Shoveling Smoke

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Winter

The weather as it hits the landscape is an unfinished pencil sketch, faint and muted with smudges of cold brushing across the canvas of my skin. It is early morning, but still too light for color. Everything is gray- burnished silvers and fresh charcoals show themselves before the sun's ascent dulls and chars the view, relegating the world to equal light.

I stop and look for landmarks. I'm familiar with the area, but it's been ages since I was here, and much has changed. Nature, in her way, has commenced reclaiming the land. The gas station on the corner, where owners in new tweed suits used to ply their Oldsmobile with leaded fuel, is now a tribute to the color brown- withered kudzu and old rust. Looking at it, one doesn't know whether to feel remorse or relief- so one is left with nothing, as I am now.

I'm not far from my destination. Around the next corner and behind the old brick church is a graveyard. At least, there was. A large part of me wants to find out what havoc time has wreaked.

I continue down the gravel road, the muffled sound of my feet hitting the icy rocks the only audible proof of my existence. The tips of my fingers grow painful from the cold; I shove them into my coat pockets.

I try to picture the cemetery in my head as I walk, partially out of curiosity, but also to ward off the mental effects of the cold. I see worn concrete and bent iron fences, their spires either missing or lacking the glory they once had. For their glory is cumulative- the effect of cemetery fences with missing spires is wholly unimpressive, for it is the unbroken line of spires pointing skyward that catches grandeur. Once disturbed- either through vandals or the rise of Nature- one is left with an oddity that arouses suspicion, but not interest.

The graves, however, are different. As they are merely symbolic edifices, their importance is not tethered to any measure of material integrity. A cracked tombstone is still a tombstone; a tombstone washed away by a flood and buried in the bed of a mighty river is still a tombstone. One could borrow Thor's hammer and smash a tombstone into millions of atoms, and those atoms would still be tombstones. Thus, by that logic (or rule of natural law), those things that change the materiality of the marker only increase the interest, and do nothing to detract.

I have no interest in new grave markers- they are but poor symbols for the corpse beneath. One could argue that they are made to represent the person's soul, but I think that proves too much. The soul, if it exists, needs no symbol- surely our poor flesh didn't serve the purpose while we were living. Instead, they mark the spot where bodies were laid to rest or rot, depending on your particular view. (As I walk, it grows so cold that I wonder whether or not I'll freeze to death. Hypothermia doesn't particularly care about my point of view. So many things supersede and supplant our opinions with their power of actuality and truth, I someimes wonder why I believe anything at all.) Either way, they mark the spot where the horses, tired and breathing with sweat and verve, stopped the carriage. The place where the casket was lowered and a few words said. That's it. And just like we did, they fall apart over time. It is disturbing if viewed at from one angle, but profoundly enlightening if looked at from another. This is true of both the tombstone and the vision.

In my time, I've seen some wonderfully altered gravesites. Most being this old are at least cracked. Water, freezing and thawing and freezing again, works its way into any crevice and causes the sturdiest concrete into fits. Occasionally, the whole top half lops off, and the name of the deceased presses into the earth. Once, I saw a grave that was partially engulfed by a nearby tree tunk- a perfect vision of Nature subsuming not only the flesh, but also its symbol.

I've reached the place now. From where I stand, I can see a portion of the cemetery fence emerging from the dying kudzu. The uniform spires cast a staccato shadow over a perfectly upright grave, its eminence shining in the newly wrought light of the sun.

I sigh, and turn to go. It's so damn cold, after all.




Labels:

Friday, December 01, 2006

Numerals

As a general rule, I don't have great ideas. I'll lounge in my chair, a half-baked idea will loll around in my head, and I'll grow terribly excited. Then someone possessing common sense will shoot it down for reasons I should have anticipated. It's fairly depressing.

I've thought this one through more than most, and I haven't found any real chinks yet. So tell me why it won't work- I promise, you won't hurt my feelings.

I was watching a credit card commercial the other day, and a fancy card splashed across the screen. The embossed and raised credit card number gleamed like a new Cadillac. And I thought to myself- what's the point of putting the credit card number on the card itself? I remember back when stores used the old systems where they would make an embossment of the card, but I haven't see any of those around in years. Most people that take credit nowadays are sophistacated enough to have the ubiquitous card readers that someone made millions designing. And those machines don't care if you slide through a bus ticket stub- as long as it has a magnetic strip on the back that contains a card number.

