the second book by Pynchon I have actually read (though the third I own). Some day I will dig up the courage to read Gravity's Rainbow, a massively intimidating masterpiece that has since conquered me twice, each time before I was 50 pages in. :( It has been almost a year now since then, so I may just find the time. Until then, I encouage Pynchon reading whole-heartedly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I've bored you with my reading interests, I'll move on the topics of promise. First, bailout business (as the title suggests).
To "bail out" a private corporation in the United States is nothing short of criminal. America was founded on free market principles. This means that government should not interfere in the economic business of the people. (I will put aside all other U.S. anti-capitalist atrocities, for the time being.) This I will defend until the end: freedom. And freedom of economics is most fundamental of all.
Even though one could argue that this current financial (turning systemic) crisis was actually caused by government policy, I will (for argument's sake) enter at the point of "corporate salvation." AIG needs money. BoA needs money. GM, Ford, Chrysler need money. Heck, I need money. "But our company is critical to the stability of the U.S. economy," they tell me. "We employ 200,000 workers in central Michigan." Well . . . you should have thought of that 5 years ago, 10 years ago!
We must first see the situation for what it is: recession. There, I said it. Now that we know what we have, let's try and figure out where it came from. "Where it came from?!" "Why do we need to know that? Let's just fix it, already!" personally, I would rather not have experiments performed on the economy when people's lives are at stake. Let's actually do the right thing first. The right thing. That is, what is right. Get it? Now what works, not what saves homeowners, ro businesses, or my seat in congress. The right thing. Is it right for the mob to take your money at gunpoint, see how they want to use it, and invest in companies that, not only serve a special interest in the economy, but actually are founded are terrible business models? I guess this is where we either agree or disagree.
Disagree-ers? What do you have to say? You want MY MONEY, the FRUITS OF MY LABOR, put malinvested in the stocks of your best-friend's corporation? Do you think that YOU know better than the market? There is a reason why that company (AIG, GM, etc.) should fail: OBVIOUSLY no one wants it! Otherwise, they wouldn't be having money problems. Let it go. The market is yelling, "LET IT GO!" Have our money invested as we want it, in education, in food, in fuel, in a new house (that we can afford :) ), in a car, or in another company. Maybe we'll just hold it up in our homes, under our beds, for a while. So what, it's still in the system; it's just not in use at the moment. Why don't you find somewhere for it, the money in existance now, to go, instead of dreaming up new money for people to spend elsewhere. Stop the madness! Stop the madness! Stop the madness!
GM must not be bailed out. GM will be bailed out.
We must not "create" another trillion dollars this year. It's done.
The United States must not yield to international pressures (especially from Sarkozy). Obama loves the French.
America is the greatest capitalistic nation on earth. America is no longer capitalistic.
I love America. I hate America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you work on an essay assignment 10 minutes a day, it will be easily finished by the time the due date arrives.
If you work on your college applications 10 minutes a day, you'd be finished by May of your Junior year.
THAT, my friends, is the advice of the week.
So, yes, I have been working for weeks on my apps. No, I am not finished. I won't go through the laundry list of places I'm applying to, though I do say that the nerves are rattling. My apps aren't in, the deadline's a month away, and I have to wait months to hear anything. If anything, this is a great reason not to go to college and just work your way up to VP of Starbucks from the cashier's position.
All in all, though, I enjoy my application. It's tedious, infuriating, and mind-numbing. I hate my days (and can't sleep at night). I don't write about myself well. I suck at the whole interview-thing. I'm not good at meeting deadlines. I procrastinate (even on that which I should never!). And yet, I am learning a great deal about myself, and so I relish each new day of work.
I don't think colleges really care about letting people in. The apps are there as another learning experience, as much as math tests, finals, and research papers. With so many questions, and essays which force you to think about yourself, the application is the perfect learning tool. I won't be surprised if they start using it in classrooms down to the fifth grade as an exercise in maturity.
Of course, I guess I am wasting time that could be used for applications by maintaining this blog, but, eh, so what.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever watch Ovation! channel?
I don't usually, but this weekend were two very good documentaries on two very good architects. I guess this appeals mostly to me (but what on this blog doesn't). The two were on I.M. Pei and Daniel Libeskind, American architects of foreign birth that have revolutionized the world or architecture. I.M. Pei, of course, has done famous buildings as the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong and the renovation to The Louvre Museum. He is certainly one of my favorite architects. Daniel Libeskind, while his works are less known (at least to me), was presented awesomely in the program. You should especially check out the Jewish Museum, Berlin, as it is amazing in the story it tells just as a building.
Blah, blah, blah. architecture is difficult to talk about. It's too visual and sensual.
Some small photos, then.
First. The Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong
Second. The Jewish Museum, Berlin
I have to say, I can't wait to tour the world and be able to stand inside and touch all the remarkable structures I can only see in pictures today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this will do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To close my article today, I think I will make a short observation of my surroundings, to bring you into my life a little (because honestly my posts are often way too political).
I'm lying sideways on my bed, legs awkwardly dropped like a dead weight, head crooked to the left, arms stretching to let my fingers find the noisy keys of my computer. It hums noisily, too, as it, annoyed by the heat in the room (our heater's on for the first night tonight) tries to cool down with its internal fan. Down at my legs, there is a consicuous sucking, licking sound. Only my cat, Shasha, as she cleans up for the fourth time tonight, body contorted as if in Cirque du Soleil's Saltimbanco performance, one leg high overhead resembling a derigible, seemingly swaying in the wind. I look up from the computer screen, at my room of five years, to the darkly stained bookshelves (in my mind, only, emburdened by the massive weight of too many books). Overhead, an insect buzzes frantically, a stupid fly, I think. My window is closed. It will die tonight. My room, all-in-all, is messy, clothes thrown about, telling the story of the past week: jeans, sweatshirt, UT shirt, khakis, pajama pants, white tee, dirty socks, underwear. Sometimes I wish I didn't have a TV in my room. Like now. It looks really stupid when not turned to a good show, like Top Gear. The corner of the room, where all my windows are, is empty and dark, my paintings only shadows on the wall, the outdoor night hidden behind the glare off the glass. And still I'm lying on my bed, really waiting to finish writing so I can get to sleep. Stupid. I still haven't finished by chemistry lab report.
Brandon
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Obamanation
Hello, again.
Well, it has been quite some time since my last post. So much time, in fact, that I am surprised google did not delete my blogger profile. And although my unforgivable lapse during the past few months can be explained by only vague ramblings on school, college apps, extra-curriculars, et. al., my return this night can definitely be attributed to a single event: the accession of Barack Obama to the Presidency elect of the United States of America.
Certainly, this night of excitement has put in me a new energy, vigor for the political genre, and so I attack my keyboard, even so late at night. Alongside this excitement, though, follows the sulking question of "why." Why do I care, or why am I even excited? I don't know.
For at least eight months now, I have been a die-hard supporter of almost everything Ron Paul. . .
. . . and even wrote in his name in the general election last Friday. And so, understandably, I had little hope in actually having my candidate winning. (Actually, I still have difficulty defending my decision pragmatically.) I came quickly to my decisions on the two candidates -- Obama and McCain -- several months ago.
McCain, although talking about small government and equality of opportunity, was speaking very little about what I thought needed to be changed most in government. He has barely a record in defending the individual against the state, votes antithetically to basic Libertarian stances on the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the tyranny of the banks, and (honestly) carries himself in an almost conniving way around any room. Obama, although more likable in disposition and percieved intelligence, views America through an (apparently) very different lens than I do. His populistic approach to politics, albeit effective, leaves much to be desired in academic discussion.
