Pessimistic, or Just Plain Tantalizing?
One of the tricks of being a Big Time Writer is that anxiety and depression and sexual arousal are masks for having something to say. Old rounders like me hide behind cat shadows, when there are no Librarians around to irritate. These considerations have led to a continuing debate: are we pessimistic, or optimistic?
I think I'm pessimistic because, in the words of a logger friend of mine, "our roots run deep." That is to say, I was raised in the country. My Old Dad had me digging when I was eight and wasn't afraid to snap my head with a whistlin' fist when I wasn't diggin' fast enough, see? I was lucky enough to see animals in the wild, and had animals and birds whose welfare I was responsible for. To this day I still dream about our two old pack horses. They were as much friends to me as any human friend I've ever had.
By the time I started getting exposed to city specimens of mankind on a regular basis, I was repulsed. For the most part, I still am. There's something missing from them. Their souls are absorbed in manic narcissism. What else can I say? They talk more than they listen; their "sexuality" is mercenary and exhibitionistic; they put great stock in their own vanity, which to me is empty, nihilistic. I think that's why corporate folks seem girly to me. The men, I mean. They were never really boys, so they can't really be men. Likely their mothers were more receptacles of consumer vitality than actual mothers. They produced children as one would exhibit jams and pies.
Dark?
Oh yeah.
I summarize my pessimism this way: All systems, of whatever kind and origin, evolve to a level of complexity wherein they are doomed to die. An old Goodyear training manual put it this way:
To evolve you must eliminate; to develop you must discard. This is unfailing law. Nature is constantly eradicating remnants in order that she may weave new fabrics unhindered. She purges to progress. And man is ever abandoning the useless old and adopting the useful new. He rejects in order to revise and reform.
In my world, Barack Obama is not a bright, articulate leader. He is a boy, as in, not yet a man. He is symptomatic of a society that no longer knows the difference between the two, a society that seeks security from a lonely little boy who needs attention.
For our folly, we must and will pay. Him I do not resent. In fact, I don't resent any of it (though I am grateful to be old enough to know my eyes won't have to watch the complete cycle!). I see what has to happen, that's all. I feel sorry for Barack and people like him. There's a big chunk of them missing. He's acting out his absence on the absence of those who need to believe. You see that?
Our thanks this morning to The Barrister for these links:
The Frightening 'New' Side of Barack Obama. No offense to Charles Hurt and you other fools for failing to recognize adolescent resentment and self-righteous narcissism in a man barely qualified to run for city ward.
When Clinton won in1992 with a Democratic House and Senate there was no partisanship. There was a mandate. An agenda. Progress. When America reacted to the big government Democrats tried to enact in 1993 and 1994 by electing a Republican House and Senate the dreaded "partisanship" arose. Grover Norquist







Recent Comments