So why the numbers where people can find them if they have steal your wallet? Without the number on the card itself, people wouldn't be able to go nuts on one of the gazillion Internet websites that just require the basic credit card information. It would save both the consumers and credit card companies insane amounts of money. And it's simple.

The only weakness I've been able to figure out is that people would have to carry their credit card number around perhaps, if they do a lot of Internet shopping away from home. But I just don't think that's a terribly large number of people. And needing two separate items in order to carry out identity theft helps to thwart the activity. At the very least, having the numbers taken off the front should be an option for the savvy consumer. (You could make the argument that anyone using a credit card isn't terribly savvy, but that's a whole other post.)

Some credit card companies have a small picture of yourself in the corner, but the thief with a stolen credit card doesn't use it at the grocery store. So the picture doesn't help.

So tell me, what's the practical purpose of having embossed and shiny numbers on the face of credit cards? Is it an example of not changing based on outdated industry standards or does it serve a purpose I'm just not seeing?

Labels:

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Respite

Spent a lot of the Thanksgiving Break doing absolutely nothing. Consider this post to be a smorgasboard of leftovers- the Internet equivalent of a cold turkey sandwich, if you will.

Played some disc golf with my wife on Saturday- which was fun, until I threw my disc into a water hazard. Note: discs tend to sink in water.

I've noticed that a lot of stores are utilizing Santa in their commercials. Which is fine and all, but that all seem to denigrate Old Saint Nick's role in some way. One has him buying a diamond ring- if you even buy into the Santa mythology, wouldn't his elves make him one? Another has him coming home early, because apparently some store has taken his place. I don't know about you, but replacing Santa with a corporate entity doesn't exactly place warm fuzzies in the heart. Finally, another one has everyone oohing and aahing over the latest phones, while Santa's line at the mall sits empty. That one is just sad. Don't kids want ponies anymore? Or at least, want to believe in something bigger than themselves? Sigh. But I guess the phones play music, so all is forgiven. Grrr.

My father-in-law retired Saturday after working at the same place for 21 years. My wife and I bought him a bottle of Wild Turkey Rare Breed to celebrate the occasion. At the liquor store, the cashier asked if it would be credit or debit when we handed over the card. Note: if you use credit to buy alchohol, you might have a problem. Note #2: Has anyone else noticed how the person selling the liquor seems to know way too much about the product he's selling?

Apparently everyone went out and bought everything this weekend. Partially because the commercial culture has so brainwashed the masses to trigger buying after Thanksgiving, a non-Pavlovian response is no longer possible. I wonder if such was the case in the 1920s? Or the 50s? Or did corporate America simply create it out of thin air? Something tells me that Christmas used to be just a one-day event, instead of the month-long financial orgasm it has become. Sigh once more.

I really want to try to make some acorn bread. Apparently if you leech out the tannic acid, the things are pretty tasty. There's an oak tree in front of a courthouse near where I work that has cartoon acorns. They're almost too perfect. Like Disney animators penciled them in.

I've got semester exams coming up soon, and a small paper due Tuesday. I've laid the groundwork for the paper, but haven't really begun studying in earnest yet for exams. Luckily, 5.5 of my 15 hours this semester are pretty much already wrapped up, so they shouldn't weigh as much. Also, I get almost a week off to study for my final one, which should be the hardest.

Well, that's life from my neck of the woods. I'll attempt to post more regularly, now that my life resumes its normal schedule. Thanks for all the comments everybody- I'll respond to each in the next few days.

Labels:

Monday, November 20, 2006

Exposition

I'm always fascinated with where TV producers decide to place their series. So much of a series' storyline generally revolves around the exposition; as a result, the decision can help determine the success rate of a series. Below I've listed the 50 states and coupled the ones I could think of off the top of my head with a TV show that was (predominately) located within its borders. Feel free to help me complete the list.