And, believe me, there should be academic discussion as well as practical discussion on all of our problems. There can be no great government without a government that does "the right thing," which is to say, very little.
And so, again, I ask: why am I excited? Perhaps it is because this is the first national election in which I am engaged. Or maybe it is because I see the potential for politics in the next four years. No. I like to think of the entire thing as a massive, unstoppable and tragic, train wreck. I don't like what I am seeing, but, by God, it sure is something to look at. Yes, that seems the best fit to my excitement this evening. Surely, there can be no better entertainment than the epic failure of a nation and people held up to the highest of democratic standards as it falls -- not in terror, but in euphoria -- for the candidate of Change, of American altruism: Barack H. Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November the Fourth, Two Thousand Eight
And so there was a time in which all of America waited in awe in front of their flashing TV screens, snuggling with family, as they hoped, dreamed, and maybe even prayed for the selfish little wish in their head: that their idea, THEIR man, shall reign supreme nationally.
My expreience with election night is perhaps different from many. I still don't know exactly if I would have preferred either one. So I sat and watched as Wolff Blitzer projected states for Barack or McCain based on little more than 6% or 13% of votes; listened to the musings of Anderson as he laughed in his little way, looked back at his colleagues, and waited for the sound byte; and thought about what it all meant for me. It didn't matter. Or, at least not compared to the passion so many felt elsewhere.
Facebook must have had more hits tonight than in many months past. Talking to others about the results, I realized how strongly some felt about their candidates, and how much more strongly they felt about the opposition. Antichrist, socialist, warmonger, elitist. These are dirty words, full of meaning and devoid of definite substance, like poetry by Cummings or maybe the Holy Communion. Certainly this is what everyone derives their "election night excitement" from, but I just sat laughing.
"In this country, we rise and fall as one nation" -Barack Obama, President Elect of the United States of America, Nov. 4, 2008.
Just the line I was looking for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy, what art thou?
Democracy has always only been recognized as the ideal government by Marxists and the ignorant. Rule by the people is, in fact, not only no better than rule by a tyrant, but actually worse, in the assumption (always found to be true) that the people know less than a single leader could. Mob rule is only another cloak for the mastery of the indivudual by society, and democracy is the fullest incarnation of such travesty. What makes democracy so dangerous, though, is that most people hold it in the highest regard, above any and all principles. "It is the will of the people."
Although many recognize the power of people over government as foundational to a strong society, many do not, can not, differentiate between governor and the governed. Government, even if democratic and "by the people," will always be against the people in its most basic roots. Society IS great because of people, but precisely because the individual action of people, voluntary and in good will, towards a better future. Democracy submits the individual to higher authority no less than the worst dictator if truly carried out.
The worst submission, though, beyond economic or political or educational, is moral. How can you possibly know better than I on how I should run my life? How is it that you, a mob, can direct morality? Your basis is purely altruistic and consequentialist. What morality. There can be NO morality in government, least of all in democratic government. All there can be is a subjugation to a "higher good" decide upon based on limited information by limited intelligence for (presumably) a limited benefit. Pah! Democracy!
I must, apoligize, though, about my current, uncalled-for rant on democracy. I do not wish, however, to mend this wound I have struck in the democratic ideal. Not at this time. It would do better for all if we can let rot for a while the utopian principle of democracy, to let it gather dirt and fester in distress, and to finally stitch it up when the time comes, sutures strattling beaten, deflated democracy. For the role of government should always be under men, even and especially democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happens Next
I was going to have this final section dedicated to moving forward, from the election and to a new America, despite what others may have decided for me. However, I would rather just take a break and post what I have for your pleasure. Never fear, though, as the final part of my commentary will be up shortly.
Brandon
PS: I would greatly appreciate all scathing criticism, threats, and general insults to my intelligence.
Well, it has been quite some time since my last post. So much time, in fact, that I am surprised google did not delete my blogger profile. And although my unforgivable lapse during the past few months can be explained by only vague ramblings on school, college apps, extra-curriculars, et. al., my return this night can definitely be attributed to a single event: the accession of Barack Obama to the Presidency elect of the United States of America.
Certainly, this night of excitement has put in me a new energy, vigor for the political genre, and so I attack my keyboard, even so late at night. Alongside this excitement, though, follows the sulking question of "why." Why do I care, or why am I even excited? I don't know.
For at least eight months now, I have been a die-hard supporter of almost everything Ron Paul. . .
. . . and even wrote in his name in the general election last Friday. And so, understandably, I had little hope in actually having my candidate winning. (Actually, I still have difficulty defending my decision pragmatically.) I came quickly to my decisions on the two candidates -- Obama and McCain -- several months ago.
McCain, although talking about small government and equality of opportunity, was speaking very little about what I thought needed to be changed most in government. He has barely a record in defending the individual against the state, votes antithetically to basic Libertarian stances on the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the tyranny of the banks, and (honestly) carries himself in an almost conniving way around any room. Obama, although more likable in disposition and percieved intelligence, views America through an (apparently) very different lens than I do. His populistic approach to politics, albeit effective, leaves much to be desired in academic discussion.
And, believe me, there should be academic discussion as well as practical discussion on all of our problems. There can be no great government without a government that does "the right thing," which is to say, very little.
And so, again, I ask: why am I excited? Perhaps it is because this is the first national election in which I am engaged. Or maybe it is because I see the potential for politics in the next four years. No. I like to think of the entire thing as a massive, unstoppable and tragic, train wreck. I don't like what I am seeing, but, by God, it sure is something to look at. Yes, that seems the best fit to my excitement this evening. Surely, there can be no better entertainment than the epic failure of a nation and people held up to the highest of democratic standards as it falls -- not in terror, but in euphoria -- for the candidate of Change, of American altruism: Barack H. Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November the Fourth, Two Thousand Eight
And so there was a time in which all of America waited in awe in front of their flashing TV screens, snuggling with family, as they hoped, dreamed, and maybe even prayed for the selfish little wish in their head: that their idea, THEIR man, shall reign supreme nationally.
My expreience with election night is perhaps different from many. I still don't know exactly if I would have preferred either one. So I sat and watched as Wolff Blitzer projected states for Barack or McCain based on little more than 6% or 13% of votes; listened to the musings of Anderson as he laughed in his little way, looked back at his colleagues, and waited for the sound byte; and thought about what it all meant for me. It didn't matter. Or, at least not compared to the passion so many felt elsewhere.
Facebook must have had more hits tonight than in many months past. Talking to others about the results, I realized how strongly some felt about their candidates, and how much more strongly they felt about the opposition. Antichrist, socialist, warmonger, elitist. These are dirty words, full of meaning and devoid of definite substance, like poetry by Cummings or maybe the Holy Communion. Certainly this is what everyone derives their "election night excitement" from, but I just sat laughing.
"In this country, we rise and fall as one nation" -Barack Obama, President Elect of the United States of America, Nov. 4, 2008.
Just the line I was looking for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy, what art thou?
Democracy has always only been recognized as the ideal government by Marxists and the ignorant. Rule by the people is, in fact, not only no better than rule by a tyrant, but actually worse, in the assumption (always found to be true) that the people know less than a single leader could. Mob rule is only another cloak for the mastery of the indivudual by society, and democracy is the fullest incarnation of such travesty. What makes democracy so dangerous, though, is that most people hold it in the highest regard, above any and all principles. "It is the will of the people."
Although many recognize the power of people over government as foundational to a strong society, many do not, can not, differentiate between governor and the governed. Government, even if democratic and "by the people," will always be against the people in its most basic roots. Society IS great because of people, but precisely because the individual action of people, voluntary and in good will, towards a better future. Democracy submits the individual to higher authority no less than the worst dictator if truly carried out.
