Gratuitous Dread Presence

Sample size: 1

So today I am in the midst of the American heartland working on a survey of public opinion. It's a survey of mostly political and social issues, so it is a little volatile, and the area in which I am working is very conservative. i spend my days going from address to address, standing on people's front porches or sitting in their living rooms and ask questions that most people don't bring up in polite company. People don't raise their voices or gesture angrily when I ask my questions but it is quite clear to me that they are pissed off. And they have a right to be angry.

My wife asked me why they had the 'right' to be angry. I explained that my view was that being angry was an emotional response, and people do have a right to be emotional, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Being angry is an opinion, and only the holder of that opinion can clearly see their justification.

Conservatives have a right to be angry because they aren't happy with the changes that have happened in our country. The way society and economy has evolved has left many people struggling to maintain their lifestyle in the face of a faceless economic engine that takes advantage of them at every turn, by pushing down the value of their labor while raising their ire at social changes brought on by society becoming 'woke.'

To make matters worse, they found a champion in Donald Trump, a person who addressed their concerns in the plain and broad language they wanted to hear. Trump won in 2016, but quickly became bogged down by a lot of what they viewed as petty and hateful obstruction to the great agenda Trump was supposed to bring. The 2020 election drove Trump out, and now these people are feeling rejected by the will of the people that they do not see or hear in their daily lives.

Liberals are pissed off, too. They hide their anger a bit better and are happy that there is someone more akin to their thinking in the White House, but it still shows. they wonder how people can be so stupid to not believe in what they do because if they just listened it would all make sense. They fear what might happen, and fear makes people angry.

One thing I've noticed is that it doesn't make any difference what kind of flag they're flying in front of their house, or what their bumper stickers say. When they face my battery of questions they all end up sounding exactly the same. Towards the end of the questionnaire there is a question asking people if they care about other people's problems. The answers I collect are across the board--and don't appear to follow any kind of pattern that I can ascertain from my view.

Maybe that's the problem here in America. None of us are willing to care about somebody else's problems.

Shooting hoops on Wall Street

I generally don't like sports news and I really don't like watching basketball that much so I was a little surprised this morning when I learned that the NBA was currently on lockout status and in danger of canceling the season. Already a host of preseason games have been canceled and negotiations look grim.

It's kind of hard for me to feel sorry about the two sides. After all, on one side we have the owners, a group of pretty wealthy people, and on the other, a bunch of players who are on the verge of being wealthy trying to get more. There's too much money involved for them to be at odds for long so they'll work it out.

It all seems simple enough—but who are the victims?

If you've ever gone to a major league sporting event then you're aware of the scope of the crowds. But not all of them are there to be entertained—there's a lot of people there who are working. You ca easily see most of them—ushers, food service workers, custodians, parking lot attendants. When a game is canceled, they're out of work. No negotiations, no say in the manner—they just have to wait until the principals come to terms.

So they wait—and not get paid. Someone who was counting in work that day couldn't buy the TV or laptop they had their eye on. Or maybe it means they're going to be late on the rent that month. Or maybe miss a child support payment.

Thanks, guys.

 

In times like these

The recent shooting in Arizona has been used as an example of how political rhetoric can incite violence. Those that tend to sway to the left are pointing to this incident as an example of how the language of the right helped this assassin stoke and clarify his hatred. Those in defense of the right side argue that this is the work of a single sick individual, and that this shouldn't be an excuse to quell their right of free expression. The irony is that they're both right.

I've known quite a few crazy people. Not the bizarre ones that put worms up their noses at parties—real, actual diagnosed schizophrenics, manic depressives and whatnot, living in institutions and taking medications. I've observed mentally ill people struggling to achieve a sense of social normalcy though their handicap and noticed one of the ways they do this is by adopting a role model. Because of it's widespread prevalence and general appeal an instrument of mass media is often used for this purpose.

In other words, this shooter in Arizona needed someone to show him the proper social cues to be accepted in our society. It's quite possible that one of the sources for his inspiration was the rhetoric used by the right, and he regarded this assassination as a way of gaining their acceptance.

And I have to admit that, sometime during the Clinton administration, the rhetoric seemed to heat up. The right seemed to coalesce then, and their positions seemed to sway more to the extreme. It was as if they were using a Hegelian dialectic as their model and saw themselves as the antithesis. It's probably effective, but I question the wisdom of using extremist positions to modify public policy.