AL: Any Day Now
AK: Northern Exposure
AZ: ______________
AR: ______________
CA: Full House, C-H-I-P-S?
CO: South Park
CT: Judging Amy, Who's the Boss?
DC: West Wing
DE: ______________
FL: CSI: Miami; Miami Vice
GA: Designing Women
HI: Hawaii 5-0
ID: ______________
IL: Family Matters, Chicago Hope
IN: Close to Home
IA: ______________
KS: Jericho, Smallville
KY: Dukes of Hazzard
LA: ______________
ME: Murder, She Wrote
MD: Homicide: Life on the Street
MA: Cheers, Boston Legal
MI: Home Improvement
MN: Coach
MS: In the Heat of the Night
MO: The John Laroquette Show
MT: _____________
NE: _____________
NV: CSI, Las Vegas
NH: _____________
NJ: The Sopranos
NM: Roswell
NY: Everybody Loves Raymond, CSI: NY
NC: The Andy Griffith Show
ND: ______________
OH: Drew Carey Show, WKRP Cincinnati
OK: ______________
OR: ______________
PA: The Class, The Office
RI: Providence, Family Guy
SC: _______________
SD: _______________
TN: Petticoat Junction
TX: Friday Night Lights
UT: Big Love
VT: NewHart
VA: A Different World, Alias, The Waltons
WA: Frasier, Grey's Anatomy
WV: Hawkins
WI: That 70's Show
WY: _______________

Was Dukes of Hazzard in Kentucky or West Virginia? Is there a real difference between the two? (Just kidding, Fish.) In what state was NewHart set? Zuska, you work around D.C., right? Try to fill in some of the mid-Atlantic gaps. Hey Brian, you're about to take the Alabama bar. At some point in television history, a show had to be set in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham. Where's Hillman College at from A Different World? And don't worry, Lisa Hutch, I'm well aware of the fact that most of our shows are actually filmed in Vancouver.

EDIT: Thanks to Fish and Brian, we've managed to expand the list. Only 17 out of 50 states remain. I'll pick up the search... keep sending in your comments!

EDIT REDUX: Added Alabama and West Virginia, thanks to some recent tips. Only 15 states left!

Labels: ,

Friday, November 17, 2006

Love


I met my wife while working at a daycare during the summer- I was charged with keeping the afterschoolers entertained, and she watched over the nursery.


Over the few months we worked together, we started spending more and more time together at work- finding reasons to bump into each other in the hall, etc.


To make a long story somewhat short, one Friday night I received a call from my sister, telling me that my (future) wife wanted to meet me at the daycare.


It was there- amongst the plastic playground equipment with safety-rounded edges, that we fell in love. We talked for hours, and when we eventually kissed, the words "I love you," fell abruptly and unceremoniously from my mouth. It was one of the few times in my Asperger-ridden life that the filter was ripped clean off its hinges, and the words sprung clean and unadulterated from my lips.


I waited in sheer terror for what seemed like an eternity (but must what have been half a second) until she said she loved me too.


And that was it. No streamers, no gondola in Venice or Eiffel Tower in Paris- but it was love.


Later, when I have children, I suppose they'll ask me how they know they're in love.


I'll tell them that the surest sign of love occurs after that magical moment. It happens every time you take the smallest amount of time to stare into their eyes- at that moment, you're transported back in time, to when it all began. All the hard weeks and tribulations you've faced melt like snow, and love emerges unscathed and ready to battle the harships of life.


So it is with me and my wife. With our schedules, it is sometimes difficult to spend quality time with one another. Reconnecting takes a modicum of effort, but sometimes even that's too much to give. Yet, when we do spend time together- on a date, walking a nature trail, etc.- we quickly become too bumbling kids without a care in the world.


Sounds small, but that's the difference between a happy marriage and divorce. Those who divorce either can't or won't find a way to renew the connection. For those truly in love, the connection is so easy to recreate (and bolster) that divorce is inconceivable. If one of us ever filed papers, we'd fall in love all over again while arguing over who gets what.


Here's hoping my readers have that kind of love for somebody- there's nothing on earth like it. I would liken it to a paradise. Mine is covered with autumn leaves and playground swings, and I visit it every time I look into my wife's eyes.


You can keep Paris.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Morality

I was perusing my weekly copy of Time magazine a few days ago, and I found an interesting debate concerning evolution versus creationism. The main point on the creation side was somewhat intriguing- the fellow asked how morality could be quantified without the inherent admission that a Creator was responsible for our existence?

I did a quick look on dictionary.com and found three different definitions for morality. All had to do with a subjective slant on standards, and one even used the phrase "good and evil," which I thought to be a bit much.

But here's the point- if there is no supreme arbiter who sets the standards for moral conduct, who are we to say what is moral or immoral? Why is saving someone's life better than drowning a puppy? I think most would answer "because the majority says it is," but I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer. Several periods throughout history (Salem Witch Trials, Nazi Germany, etc.) prove that society can rapidly devolve into chaos. If the entire world decided "to hell with it," would that be the new morality? I hope that what is "good" and "evil" is not subject to the vagaries of public sentiment. I would also hope that causing others to suffer simply to derive pleasure from that suffering would never be a good thing.