The worst submission, though, beyond economic or political or educational, is moral. How can you possibly know better than I on how I should run my life? How is it that you, a mob, can direct morality? Your basis is purely altruistic and consequentialist. What morality. There can be NO morality in government, least of all in democratic government. All there can be is a subjugation to a "higher good" decide upon based on limited information by limited intelligence for (presumably) a limited benefit. Pah! Democracy!
I must, apoligize, though, about my current, uncalled-for rant on democracy. I do not wish, however, to mend this wound I have struck in the democratic ideal. Not at this time. It would do better for all if we can let rot for a while the utopian principle of democracy, to let it gather dirt and fester in distress, and to finally stitch it up when the time comes, sutures strattling beaten, deflated democracy. For the role of government should always be under men, even and especially democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happens Next
I was going to have this final section dedicated to moving forward, from the election and to a new America, despite what others may have decided for me. However, I would rather just take a break and post what I have for your pleasure. Never fear, though, as the final part of my commentary will be up shortly.
Brandon
PS: I would greatly appreciate all scathing criticism, threats, and general insults to my intelligence.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Euro, Mugabe, and Detroit
So I've decided, upon spending the entire past hour on Facebook and Youtube, to contribute something back to the world. Honestly, the news as of late only seems to make me laugh. I mean, seriously, just read a bit and it's obvious. I titled this "Euro, Mugabe, and Detroit," almost abstractly, I guess (at least in reference to two of the terms), in an effort to summarize the world of the past couple of days. So, as I am now back from the great quads of Notre Dame, I will attempt again a decent post.
I'll stay with my agenda. Euro. Now I could go on about a couple of things regarding this. I'm not sure exactly which one I meant primarily when deciding upon the topic, but, at least now, the Lisbon Treaty seems most appropriate (and important). I'm sure everyone is at least familiar with the idea of the European Union, and so I can elaborate a bit on this new treaty many hope to ratify in accordance with an evolving, growing European community. Sponsored mostly, it seems, by big guys life Sarkozy and Merkel, the treaty, to be ratified by all 27 member states this year, promises a more streamlined, more united, more controlling European Union, a EU to take on the world jointly rather than disparately. There, of course, have been several amendments and changes made to the EU over the years, from trade agreements and border issues to the widespread adoption of the Eurodollar only a few years back. This Lisbon Treaty, which, by all accounts, appears only to be a jumbled mess of screwy compromises, proposes sweeping changes to the European parliament (absurd, isn't it) and common EU leadership. More information is always available on reliable sites like BBC, Economist, Wikipedia, et. al. so I'll leave it to you to educate yourself further for debate. My opinion, though, should be made clear.
First of all, I am not pro-European. That is, I disapprove strongly of any permanent, binding, sovereignty-reducing treaties and contracts between nations for the purpose of "uniting and benefiting the people of Europe." Such multilateral super-governments only make me sick when I think off the possible consequences. However, the EU has come around with several successes on both the Continent and in a little place called Ireland. Ireland, you see, certainly needed economic and social revival after the decades-long clash with Northern-Irish. I'm not going to put the prize squarely on the EU (as Ireland's own policies greatly helped in the past ten years or so improve employment, attract investment, and secure economic success), but Europe most definitely helped. The Irish, obviously stubborn and ungrateful, recently voted in a national referendum against the Lisbon Treaty, throwing an awful wrench into the carefully crafted machinery of the European Union. Will the EU be able to thrive, or even survive? Just-today-made-EU-President Nikolas Sarkozy thinks so, but then again, he's French. You have to honor someone in Ireland for rallying the people against Europe (because, for me, anything that slows the formation of the Nation of Europe is great), but I'm positive the voters didn't make that informed of a decision. Reading the Treaty is hell. I surely haven't tried that hard, but trying to get through almost 250 pages of political jibber jabber must be a pain. In short, though, I'll lay out my main objections. The treaty calls for a more "democratic and transparent" Europe. They'll do this by revising the Parliament and enabling voter initiatives to be sent to the EU. What is this, the United States of Europe?! Since when did laws cross national boundaries? In Europe, apparently a long time. Maybe I'm a conservative, but I, for one, still believe in a COUNTRY. (As a side note, I applaud whomever stuck the clause in regarding the possibility of pulling out of the EU and the procedures involved. It may be needed) Next, Lisbon redefines the role of the European President. It also lays out a system of single European foreign policy, making the EU "more effective on the world stage and a more visible partner for international organizations and third world countries." You know, by now, I don't really know what to say anymore. I mean, what's Germany and France and Spain and Italy if they all must ascribe to the same national policies, send men to fight in a European army, and find representation under the EU President. If I were a EU citizen, I'd be pissed, big time. I'm just happy for Switzerland. I know where I'm heading when I get the chance (no thanks to Obama or McCain). Anyway, I guess my point here is to realize these amazingly large political forces at work. Ireland is the only country to get to vote on the issue; all the others have only to ratify the treaty through the government. I believe the Italian Prime Minister said something to the extent of "the Irish, a people of only 6 million, cannot ruin this chance for the other 480 million Europeans." The thing is, the others will never be able to vote yes or no. That's the more democratic EU that Lisbon is going for.
In other Euro news, Germany sucked. Spain won the Euro 2008 Championship. Congratulations to the victors. Well deserved. Germany seriously needs to work on actually playing the game right. They ruined the tournament. I'm sure a game of Spain versus Turkey would have been more exciting. That ruined my Monday afternoon.
Well, I seem to be very comfortable with the man they call Mugabe. It is as if they are always talking about him, on NPR, at BBC.com, and in The Economist. As you are probably aware, he is running uncontested (after bullying his opponent into submission with violence, prison, and other nasties) for his sixth term as President of Zimbabwe. He doesn't sound like a narcissistic dictator at all. No. Surely not. Finally, though, the rest of the world seems willing to take action. The African Community has condemned his actions, the UN seems ready to explode with letters of hate and embarrassment, and Germany has stopped sending paper to be used for the printing of more currency. The Zimbabwean dollar, having been printed uncontrollably for who knows how long, now stands atop unbelievably massive inflation. The people literally need a truck to bring all the cash needed to buy simple roll of toilet paper. It's ridiculous. I think the estimate now is almost at 4,000,000 % inflation. WOW. And you thought ours was bad. So, yeah, them Africans are pretty much screwed for a while. I don't know how to fix this one.
And, in other African news, Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela has just been cleared off the White House's list of possible terrorist suspects.
Obviously, the car industry has encountered a few bumps in the pavement as of late, running into high fuel prices simultaneously with raised emissions standards. This creates headaches in every department, but most of all in the finances. Chrysler Group, which is now under the control of private equity group Cerberus, hasn't fared well at all this year. Not only has the minivan market collapsed, but their "$2.99-per-gallon gas guarantee" has failed to attract almost anyone to the dealers. That just really sucks for them. Toyota's not so hot this summer, either, losing out in sales numbers to both Honda and GM. I think, though, the funniest car news of the day has to go to Congress and the report they received from Detroit regarding the costs of upcoming CAFE standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, to be dutifully raised this year, will purportedly cost America almost 85,000 middle-class jobs, a huge cut in production numbers, and $4,000 a car extra to provide for the rapid increases in fuel efficiency. Forget about $4-a-gallon gasoline, your new car is going to set you back much further. Personally, I laugh, because Congressmen always seem to hanker for the voter. "You want cheaper gas? Sure. You want more American jobs? Of course. You want to save the environment? Well, here we go now. That's easy." It turns out, you can't have it every way. I'm all for saving the world, but nobody ever said it was going to be cheap. So, grow up America and think twice before you ask for something, because your priorities need to be straightened. Do you want to save the world? Or would you rather just be able to afford to live? Third option: elect smart people to political office, and, in a couple decades time, this mess of America will be all cleaned up.