Part of the irony, though, lies on the left side of the spectrum. The left often uses words in different ways—for example, where the right uses the current 'birther' argument, the left used the 'illegal election' against Bush. When the right assaults Barama for his healthcare reform, the left assaulted Bush 43 as a war criminal. One might not seem as harsh as another, but it's easy to forget that it's really the victim that can describe harassment, not the accused. But that leads to a new question: Who are the victims here?

I suppose it's all of us. The simple fact is that I, just like most Americans, am really a pretty moderate kind of guy. I understand many of these extreme positions, but generally feel that a moderate path--one that incorporates the best elements of both sides—is really the right course. You wouldn't know it by reading a messageboard or watching television, but most of the people I meet actually feel the same way. Because of that I view all the shouting and shoving on the right and left as a desperate effort to get my attention.

My response to that now is going to be to tell people to shut up and get busy. We have a lot of shit to do around here, and it's time to get started. Let's not get fixated on the flavor the answers … let's just solve the problem.

Sophistication

We live in an era of increasing sophistication. Humans, like all other living creatures on this planet have the same requirement for basic needs. Prehistoric humans banded together to meet their needs of food, clothing and shelter. When agriculture was introduced, it represented the first advancement on the basic struggles for existence—and made the process of food more complicated by following the nuances of managing crops. As agricultural techniques grew, they became more sophisticated. And, for the first time, man was faced with the management of knowledge that was abstract.

As society grew, the burden of abstract knowledge each human needed to exist also grew. As societies developed into serfdoms, the knowledge needed to function was far greater then the basic needs of survival. The written word began to be used as a way of extending oral knowledge. It would take years before technology advanced enough to mass produce books and other written material.

Once this great expansion of information became widely available, the amount of abstract knowledge required to function in society began to increase. Europeans spread their sophistication in their desires for trade and conquest, and the less sophisticated people in their way suffered. The industrial revolution brought on a greater wave of knowledge, complex with the workings of machinery and marketplaces. Literature began to take hold in people's minds, and the concept of mass media began to spread. The amount of knowledge that was abstract to the common man began to increase significantly.

Mass media brought on the next big wave of abstract knowledge. With this, the intensity of sophistication required for daily existence increased dramatically. With the introduction of radio, television and motion pictures the average human was exposed to abstract knowledge that was completely outside of their physical realm. People were exposed to concepts, international news and art at unprecedented levels.

After the war, the information age brought the next wave of sophistication. An individual person's ability to communicate expanded greatly, and the wealth of knowledge available increased dramatically. The telephone, an abstract means of communicating great distances began to build extended communities that had less traditional boundaries. The gemeinschaft relationships that predominated in preindustrial times began to reassert themselves through this personal medium.

It appears that this level of sophistication continues to grow. It's interesting to note that older feats of sophistication, such as fire building or hunting are no longer even considered useful skills.

Temping Tonight on the Old ...

When I graduated from college, I was able to easily get a job in just about anything I wanted. As a result, I worked a variety of positions, in several industries. Certain common themes did exist within my career path, but overall, my resume has a lot of diversity.

In the past few years, however, finding a suitable full time position proved to be very difficult. I would occasionally find advertisements for compelling positions, and would seem to interview well, but somehow, never made it to the point of a job offer.

So I started temping. I kept applying to temp agencies, and once completing an induction interview process, pressed them for work. I'm pretty prolific in my efforts at finding work, so it stands to reason that I have interviewed at a lot of different temp agencies. I discovered that some of the problems that plagued me in my full time job search extended into the temp world.

The induction interviews are often 2-3 hours long, and always include tests, both on paper and computer. The actual interview process is somewhat muted, as it's more of the interviewer getting an idea of the kind and scope of work that you want to do. Most temp agencies accept a business casual dress for these interviews; the ones that don't tend to be a lot more brash with their perspective temps, but don't necessarily have better work.

One such temporary service, which seemed to have a lot of positions available, was one that I worked pretty hard securing an interview. My testing went fine, and during the talking phase of the interview, I explained some of the problems associated with my arrest for domestic battery that had occurred over ten years ago. The interview ended well.

My efforts at getting an assignment were unsuccessful. I called several times per week for about two weeks. I finally asked why I wasn't getting assignments, and was told that it was 'difficult to get work for convicted felons.' I tried to explain that I wasn't a convicted felon, and in fact didn't even have a conviction, but I could tell by the tone of her voice that she didn't believe me.

