Speaks for Itself: C & H

On Hold: The Price of Screwing Up

The Savannah series will have to take a backseat for a while. I knew our time there was special but personal crisis has a certain ability to snap moments into stunning clarity and context. There are no words to express our time together, no images to capture the way the city unfolded before us and lay suspended like a tableaux vivant, breathing into us ever so deliberately the inspiration of humanity and history and marking our passage as allies through this strange arrangement of roots, cement, liquid lights, horses, hooves, drooping canopies of Spanish moss stalactites that both reminded us of gravity and stooped down as though offering a leg up, and a way out. Strangely enough, it was in that moment that I think we both felt, for the first time, that our place was within.

Savannah, GA

I'll be expanding on this post or turning it into a series that recounts the many wonderful adventures we had in Savannah last week. For now, I'll start with our favorite gastronomic encounter: Jazz'd

Exceptional and creative food, fantastic service (although our waitress doubted we would be able to finish six plates...half an hour later we were licking our fingers with six empty plates in front of us while the entire serving staff shook their heads in disbelief). 

Savannah's vibe is complex, beautiful, simultaneously hip and haunted by its twisted past. You can feel it almost everywhere you go.

More to Come!

Recent Discovery: Nordau vs. Nietzsche

Thanks of course to Dr. Kim Jackson for presenting this startling juxtaposition of "fin de siecle" aesthetic philosophies. Nordau's vision of "degeneration" and its characteristics is so akin to Nietzsche's vision of amoral, aesthetic, and symbolic brinkmanship that I originally thought the two thinkers shared the same philosophic objectives. It was only after rereading the Nordau piece that I realized he was wholeheartedly decrying the break with traditional forms, rationality, and stale classicism that Nietzsche came to exalt in The Birth of Tragedy and would continue to encourage and historicize in "Truth and Lies," The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I was not alone in my misunderstanding; several of my more "unconventional" peers also believed Nordau to be "digging" his catalogue of fin de siecle characters and scenarios - those somewhat humorous imaginings of the rebellious, the non-traditional, the irreverent and revisionist. But it is precisely this revising with which Nordau took issue and Nietzsche championed.

While we in the liberal arts tend to declare Nietzsche the clear victor over Nordau's near-fearful conservatism, I can't say that I disagree with Nordau's presentation of "change" within the modern human institutions of fashion and vogue. Even Nietzsche hated the idea of "the fashionable," but he envisioned a type of symbolic or aesthetic genius that occupies the realm just beyond the fashionable, one step ahead, carving a path into untrodden territory while the rest of the world struggles to catch up, whereas Nordau would have us stay on the other side, never buying into "thedailywhat" or worrying about how to most fashionably and hiply revise or break with traditional and/or existing forms. Nordau would have us all self-fashion as stoic Greeks, but Nietzsche even shattered that idyllic (mis)representation of Attican perfection in The Birth of Tragedy, leaving us with what I believe to be a more honest and relevant system with which we can interact with, make sense of, and perhaps find our own meaning within the ever-quickening heartbeat of the modern cultural and existential aesthetic.

The Crisis of Representation

Exchange with the Famous Scrod Johnson (Political II)

Perhaps my pairing of the two quotes was misleading. I don't think that an armed citizenry is supposed to "threaten" the gov't with an imminent hail of bullets (although if it should come to that then I would rather be armed than helpless; wouldn't you?). Rather, an armed citizenry would be able to DEFEND itself from an invasive, domineering gov't, should its agents come knocking or encroach upon our "unalienable" rights. As for a gov't fearing its people....this should be the foundation of any representative government. The people have the power and therefore the right to throw their representatives out, stage protests, expose fraud and corruption, demand impeachment, and (if circumstances demand) stage a coup. As we saw during the Bush admin (and many before it), and continue to see with our current leaders, any sense of discontent or dissent is quickly or preemptively slandered and snuffed. Current dissenters are labeled "terrorists," "hatemongers," and "racists" (did you think of yourself as any of the above when you protested - privately or publicly - the Bush doctrine? Wouldn't you consider opposition and skepticism an indispensable component of a checked and balanced democracy? Why are these sentiments now vilified?). Regarding the French: if the gov't is more "sensitive" to them, that means that the people there must want socialism, right? That's fine for them, but our founders (along with a MAJORITY of Americans - you know, the racist, ignorant pigs like me) wanted to radically diverge from the European socialist models that tax exorbitantly and legislate/regulate individual decision-making for the "greater good" and still rack up enormous deficits as citizens "cash in" on these wonderful state-offered benefits. Believe it or not, most Americans understand and hope to perpetuate the ethics that launched us into world-superpowerdom and made us the most innovative, versatile, productive nation on the globe: individual liberty, COMPETITION (which means there will be some losers....boo hoo), and a FREE MARKET. Sorry for ranting. If you're really "all for" making the gov't fear us, then hop on the Tea Party bandwagon. They are obviously perceived as a threat, otherwise the gov't (and its liberal, state-controlled media counterparts) wouldn't spend so much time mocking and attacking them.....: ) PEACE!!!