Now that I've covered a few interesting topics, and actually finished what I promised at the outset, I hope you'll excuse me for wanting a little shut-eye. All in all, this is enjoyable, and I appreciate all the comments, so happy reading. I hope it is at least half as interesting for you as it is for me. Thanks. Good night.
Brandon
I'll stay with my agenda. Euro. Now I could go on about a couple of things regarding this. I'm not sure exactly which one I meant primarily when deciding upon the topic, but, at least now, the Lisbon Treaty seems most appropriate (and important). I'm sure everyone is at least familiar with the idea of the European Union, and so I can elaborate a bit on this new treaty many hope to ratify in accordance with an evolving, growing European community. Sponsored mostly, it seems, by big guys life Sarkozy and Merkel, the treaty, to be ratified by all 27 member states this year, promises a more streamlined, more united, more controlling European Union, a EU to take on the world jointly rather than disparately. There, of course, have been several amendments and changes made to the EU over the years, from trade agreements and border issues to the widespread adoption of the Eurodollar only a few years back. This Lisbon Treaty, which, by all accounts, appears only to be a jumbled mess of screwy compromises, proposes sweeping changes to the European parliament (absurd, isn't it) and common EU leadership. More information is always available on reliable sites like BBC, Economist, Wikipedia, et. al. so I'll leave it to you to educate yourself further for debate. My opinion, though, should be made clear.
First of all, I am not pro-European. That is, I disapprove strongly of any permanent, binding, sovereignty-reducing treaties and contracts between nations for the purpose of "uniting and benefiting the people of Europe." Such multilateral super-governments only make me sick when I think off the possible consequences. However, the EU has come around with several successes on both the Continent and in a little place called Ireland. Ireland, you see, certainly needed economic and social revival after the decades-long clash with Northern-Irish. I'm not going to put the prize squarely on the EU (as Ireland's own policies greatly helped in the past ten years or so improve employment, attract investment, and secure economic success), but Europe most definitely helped. The Irish, obviously stubborn and ungrateful, recently voted in a national referendum against the Lisbon Treaty, throwing an awful wrench into the carefully crafted machinery of the European Union. Will the EU be able to thrive, or even survive? Just-today-made-EU-President Nikolas Sarkozy thinks so, but then again, he's French. You have to honor someone in Ireland for rallying the people against Europe (because, for me, anything that slows the formation of the Nation of Europe is great), but I'm positive the voters didn't make that informed of a decision. Reading the Treaty is hell. I surely haven't tried that hard, but trying to get through almost 250 pages of political jibber jabber must be a pain. In short, though, I'll lay out my main objections. The treaty calls for a more "democratic and transparent" Europe. They'll do this by revising the Parliament and enabling voter initiatives to be sent to the EU. What is this, the United States of Europe?! Since when did laws cross national boundaries? In Europe, apparently a long time. Maybe I'm a conservative, but I, for one, still believe in a COUNTRY. (As a side note, I applaud whomever stuck the clause in regarding the possibility of pulling out of the EU and the procedures involved. It may be needed) Next, Lisbon redefines the role of the European President. It also lays out a system of single European foreign policy, making the EU "more effective on the world stage and a more visible partner for international organizations and third world countries." You know, by now, I don't really know what to say anymore. I mean, what's Germany and France and Spain and Italy if they all must ascribe to the same national policies, send men to fight in a European army, and find representation under the EU President. If I were a EU citizen, I'd be pissed, big time. I'm just happy for Switzerland. I know where I'm heading when I get the chance (no thanks to Obama or McCain). Anyway, I guess my point here is to realize these amazingly large political forces at work. Ireland is the only country to get to vote on the issue; all the others have only to ratify the treaty through the government. I believe the Italian Prime Minister said something to the extent of "the Irish, a people of only 6 million, cannot ruin this chance for the other 480 million Europeans." The thing is, the others will never be able to vote yes or no. That's the more democratic EU that Lisbon is going for.
In other Euro news, Germany sucked. Spain won the Euro 2008 Championship. Congratulations to the victors. Well deserved. Germany seriously needs to work on actually playing the game right. They ruined the tournament. I'm sure a game of Spain versus Turkey would have been more exciting. That ruined my Monday afternoon.
Well, I seem to be very comfortable with the man they call Mugabe. It is as if they are always talking about him, on NPR, at BBC.com, and in The Economist. As you are probably aware, he is running uncontested (after bullying his opponent into submission with violence, prison, and other nasties) for his sixth term as President of Zimbabwe. He doesn't sound like a narcissistic dictator at all. No. Surely not. Finally, though, the rest of the world seems willing to take action. The African Community has condemned his actions, the UN seems ready to explode with letters of hate and embarrassment, and Germany has stopped sending paper to be used for the printing of more currency. The Zimbabwean dollar, having been printed uncontrollably for who knows how long, now stands atop unbelievably massive inflation. The people literally need a truck to bring all the cash needed to buy simple roll of toilet paper. It's ridiculous. I think the estimate now is almost at 4,000,000 % inflation. WOW. And you thought ours was bad. So, yeah, them Africans are pretty much screwed for a while. I don't know how to fix this one.
And, in other African news, Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela has just been cleared off the White House's list of possible terrorist suspects.
Obviously, the car industry has encountered a few bumps in the pavement as of late, running into high fuel prices simultaneously with raised emissions standards. This creates headaches in every department, but most of all in the finances. Chrysler Group, which is now under the control of private equity group Cerberus, hasn't fared well at all this year. Not only has the minivan market collapsed, but their "$2.99-per-gallon gas guarantee" has failed to attract almost anyone to the dealers. That just really sucks for them. Toyota's not so hot this summer, either, losing out in sales numbers to both Honda and GM. I think, though, the funniest car news of the day has to go to Congress and the report they received from Detroit regarding the costs of upcoming CAFE standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, to be dutifully raised this year, will purportedly cost America almost 85,000 middle-class jobs, a huge cut in production numbers, and $4,000 a car extra to provide for the rapid increases in fuel efficiency. Forget about $4-a-gallon gasoline, your new car is going to set you back much further. Personally, I laugh, because Congressmen always seem to hanker for the voter. "You want cheaper gas? Sure. You want more American jobs? Of course. You want to save the environment? Well, here we go now. That's easy." It turns out, you can't have it every way. I'm all for saving the world, but nobody ever said it was going to be cheap. So, grow up America and think twice before you ask for something, because your priorities need to be straightened. Do you want to save the world? Or would you rather just be able to afford to live? Third option: elect smart people to political office, and, in a couple decades time, this mess of America will be all cleaned up.
Now that I've covered a few interesting topics, and actually finished what I promised at the outset, I hope you'll excuse me for wanting a little shut-eye. All in all, this is enjoyable, and I appreciate all the comments, so happy reading. I hope it is at least half as interesting for you as it is for me. Thanks. Good night.
Brandon
Friday, June 13, 2008
Random 6.16.08
Hello from South Bend, IN.
Here I will begin my third post, here in Alumni Hall, overlooking the great quad at Notre Dame, here and now, this morning. I haven't much time.
What has been of interest to me in the past week? I will begin, I guess, since now I know not where to, on Thursday evening, the 12th of June. That night, officially, and in mighty style, Congressman Ron Paul announced two things. First of all, and to the pleasure of every other Washington politician, he suspended his campaign for the presidency. Not a surprise, no, but now that Dr. Paul has made his mark on the American political landscape, his second announcement comes into play. Ron Paul has established himself, and, far more importantly, his ideas, permanently in American politics with the founding of the Campaign for Liberty. This new organization, according to Paul, will be an instrument of education and lobbying, a tool for any American, and all Americans, to use in support of ideas of liberty, limited government, capitalism, and democracy (usually in republican form, albeit). OK.
