Mar. 15, 2003 - 16:23:21
Dear Vincent,
I'm at a loss to explain why the trend we seem to be starting is to read books laced with sexual depravity. And further still we also seem to be attracted to books with 'bone' in the title. But since this is only our second book I suspect we may yet foil such trends. Let's give it to say, the fourth book before we anaylize ourselves shall we? Granted we could read books titled with the word 'bone' for all our literary endevors, but inevitably we'd proabably end up reading about medical things. I must admit that this does not appeal as in my world I've come to accept that if a band aid can't fix it it isn't worth fixing. Take all the time you need with the novel.
The Ides have come upon us- and accordingly everything is going wrong. If ever there was a day to break something today is that day. I haven't broken any bones, mine or anyone else's. I have dislocated my arm a few times and I am an old hand at spraining ankles. I usually sprain an ankle about once a year. Point shoes, curbs, cracks in the sidewalk, monkey bars, escalators, have all been accomplices to various sucessful endevors to sprain my ankle. Two new year's eves ago I stepped off a porch onto a patch of ice, slipped and hit my head on a pole. I blacked out for about half a minute but just before I blacked out I said to my friend Kate, "Thank god that's over with." I awoke with my yearly sprained ankle to keep me company.
As you have most likely deduced from the paragraph above my balance is inconsistant at best. Oddly enough, it appears when I'm in dance class and kickboxing but seems largely uninterested in my other affairs. While I can land a triple piroette no questions asked
it seems I cannot make it up the steps without falling. I attribute this to the fact that in dance class and kickboxing I have to pay attention to balanceing, I have to focus. But when I'm just trodding around town there's no need for me to pay attention to anything of the like. I know my way around so I pay attention to everything else. I fall, I bump into, I walk into, I trip over. If driving required balance I'd be dangerous. There are two bruises that bloom very consistantly on my knees. They seem to be a part of me now.
If there's anything that really irks me about the current political climate I suppose it's that people seem to be taking on poltical views based on trendiness. Patriotism had been cheapened into a trend ever since the trade centers. I've run into too many people who essentially say, "I support the war because...god bless america!" Leaves me feeling a little like I've got whiplash. But I've also heard alot of "I'm going to a protest this weekend." in the "isn't that the coolest thing you've ever heard?" tone. People can tell you their stance, but they can't tell you why they stand there. "So why are you against the war again?" you ask someone. "No blood for oil?" they offer hopefully.
The U.S.'s priorities of Iraq first when North Korea is in the situation it's in also mystfies me. The analogy being, "Bobby has two sticks and a pile of wet leaves. He wants to make fire. Susie has a book of matches, kerosene and some dry wood. She wants to make fire. Stop Bobby, he could be dangerous."
I also hate that people have adopted protest poster slogans as sufficent support for their positions on the war. Consider for a moment presidential campaign slogans and devices. How about Grant's campaign just after the civil war. His party went around 'waving the bloody shirt.' Meaning that they clawed at the still fresh wound of the civil war by extolling Grant for his exemplary service in the Union army. Grant won because he'd fought on the 'right' side. But did that symbol tell you anything about Grant's admisitration? Not at all. Even though he'd fought on the 'right' side his administration was one of three very corrupted ones in history. (The others being Harding and Nixon...) Or look at Harding's campaign. 'A return to normalacy' was his campaign slogan. His administration was not a return to normalacy, but rather a retrogression back to the days before the progressive presidents. The slogan, the symbols tell you very little about the true nature of what went on. It irritates me that so many of those protesting the war believe their position can be explained by the thought fragments slapped upon their signs. 'No blood for oil' is the one I find the most invalid. 1) The U.S. has already saturated Kuwait with troops, it's got all the oil it wants for as long as it wants without needing to take Iraq. 2) However pacifistic France may claim to be I have my doubts that a moral loathing for war is why they're staying out. Here's where the oil does come in. France gets 40% of its oil from Iraq. If France were to go to war with Iraq think of how many oil contracts they'd have to renegociate through the U.S. Of course they're staying out. But that's just me speculateing based on things I've read. It just gauls me slightly when people believe that this can all be explained by the slogans on the protest signs. How could a situation like this ever be that simple or cut and dry?
And then there's the threat that the U.S. has made to other nations, if you don't support us, international realtions will suffer. While this goes against 'American principals' of freedom of speech it doesn't phase me because it's just coming out and saying something that the U.S. has been practicing in foreign realtions for decades. Obviously, international relations are improved between two nations when they have similar goals, and suffer when they do not. When were decades of rivalry put aside between the U.S. and Britain? When Britain signed the Hay- Paunceforte treaty granting the U.S. permission to build the Panama canal and fortify it. Similar goals, relations have been good for the past century now. Wouldn't it then make sense that if the British hadn't released the U.S. from the previous treaty in which it agreed not to build any such canal that the U.S.-British relations would have suffered further? Most likely. So though the U.S. has adopted this you're with us or you're not attitude about the Iraq deal it just doesn't surprise me that freedom of speech is taking such a knockdown. It's wrong, but it's not new.
My favorite part of all of this is that Bush continues to urge Saddam to disarm even as the U.S. is prepareing to attack. Right, and if I were the leader of a country the first thing I'd do would be to disarm when another country was prepareing to attack.
In other news I have a pot of daffodils in the sunroom and they are absolutely making my day.
And now I'm going to take a walk because it's too nice out not to and in addition I've sufficiently sombered myself far to much for my own taste in discussing politics. I'm going to go find something to laugh about.
"Politics, the art of the possible."
Possibly but not politically,
Meghan
what they said - what they will say