Once, while working at the reception desk, I discovered that the company had a tradition of buying lunch for all employees once per month. I asked my contact if that included me, and she told me she didn't know, and that I should approach the company's chief accountant and ask them.

Another office I worked in was a phone bank. I was one of eight or so employees and temps in a bank of cubicles that was closely watched by two supervisors at desks facing our workstations. They constantly told us to keep calling, and would occasionally walk over and examine our tally sheets. Breaks were rigidly enforced at set times—and employees weren't allowed to leave their desks while not on break.

I worked at one assignment for two days doing some data manipulation on a spreadsheet. Several weeks later, another assignment came up—and the temp agency asked me if I wanted it. It was a longer term assignment, and close to my home. Unfortunately, when the client heard that it was me, they requested someone with less experience.

My current assignment isn't too bad. It's a medium sized call center, with about 150 employees, of which about 35 percent are temps. The office has no HR department, and they take on about 6-10 new temps per month. The training is pretty complex—they have multiple systems with different requirements, and training takes about a month. Once temps 'get the picture' they leave the training department and are assigned accounts. It's not uncommon to talk to a temp that's been there for over a year—there are at least ten of them. This company contracts with several temp agencies, so not all temps work for the same agency. The fact that I was the inaugural employee of my temp agency worked to my advantage.

The environment is rather dreary, so the perm staff try to liven things up. They constantly have events where they provide lunch or some kind of treat, as well as have various trivia and puzzle contests. Staff takes care to not remind temps that they are temps. But it's not all like that—when I open my web browser, the corporate page displays link teasers that I can't view because I need to log in as an employee. When I fill out my corporate time card, my name is listed as 'Christopher Temp Buxton'.

Andy Warhol's

So I was thinking today about Andy Warhol's comment about how everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes, and how he actually turned out to be right. The actual argument of weather or not we have actually achieved this point with the internet is still worthy of discussion, but I am personally convinced that this prediction has come true.

My thoughts, however, focused on why he would make such a statement. The prediction itself was a damn good guess, but not totally unexpected. After all, he grew up in a time that saw a significant amount of growth and change in the nature of mass media--so his experience could have easily led him to that conclusion.

But why sum it up in such a simple phrase? In many ways, it's a philosophical statement. The main point of contention hinges on the definition of the fame, but the rest of the concept is pretty simple. As a philosophical mantra, it's an easy concept to explore in depth.

The point I saw today, though, is this: Andy Warhol is an artist. Most of his works focused on more traditional media, like canvas, wood, film, etc. However, this one phrase was a creation of art within a much rarer medium: Philosophy. Mr. Warhol created a deceptively simple statement that ultimately leads itself to an exposition of thought.

And the beauty of this art is the fact that it still goes on today. 

In the distance

As I pulled up to a stoplight the other day, I noticed something in the distance. At first, I thought it was smoke, but it seemed to disappear before my eyes. Then it reappeared, a strange, pliable brown cloud. It was a flock of birds, and they were flying in unison. As I watched, they would turn, and disappear from my sight, as I was too far to see them. A moment later, they turned again, and I could see their wings. I watched them shimmer in the distance until the person behind me honked their horn. The stoplight had turned green.

So maybe it was a really long drive ...

and it should be 'Thoughts When Driving My (Spouse's) Car:

Somewhere in Kurt Vonnegut’s novels, he talks about the Tralfamadorian view of the nature of people. He pretty much explains that a person isn’t simply as he appears to us, but rather a composite of those who came before and after the existence of that person.

Because I’m human, I do not understand nor subscribe to the concept of the Tralfamadorian concept of time, that is I do not accept the influence of future beings upon my existence. However, I do acknowledge the concept that we are composites of those who came before us, tempered by the ongoing wave of sophistication of society. In this way, we are not just ourselves; but both our current incarnation of consciousness, as well as psychological and sociological essence of those before us.

And to go further: It’s not just our ancestors that make up a part of us: Our friends also are an important to this metaphysical being, as well as our peer relatives. Hence, I do not exist only as myself, but also as a part of my siblings, parents and children. It’s almost the same concept as something like a tree: a collection of cells, mutual life, that choose to exist in harmony. The individual cells do not make up the tree; only their collection via cooperation.

This is not just a casual agreement of existence. The real force that ties our ‘individual’ self with our ‘extended metaphysical self’ is but a simple component: Love. We are not just physical representations of our flesh, but rather a composite of those which we have bonded in love.