Who is Ron Paul, and why do I support him? (Now, probably, many will have stopped reading due to what appears to be another hymn of praise by a Ron Paul fanboy. Fear not.) Truth be told, Ron Paul, since at least last November, when I first begin to take an interest in the presidential election, has been the only candidate in which I could relate most to in almost every policy. Free trade? Yep. Free market capitalism? Of course. Non-interventionist foreign policy of discussion and resolution? Uniquely. Domestic liberty? Minimal government? Reduced bureaucracy? The list goes on. In short, he was my man. And he still is. If anything about Ron Paul should stand out immediately, it is the consistency of his message. Ever since his entrance into politics decades ago, he principles, his values, his policies, his views have remained pure and unwavering. That, whether or not you can agree with him on his specific views, holds definite merit. For me, however, perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul has been an inspiration. A leader, they say, in his most essential form, must motivate and inspire others. Personally, and also across America, I think his influence has been enormous. Only six months ago, I was generally apathetic about U.S. politics. Today, I would say, I am a bit more involved.
Although the title of this post is "Random 6.16.08," there are two very obvious things to note regarding its honesty. For one, it is now June 22 and I have yet to actually publish. (Needless to say, I have found myself once again in a lazy rut when it comes to writing.) Maybe continuing later as tradition, the "Random _" series title expresses only anonymity to the story within, perhaps drawing you in or perhaps only boring you. Anyway, I feel better not having to think of titles (often because of the way my ideas for posts can change dramatically between concept to publishing). Now since I have relieved myself of this odd weight, I will try to continue.
I'm guessing that I started this post still high on Ron Paul. Although I don't exactly tire of political talk, I feel obliged to share some of my experiences here at Notre Dame's Career Discovery in Architecture program. I have made the decision, for now at least, to study architecture in college. In exploration of both the major and the University, I decided upon this 12-day adventure in South Bend. So far, it's been really fun, with good projects, decent curriculum, interesting field excursions, amazing TA's, approachable professors, and great friends. All in all, you may say, then, it is great. Many questions arise, however, in reconsidering my position. Although I am absolutely dedicated to the architecture profession, I worry about leaving my other interests behind. I planned to take a second major in economics and maybe polysci, but (as I knew for some time) the architecture student's schedule doesn't lend itself readily to double majoring. (Some students that I have talked to have commented on the 50-70 hours a week spent solely in the studio after classes.) So, obviously, that is a problem. More specifically to Notre Dame, I need to consider whether the conservative environment is right for my ideas in architecture. The School of Architecture's faculty are of a very conservative type. This can be extremely admirable, especially in their distaste for modern urban planning (or lack thereof) and insensitive renovations to historical buildings, but also detrimental, I fear, with the general anti-modernist environment set up from the beginning lectures. There is definitely a "school" of architecture practiced here; I just have to figure out if I could live with it.
Tomorrow, we are heading out as a group to Marshall, MI, a very small, historical town in the southern part of the state. As far as I am concerned, the trip is designed to highlight the classic urban planning that went into the town and to showcase good examples of a variety of styles of architecture. After spending almost 10 hours in studio every day, it is definitely going to be nice to get off campus. So that's that.
In other news, . . . . Well, I just don't care much right now. I'ven't had much free writing time this past week, and, frankly, my mind has been other places. This post needs to get published. I wish I could write more, on anything, but, as it is now after one o'clock, I do think it time to retire. I have to be up in about six hours, so I'll leave it at this.
I'll try to write more regularly.
Until then, sincerely,
Brandon
Here I will begin my third post, here in Alumni Hall, overlooking the great quad at Notre Dame, here and now, this morning. I haven't much time.
What has been of interest to me in the past week? I will begin, I guess, since now I know not where to, on Thursday evening, the 12th of June. That night, officially, and in mighty style, Congressman Ron Paul announced two things. First of all, and to the pleasure of every other Washington politician, he suspended his campaign for the presidency. Not a surprise, no, but now that Dr. Paul has made his mark on the American political landscape, his second announcement comes into play. Ron Paul has established himself, and, far more importantly, his ideas, permanently in American politics with the founding of the Campaign for Liberty. This new organization, according to Paul, will be an instrument of education and lobbying, a tool for any American, and all Americans, to use in support of ideas of liberty, limited government, capitalism, and democracy (usually in republican form, albeit). OK.
Who is Ron Paul, and why do I support him? (Now, probably, many will have stopped reading due to what appears to be another hymn of praise by a Ron Paul fanboy. Fear not.) Truth be told, Ron Paul, since at least last November, when I first begin to take an interest in the presidential election, has been the only candidate in which I could relate most to in almost every policy. Free trade? Yep. Free market capitalism? Of course. Non-interventionist foreign policy of discussion and resolution? Uniquely. Domestic liberty? Minimal government? Reduced bureaucracy? The list goes on. In short, he was my man. And he still is. If anything about Ron Paul should stand out immediately, it is the consistency of his message. Ever since his entrance into politics decades ago, he principles, his values, his policies, his views have remained pure and unwavering. That, whether or not you can agree with him on his specific views, holds definite merit. For me, however, perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul has been an inspiration. A leader, they say, in his most essential form, must motivate and inspire others. Personally, and also across America, I think his influence has been enormous. Only six months ago, I was generally apathetic about U.S. politics. Today, I would say, I am a bit more involved.
Although the title of this post is "Random 6.16.08," there are two very obvious things to note regarding its honesty. For one, it is now June 22 and I have yet to actually publish. (Needless to say, I have found myself once again in a lazy rut when it comes to writing.) Maybe continuing later as tradition, the "Random _" series title expresses only anonymity to the story within, perhaps drawing you in or perhaps only boring you. Anyway, I feel better not having to think of titles (often because of the way my ideas for posts can change dramatically between concept to publishing). Now since I have relieved myself of this odd weight, I will try to continue.
I'm guessing that I started this post still high on Ron Paul. Although I don't exactly tire of political talk, I feel obliged to share some of my experiences here at Notre Dame's Career Discovery in Architecture program. I have made the decision, for now at least, to study architecture in college. In exploration of both the major and the University, I decided upon this 12-day adventure in South Bend. So far, it's been really fun, with good projects, decent curriculum, interesting field excursions, amazing TA's, approachable professors, and great friends. All in all, you may say, then, it is great. Many questions arise, however, in reconsidering my position. Although I am absolutely dedicated to the architecture profession, I worry about leaving my other interests behind. I planned to take a second major in economics and maybe polysci, but (as I knew for some time) the architecture student's schedule doesn't lend itself readily to double majoring. (Some students that I have talked to have commented on the 50-70 hours a week spent solely in the studio after classes.) So, obviously, that is a problem. More specifically to Notre Dame, I need to consider whether the conservative environment is right for my ideas in architecture. The School of Architecture's faculty are of a very conservative type. This can be extremely admirable, especially in their distaste for modern urban planning (or lack thereof) and insensitive renovations to historical buildings, but also detrimental, I fear, with the general anti-modernist environment set up from the beginning lectures. There is definitely a "school" of architecture practiced here; I just have to figure out if I could live with it.
Tomorrow, we are heading out as a group to Marshall, MI, a very small, historical town in the southern part of the state. As far as I am concerned, the trip is designed to highlight the classic urban planning that went into the town and to showcase good examples of a variety of styles of architecture. After spending almost 10 hours in studio every day, it is definitely going to be nice to get off campus. So that's that.