Evolutionists suggest that basic morality exists because we've realized it's necessary in order to form an efficient society- which in turn, benefits the individual. Thus, morality hinges on a sense of reason and the capacity for higher intelligence. The Neanderthal who was mean to everyone probably didn't get to share in the harvest when his crops failed, thus we've evolved to share resources.

I don't disagree with that, but I find it troubling. Because if one accepts that logic, it becomes clear that all morality is essentially based on selfish desires. We give to the homeless so our stature will be increased in society. We obey traffic laws so our record will be clean, not to protect other drivers. We're nice to others not to be nice, but so they might be nice to us later.

What this theory fails to take into consideration is the fact that humans are capable of truly selfless acts. The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades isn't thinking self-preservation; he's thinking of helping others. Some people pick up litter, even when no one's watching. Those examples don't appear to be based on evolutionary principles. They are simply good deeds, one which a pure evolutionary approach can't seem to explain away.

For the record, I find much of evolution appealing- natural selection makes a ton of sense. The slow squirrel gets eaten and the fast squirrel gets to make fast squirrel babies. No argument there. Not to mention the fact that I think there are several possible ways to enjoin the debate by combining the two theories. So please don't take this as a slam on evolution, but more as a representation of my internal thought patterns on this complicated topic.

Labels:

Monday, November 13, 2006

Marriage

Today in my Constitutional Law class we discussed the issue of same-sex marriages.

I volunteered, mostly to avoid being cold called later, but also to espouse my opinions on the matter.

I believe that the State wrongly usurped the Church's power to perform marriage ceremonies somewhere in the far past. I think this was done because the State, fearing the Church's ability to regulate that aspect of society, wanted a piece of the authoritarian pie. Placing the realm of marriage under state control allowed the government to stick their noses even further into other people's business- which is what the government is best at, it appears.

That said, nobody really cared when this occurred, because nothing really changed. At least, they thought nothing changed. But beneath the surface, the entire process had become different- what had been an intensely spiritual and religious event became nothing more than an entry in the county court's register. Of course, for some, the old traditions still remained intact- but the omnipresent state hung around like an unwanted and uninvited guest, knowing full well that his recognition of the marriage was needed in order for it to take full legal effect.

Regardless of whether or not you're a religious person, imagine what a marriage means to the followers of religion. They're making a vow before their beloved and (what they believe, at least) a higher power. Is that really something that can be enforced/ratified by a state power? I daresay not. To borrow a phrase from Lincoln, the state's "poor power to add or detract" renders the exercise moot. It's like the FAA giving a meteor permission to land, or NOAA sanctioning a tornado for excessive violence.

Regardless, for hundreds of years, this link between the sacramental world of religion and the secular world of government persisted. No one cared until people of the same sex began trying to get married. There became two choices: (a) ban same-sex marriages and uphold the religious foundation of marriage, or (b) allow same-sex marriage and uphold the right of consenting adults to ratify their very personal decisions. Both choices mostly sucked, because choosing one meant subverting either (a) a most hallowed religious and cultural tradition, or (b) destroying a fundamental right to freedom.

The madness will only stop when the government realizes that it has no legal right, nor moral authority, to "marry" its citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Those of faith can get married in a church, and the rest of the populace can get "unionized," "merged," or have their life contracts notarized by the Judge of Social Partner Coalescence. People could enter five-year renewable contracts, contingent on both individuals marching down to the courthouse to re-sign the papers. Of course, those who want to can do both- if the church (assuming the state action would be almost automatic, like getting a car tag) will allow it.

One last note to ease those zealots who lose sleep at night over the fact that Tom and Tim might get married, and then I'll put the reins to this ranting and wild horse. The name of the union is immaterial, even if it's called a "marriage." Those who lack the right to deem something cannot change that fact by merely invoking the words. We are not magic. No matter how hard I say it, I simply cannot change water to fire by calling it fire.

Marriages- true marriages- only take place in a religious structure and/or with a religious leader of some type present. At the very least, there is a mention of some sort of Deity, and a pledge of love that goes far beyond any legally recognized stardard of care. Of course, its terms (in a contract sense) would be considered unconscionable. The act isn't legally recognizable, and was never meant to be as such.

Labels:


View My Stats