So if you happen to meet me in a party on the coast, you wouldn’t just be meeting me: you would be meeting my entire being, made up of myself, and those who love me. It is not necessarily a romantic love, but also a brotherly love, and a friendship love. I am not just the flesh and simple psyche before you--I am but a component in a larger social organism.

It gets even more complex then this … imagine, for example, if I also try to explain that the emotion of hate is simply another shade of love … but I will leave that argument for a later time. The gist of this argument is thus: we are not simple individuals standing alone in time; we are components in a much larger organism.

Lessons for Walking

Walking long distances is an art form. There are various things one can do to complete the walk, and make it fulfilling as possible.

1--Don’t stare at your final destination. Nothing can be more depressing then to see your objective in the distance. Each step doesn’t make it appear any closer—it simply seems to remain in the intangible distant. Your footsteps then seem to be a futile gesture in conquering your ultimate goal.

You should allow your eyes to wander. In this way, you’ll find a good place to take a rest, as well as absorb those things around you, as opposed to the goal in the distance. After all, what’s around us now affects us more then a lofty goal in the distance. Looking at your immediate surroundings allows you to appreciate what you currently have.

2—Take breaks. Walking isn't very tiring, and it can be easy to forget to stop and rest. Resting is important because it allows us time to enjoy those things that are immediately at hand. Walking can be a dull, plodding chore. Including breaks into a walk allows for time to dwell on the simple, insignificant things that might be found on the way. Often, these things prove to be the better part of the journey.

3—Keep up a dialogue with yourself, or with someone who is significant to you. We all walk alone on these kinds of journeys, but if we constantly allow our minds to wander where they will, it proves to be fuel for the soul. Some people may choose some kind of deity to focus upon; others may have arguments with lost friends or deceased parents. This will serve to keep your spirits up.

4—Look behind you. This may sound kind of foolish at first, but it isn't. Things don’t look the same backwards. If, by chance, you have to return by the same route, then you will have a basis for remembering what you will see on the way back. But most important, however, is that looking back allows one to sum up their progress by admiring the distance already traveled.

Truth, Incorporated

It must be very comforting to believe in a supreme being that is all powerful.

I’ve been attending an evangelical church (link updated 6/14/2004)over the past few weeks. At first, I was kind of annoyed with their over the top spreading of their personal love of God. They have a whole separate part of the service—not part of the typical order of worship—that focuses on offering praise to God.

At first, I thought of Andy Partridge--I once read had complained that he felt that God was insecure to be demanding us humans to constantly bestow Him with praise. Then I began to wonder: perhaps they are so eager to express their praise because they feel their hold on God to be a fragile one; they have to constantly remind themselves that they love God, lest they forget.

In contrast, the wife turned me on to some pretty good Christian techno. I can’t fully explain it—ok maybe I’ll offer a theory in a moment—but these all out Christian artists put together some damn good techno. The piece my wife bought was pretty good—and only had a few lyrics. That’s partly why it’s so good—it doesn’t clutter up the sound with words.

The initial piece has some spoken word from Revelations: “I am the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end. I am what was, what is, and what is to be. The almighty.”
After jamming this tune a few times at high volume, I began to look upon the total idolization of God to be pure—similar to the state of nirvana offered to Buddhists.

And there goes my point: If we concentrate on the pure image of God as being this all powerful, all knowing deity, then our meditations on the nature of God can prove to be our own fuel for understanding Him. This understanding wouldn’t come from some words in a sermon, or perhaps the bible itself, but rather our own understanding from within.

To make my point another way: Douglas Adam’s series ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ refers to this device that is used for torture. The point of this device is to illustrate one’s own insignificance in the universe. The intended victim would have to view the box, which would then show the extent of their own insignificance.

Think for a minute about your own insignificance in the face of the universe: How do you compare with such monuments of Jupiter and Saturn? Planets that have their own lives that will span billions of years—yet are still only a small piece of the universe. If you actually viewed this box of Adams’, then you would truly see yourself as a simple insignificant speck in the universe.

A person who properly believes in God would look into that box and see God. Their belief in God would shield them from the wave of insecurity that would come from the lack of significance. Someone who doesn’t believe in God would be overwhelmed by the vastness before them … if they didn’t already know it was there.

So I now get to my point: Why does Christian techno seem to be so good? Perhaps because they have this vision of God as a supreme being, and they simply try to express this in the language of random sound. If they have achieved this purity of vision, and then passed it on through their art, then I am a willing listener.