In other news, . . . . Well, I just don't care much right now. I'ven't had much free writing time this past week, and, frankly, my mind has been other places. This post needs to get published. I wish I could write more, on anything, but, as it is now after one o'clock, I do think it time to retire. I have to be up in about six hours, so I'll leave it at this.
I'll try to write more regularly.
Until then, sincerely,
Brandon
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Random 6.11.08
So, in continuing with the promise of my first post, I have finally found my way back to writing. It is difficult at first to remain in a "publisher mood" every day, it seems, as I have not updated anything for at least a couple days. Nevertheless, it will continue.
Working backwards (as everyone seems always to go in "forward" chronological order), I will begin with today. Because it is summer, and because I am inherently lazy, more often than not to my extreme detriment, I did not really do much today, bar researching alternative energy automation and seeing "Don't Mess with the Zohan." As far as anything interesting, "Zohan" was funny and random, and, in spite of myself, I will not criticize it. I am not a critic. There are others for that. They get paid for that. It was funny, Sandler-ish, and a good afternoon. That is that. Researching alternative energy automation? Really? Yeah, that is how I spend my free time. This, however, was not hardcore research (no libraries or interviews or anything worth writing a paper over) but rather a little something to satisfy my interest and cure my ignorance. Browsing through wikipedia, I did discover things that I knew not before, such as the Atkinson Cycle and its applications, but amid all this exploring a discussion was built. It was birthed by a lecture I attended the previous day, given by Dr. Mark Holtzapple, on alternative energy, specifically the use of biomass-produced fuels and Brayton Cycle engines. Very interesting stuff, this is, especially as the hot topic everywhere seems to be "saving the world from ourselves." Anyway, my paragraph seems long and rambly. I'll continue below.
As I said, this topic came forth from yesterday, as I finished the day-and-a-half Texas A&M SHIP with the said lecture by Prof. Holtzapple. (Disclaimer: I do not intend to attend A&M. The SHIP was pretty awesome, though.) His presentation was, really, if based on the defining, unique characteristic, about his StarRotor Brayton Cycle engine, its application to automobiles, and its incorporation of smart technologies such as biofuel and low drag aerodynamics. Opening up this discussion (this is a blog, so I guess the discussion is only a monologue until people comment), I will, at first, put out my stance on the issue. I have been a proponent of the hydrogen economy for some time now. I have to admit that my interest in the issue was peaked by means of my long-running association with BMW. They have been working on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion vehicles for decades, clearly leaders in the campaign. Of latest accomplishment (or not, I'll explain later) is the "introduction" of the world's first hydrogen car available for sale, aptly called the Hydrogen7. (You may have seen a commercial; it's big marketing for BMW.) I'm sure you can look it up yourself if you're interested. Where am I going with this? Well, essentially, the source of my enthusiasm here is a new application of common technology and available fuels to the automotive industry. The Brayton Cycle, as I mentioned before, is the common thermodynamic cycle for jet engines. That is, it involves compression turbines, a separate combustion chamber, and expansion turbines to provide propulsion. The brilliant innovation by Dr. Holtzapple is the application, along with biofuels, of his StarRotor to cars. Are you blown away? I was. His design, although he has yet to produce a prototype, promises efficiencies THREE TIMES higher than a current internal combustion Otto Cycle engine can achieve. So, yes, we could potentially have "jet-powered" cars in the future.
So as to carefully avoid a plethora of technical talk on such a blog as mine (where I don't carry much engineering credibility) I will skip to his plan for a sustainable automotive industry of the future. In addition to the addition of his engine to the pot of "alternative-energy" technologies available, Holtzapple advocates the use of biofuels, such as ethanol. Now, before you get all jumpy on this topic, let me tell you about my own conversion (and my continually rising discontent for government and corporation). As many of you may realize, the current U.S. allotment of 1/4 of our corn to subsidized ethanol production has driven many to fears about food shortages. Although, true enough, this has not been proven, it's always good to have more food than not, right? The real issue for any economist is efficiency. Here, it is the efficiency of the energy cycle from planting to fueling. According to Holtzapple's presentation, corn, when used in the creation of biofuel, produces only about 1.3 times as much energy as was put into its cultivation. It's far better than the obverse ratio, but nothing near the energy ability of switchgrass or sorghum ethanol, or even hemp ethanol! So he estimates that, for the efficiency of the engines that he is developing, the entire U.S. energy usage in automobiles, now obviously in the form of petroleum products (gasoline and diesel), could be grown on a plot of land the size of Connecticut. Amazing? But there is more! As a recycling man, Holtzapple rather prefers the idea of turning garbage into fuel, thus preserving even more precious farmland and putting America's excess waste to good use. I won't go into the chemistry, but he is, with the enthusiastic cooperation of a Houston school teacher, running a pilot program at a high school this fall, having students turn lunch-time garbage into profitable and environmentally-friendly ethanol. Now that I have settled this issue, where to next? Maybe to the doomed hydrogen economy. Maybe not.
I'll keep this short. Hydrogen is expensive. (To any average person, that is only the most ludicrous statement in history. Hydrogen is everywhere, right? 99% of the universe?) Although present in almost everything, trying to obtain and store elemental, gaseous hydrogen has proven to be more trouble than it is worth. And, remember, I use to defend BMW and their hydrogen plan. Just think about it (the hydrogen, that it). The vast majority of hydrogen produced today is done so by burning fossil fuels. Hmm, I thought the idea was to reduce pollution. Fervent supporters of a hydrogen economy (sounds cool, doesn't it) will tell me now that electrolysis solves the problem. No pollution there. Wrong. Most of our electricity comes from coal-fired or natural gas power plants, not from clean, renewable sources. Add in the trouble of it all -- producing hydrogen, condensing, cooling, and liquefying hydrogen, transporting these high-pressure cargoes across a country, and rebuilding an entire industrial infrastructure -- and this "perfect future" looks doomed to another century of higher technology and more money. For today, the biofuels look just right. Environmentally friendly, energy efficient, energy independent, and reasonable.
Now for hydrogen's place in our world. Hydrogen fuel cells hold promise in so many applications. People are talking about laptop batteries, remote electricity generators, etc. But for cars, it seems quite unreasonable. We'll just have to find out, though, as Honda is planning the release of its next fuel cell car, the FCX Clarity, this fall. Plus, for all those interested, both diesel power and electricity are making comebacks in the automotive landscape, most notably (or maybe most interestingly) in the Audi R8 TDI V12 and the Tesla Roadster. Interesting, they may be, but I fear only marketing exercises in promoting a positive impression upon the general public. Nevertheless, the world is moving.
Wow. This post was supposed to be about my last couple of days, but here we are, now 1,255 words in, and I still am stuck on Wednesday. Not consice, in my writing, am I. Back to Tuesday, then. As you may have picked up by now, I was at Texas A&M for two activity-charged days of exploration. I'll just shove the two into one, for my post's sake. Highlights include a lecture by Dr. Suma Datta, tour of the College of Architecture, tour of the Cyclotron Institute, and discussed-at-length lecture by Dr. Mark Holtzapple. Well, Dr. Datta was really interesting; she spoke on stem cell research and its contributions to the fight against cancer. The College of Architecture was pretty cool. Typical stuff, it may have been, but it gave insights into the typical life of an overworked architecture student. The Cyclotron Institute was really cool. I had never seen a particle physics laboratory. Of these things, though, I no longer feel able to write on them intelligently. I am almost used up by the discussion on alternative energy. I could talk about that all day. Maybe I could be a cancer-researching, physics-groundbreaking, alternative-energy hippie architect who does politics on the side and is called in for economics presentations for the UN EcoSoc Council.
I've been working far too long on this single post. I'm sorry (not for you, but for myself) about the lousy ending, but I have so much more to talk about. I can't just keep writing and never publish! So, here it is, my first REAL post about anything more than writing philosophy.
-Brandon M. Wagner
Working backwards (as everyone seems always to go in "forward" chronological order), I will begin with today. Because it is summer, and because I am inherently lazy, more often than not to my extreme detriment, I did not really do much today, bar researching alternative energy automation and seeing "Don't Mess with the Zohan." As far as anything interesting, "Zohan" was funny and random, and, in spite of myself, I will not criticize it. I am not a critic. There are others for that. They get paid for that. It was funny, Sandler-ish, and a good afternoon. That is that. Researching alternative energy automation? Really? Yeah, that is how I spend my free time. This, however, was not hardcore research (no libraries or interviews or anything worth writing a paper over) but rather a little something to satisfy my interest and cure my ignorance. Browsing through wikipedia, I did discover things that I knew not before, such as the Atkinson Cycle and its applications, but amid all this exploring a discussion was built. It was birthed by a lecture I attended the previous day, given by Dr. Mark Holtzapple, on alternative energy, specifically the use of biomass-produced fuels and Brayton Cycle engines. Very interesting stuff, this is, especially as the hot topic everywhere seems to be "saving the world from ourselves." Anyway, my paragraph seems long and rambly. I'll continue below.
As I said, this topic came forth from yesterday, as I finished the day-and-a-half Texas A&M SHIP with the said lecture by Prof. Holtzapple. (Disclaimer: I do not intend to attend A&M. The SHIP was pretty awesome, though.) His presentation was, really, if based on the defining, unique characteristic, about his StarRotor Brayton Cycle engine, its application to automobiles, and its incorporation of smart technologies such as biofuel and low drag aerodynamics. Opening up this discussion (this is a blog, so I guess the discussion is only a monologue until people comment), I will, at first, put out my stance on the issue. I have been a proponent of the hydrogen economy for some time now. I have to admit that my interest in the issue was peaked by means of my long-running association with BMW. They have been working on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion vehicles for decades, clearly leaders in the campaign. Of latest accomplishment (or not, I'll explain later) is the "introduction" of the world's first hydrogen car available for sale, aptly called the Hydrogen7. (You may have seen a commercial; it's big marketing for BMW.) I'm sure you can look it up yourself if you're interested. Where am I going with this? Well, essentially, the source of my enthusiasm here is a new application of common technology and available fuels to the automotive industry. The Brayton Cycle, as I mentioned before, is the common thermodynamic cycle for jet engines. That is, it involves compression turbines, a separate combustion chamber, and expansion turbines to provide propulsion. The brilliant innovation by Dr. Holtzapple is the application, along with biofuels, of his StarRotor to cars. Are you blown away? I was. His design, although he has yet to produce a prototype, promises efficiencies THREE TIMES higher than a current internal combustion Otto Cycle engine can achieve. So, yes, we could potentially have "jet-powered" cars in the future.
So as to carefully avoid a plethora of technical talk on such a blog as mine (where I don't carry much engineering credibility) I will skip to his plan for a sustainable automotive industry of the future. In addition to the addition of his engine to the pot of "alternative-energy" technologies available, Holtzapple advocates the use of biofuels, such as ethanol. Now, before you get all jumpy on this topic, let me tell you about my own conversion (and my continually rising discontent for government and corporation). As many of you may realize, the current U.S. allotment of 1/4 of our corn to subsidized ethanol production has driven many to fears about food shortages. Although, true enough, this has not been proven, it's always good to have more food than not, right? The real issue for any economist is efficiency. Here, it is the efficiency of the energy cycle from planting to fueling. According to Holtzapple's presentation, corn, when used in the creation of biofuel, produces only about 1.3 times as much energy as was put into its cultivation. It's far better than the obverse ratio, but nothing near the energy ability of switchgrass or sorghum ethanol, or even hemp ethanol! So he estimates that, for the efficiency of the engines that he is developing, the entire U.S. energy usage in automobiles, now obviously in the form of petroleum products (gasoline and diesel), could be grown on a plot of land the size of Connecticut. Amazing? But there is more! As a recycling man, Holtzapple rather prefers the idea of turning garbage into fuel, thus preserving even more precious farmland and putting America's excess waste to good use. I won't go into the chemistry, but he is, with the enthusiastic cooperation of a Houston school teacher, running a pilot program at a high school this fall, having students turn lunch-time garbage into profitable and environmentally-friendly ethanol. Now that I have settled this issue, where to next? Maybe to the doomed hydrogen economy. Maybe not.
I'll keep this short. Hydrogen is expensive. (To any average person, that is only the most ludicrous statement in history. Hydrogen is everywhere, right? 99% of the universe?) Although present in almost everything, trying to obtain and store elemental, gaseous hydrogen has proven to be more trouble than it is worth. And, remember, I use to defend BMW and their hydrogen plan. Just think about it (the hydrogen, that it). The vast majority of hydrogen produced today is done so by burning fossil fuels. Hmm, I thought the idea was to reduce pollution. Fervent supporters of a hydrogen economy (sounds cool, doesn't it) will tell me now that electrolysis solves the problem. No pollution there. Wrong. Most of our electricity comes from coal-fired or natural gas power plants, not from clean, renewable sources. Add in the trouble of it all -- producing hydrogen, condensing, cooling, and liquefying hydrogen, transporting these high-pressure cargoes across a country, and rebuilding an entire industrial infrastructure -- and this "perfect future" looks doomed to another century of higher technology and more money. For today, the biofuels look just right. Environmentally friendly, energy efficient, energy independent, and reasonable.
Now for hydrogen's place in our world. Hydrogen fuel cells hold promise in so many applications. People are talking about laptop batteries, remote electricity generators, etc. But for cars, it seems quite unreasonable. We'll just have to find out, though, as Honda is planning the release of its next fuel cell car, the FCX Clarity, this fall. Plus, for all those interested, both diesel power and electricity are making comebacks in the automotive landscape, most notably (or maybe most interestingly) in the Audi R8 TDI V12 and the Tesla Roadster. Interesting, they may be, but I fear only marketing exercises in promoting a positive impression upon the general public. Nevertheless, the world is moving.
Wow. This post was supposed to be about my last couple of days, but here we are, now 1,255 words in, and I still am stuck on Wednesday. Not consice, in my writing, am I. Back to Tuesday, then. As you may have picked up by now, I was at Texas A&M for two activity-charged days of exploration. I'll just shove the two into one, for my post's sake. Highlights include a lecture by Dr. Suma Datta, tour of the College of Architecture, tour of the Cyclotron Institute, and discussed-at-length lecture by Dr. Mark Holtzapple. Well, Dr. Datta was really interesting; she spoke on stem cell research and its contributions to the fight against cancer. The College of Architecture was pretty cool. Typical stuff, it may have been, but it gave insights into the typical life of an overworked architecture student. The Cyclotron Institute was really cool. I had never seen a particle physics laboratory. Of these things, though, I no longer feel able to write on them intelligently. I am almost used up by the discussion on alternative energy. I could talk about that all day. Maybe I could be a cancer-researching, physics-groundbreaking, alternative-energy hippie architect who does politics on the side and is called in for economics presentations for the UN EcoSoc Council.
I've been working far too long on this single post. I'm sorry (not for you, but for myself) about the lousy ending, but I have so much more to talk about. I can't just keep writing and never publish! So, here it is, my first REAL post about anything more than writing philosophy.
-Brandon M. Wagner
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
First Things First
So, here's my blog.
Well, as to say a blog must have a topic I say the topic here is me. Selfish, at first, it may seem, but realistic and ultimately necessary is such a proposition for the success of my writing. Really, this blog will be about me, my stuff, what I do, how I do it, what I think, and what I don't. But what else could it be? I only have myself, and, in essence, that is all anyone has. I can make commentary on others, on business or politics, on the world, but it is all limited through my experience, through my life. So, though I may write on a breadth and depth uncommon for a typical blog, it is still within a narrow perspective that I hold, that from which I take in and process information, through my reason and rational. Me, then.
Quite possibly the thing of most interest to you, then, is what this blog will feature. A valid question, of course, but more than a little difficult for me to answer. I can default on the logic, or illogic, of the previous paragraph and proclaim the feature as myself. That, of course, would be far too simple, though, and fail to attract either interest or criticism from an audience. It would be, almost, cowardice. The topics of my writing will be my explicit interests. (I will save you from the base of any implicit interests I have, for both your sake and for the integrity of the blog.) These explicit topics, which shall be neither carefully chosen nor appropriately related in any normal way, will vary as the pages of an encyclopedia, or maybe an almanac or a fine newspaper, from science to the arts, from literature to the economy, from sport to cars. But, really, I should be better to explain myself through my blog posts, as is the purpose of it all, so for thus you will ponder my person.
Now, throughout this entire process, only one question has entered my mind. I know, to the extent of my rational, who I am, what I like, and what I plan to do. I know a bit about every subject of writing I have in mind. What I don't know is who you are. Blogs are interesting most of all because of the interest that people place in them. Now, let me explain. Of course, this phenomena, in which everyone can at once become a publisher, is of vary recent naissance, having only sprung from the combination of select events of the end of the twentieth century, coming together in the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the global community. Rather than give a history lesson, though, I wish more to impress upon you, whoever "you" are, the significance of this blog. While before, very few were creators and very many were consumers, it is now that very many are creators, and, surely, very many more are consumers. I am taking the role as creator here, helping in transforming the world (or even just a few lives), ever so slightly, into one of collaboration, cooperation, and democracy. In this world of technology, the people can be heard. But, alas, I am digressing. Unfortunately for the reader, my digressions are probably rampant and obnoxious, but, then again, what is a line of pure thought? Back to you, though, and we can see the significance in a blog. Sure, it can almost be taken for granted today, but imagine ten years ago. Ultimately, you are the most interesting aspect of my blog, the reason for its publication, and the driving force of a future of success.
Now that I am finished flattering you, though, I must head for an apology. An apology for my being and an apology for my language. The latter, though, I will address first due to its relative simplicity. As one may have noticed, this monologue can be read either as clever (as I hope) or arrogant (as I fear). To say that I put effort in my writing is a mere shadow of the appropriate statement. I am not careless nor simple-minded in composition. I try to be precise and descriptive, often at the fault, perhaps, of lucidity or enjoyment. I enjoy the task, as writing, putting ones thoughts into words and print, as primitive as it may seem, brings an untold satisfaction to life, but fear that that enjoyment is single sided. As any can hope, will I. As for my being, I forget what I meant to say here. I may have thought myself as annoying or selfish or arrogant (all which, invariably, must be true), but now can tell you only that my means are well. Remember, though, and be relieved, this is the last you'll here any apologies from me. For, as I started: this is my blog. You get what I give and I can't have reservations, because this blog can only subsist on my experiences and thoughts, which, truly, cannot be fairly faulted. Justice serves us here only as a reminder of the random and unrelenting reminder of consciousness. This is me.
Whew! I very much doubted any sort of length to this very first of my posts, but bring it now to a steady end. In closing, I hope something has been learned, both about me for you and about you for me. People are the reason for being and communication is the highest praise to man. So let the blogging begin. I'm ready.
Sincerely,
Brandon M. Wagner
Well, as to say a blog must have a topic I say the topic here is me. Selfish, at first, it may seem, but realistic and ultimately necessary is such a proposition for the success of my writing. Really, this blog will be about me, my stuff, what I do, how I do it, what I think, and what I don't. But what else could it be? I only have myself, and, in essence, that is all anyone has. I can make commentary on others, on business or politics, on the world, but it is all limited through my experience, through my life. So, though I may write on a breadth and depth uncommon for a typical blog, it is still within a narrow perspective that I hold, that from which I take in and process information, through my reason and rational. Me, then.
Quite possibly the thing of most interest to you, then, is what this blog will feature. A valid question, of course, but more than a little difficult for me to answer. I can default on the logic, or illogic, of the previous paragraph and proclaim the feature as myself. That, of course, would be far too simple, though, and fail to attract either interest or criticism from an audience. It would be, almost, cowardice. The topics of my writing will be my explicit interests. (I will save you from the base of any implicit interests I have, for both your sake and for the integrity of the blog.) These explicit topics, which shall be neither carefully chosen nor appropriately related in any normal way, will vary as the pages of an encyclopedia, or maybe an almanac or a fine newspaper, from science to the arts, from literature to the economy, from sport to cars. But, really, I should be better to explain myself through my blog posts, as is the purpose of it all, so for thus you will ponder my person.
Now, throughout this entire process, only one question has entered my mind. I know, to the extent of my rational, who I am, what I like, and what I plan to do. I know a bit about every subject of writing I have in mind. What I don't know is who you are. Blogs are interesting most of all because of the interest that people place in them. Now, let me explain. Of course, this phenomena, in which everyone can at once become a publisher, is of vary recent naissance, having only sprung from the combination of select events of the end of the twentieth century, coming together in the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the global community. Rather than give a history lesson, though, I wish more to impress upon you, whoever "you" are, the significance of this blog. While before, very few were creators and very many were consumers, it is now that very many are creators, and, surely, very many more are consumers. I am taking the role as creator here, helping in transforming the world (or even just a few lives), ever so slightly, into one of collaboration, cooperation, and democracy. In this world of technology, the people can be heard. But, alas, I am digressing. Unfortunately for the reader, my digressions are probably rampant and obnoxious, but, then again, what is a line of pure thought? Back to you, though, and we can see the significance in a blog. Sure, it can almost be taken for granted today, but imagine ten years ago. Ultimately, you are the most interesting aspect of my blog, the reason for its publication, and the driving force of a future of success.
Now that I am finished flattering you, though, I must head for an apology. An apology for my being and an apology for my language. The latter, though, I will address first due to its relative simplicity. As one may have noticed, this monologue can be read either as clever (as I hope) or arrogant (as I fear). To say that I put effort in my writing is a mere shadow of the appropriate statement. I am not careless nor simple-minded in composition. I try to be precise and descriptive, often at the fault, perhaps, of lucidity or enjoyment. I enjoy the task, as writing, putting ones thoughts into words and print, as primitive as it may seem, brings an untold satisfaction to life, but fear that that enjoyment is single sided. As any can hope, will I. As for my being, I forget what I meant to say here. I may have thought myself as annoying or selfish or arrogant (all which, invariably, must be true), but now can tell you only that my means are well. Remember, though, and be relieved, this is the last you'll here any apologies from me. For, as I started: this is my blog. You get what I give and I can't have reservations, because this blog can only subsist on my experiences and thoughts, which, truly, cannot be fairly faulted. Justice serves us here only as a reminder of the random and unrelenting reminder of consciousness. This is me.
Whew! I very much doubted any sort of length to this very first of my posts, but bring it now to a steady end. In closing, I hope something has been learned, both about me for you and about you for me. People are the reason for being and communication is the highest praise to man. So let the blogging begin. I'm ready.
Sincerely,
Brandon M. Wagner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)