“Well, I still think we should somehow move the dynamic between us and the gov't; we needn't threaten the gov't with a revolutionary violent overthrow (although that would be exciting, wouldn't it?), but many of us believe that "the fix is in," i.e.: corporations and the uber-wealthy are always very much in control, no matter who is elected, dem,rep, or otherwise, and all the bullshit we are sold by the political theatre we are presented with is simply a smokescreen--a distraction for us rubes--while the "fixers" continue to increase their wealth and power, and on and on...Meanwhile, let's discuss what kind of arms will should get; I'm leaning toward rifles...”

Hahahaha yes, and the more accurate the better, although every now and then it's essential to lay down suppressing fire with a light machine gun...
Anyway, I understand the "fixing" hypothesis, and I too am frustrated by the idea of political puppet theater and "greedy" corporate puppet masters. Nevertheless, I think we should keep in mind that "wealth and power" for the fixers in the private sector EQUATES to proportionate wealth and power for us rubes - these greedy capitalists for the most part are securing their financial futures through the success of their ventures, from which we ALL have an opportunity to benefit - not just from more employment opportunities but from a high quality of life (credit cards? banks? insurers? criminals?). This is the nature of a meritocracy: to the victors go the spoils. Rob, I KNOW how ridiculously cold and cut-throat that sounds. But that's life. And I don’t mean “that’s how it is and there’s no sense in changing it.” I mean, that the system works.  The promise of powerful, proportionate rewards that go to the best, brightest, shrewdest and most calculating is what motivates individuals to act - to capitalize on this simple, straightforward system. This is why what you call "compassion" is often an unecessary crutch that merely perpetuates the illusion of inability and inequality and therefore perpetuates the need for more and more gov't to give people a "leg up" and "spread the wealth around." How can you claim the gov't is a smokescreen for corporate interests and then champion gov't programs and the necessity of a centralized "helping hand"? I would tend to think that a welfare system serves to cripple its citizens and make them dependent upon the autonomous, insatiable leviathan of bureaucracy, thus ensuring the immortality of big government and control. But if the "fixers" are controlling the system, what is the motivation behind handouts and redistribution of wealth? Is it to keep the "poor" and "disenfranchised" in their place, content to receive their bare-minimum stamps and checks that barely support their squalor, so that the "fat-cats" can enjoy their thrones without fear of an uprising or a little competition? Maybe. Let's reassess. And buy rifles. After we finish our papers, of course.

New Health Care: Health Care services and technologies are no longer subject to the mandates of supply and demand; producers, hospitals, and healthcare companies no longer produce patented technologies and make them available to consumers with specific needs, special requests, and the means to procure them. Since health-care is now being purchased and provided by the gov’t through tax allotments, these medical services and technologies become collective property, subject to the mandates of social conscience (to be dictated by the gov’t, of course) rather than the marketplace. Not only does this cut off certain specific services from citizens and consumers, it limits freedom of choice and individual quality of life, and disincentivizes the production, patenting, and sale of new technologies and services. Bureaucracy, now, through the presence of tax dollars, individual mandates, and the sanctioning of insurance companies under bill stipulations, is regulating what has been and should be a private, personal, and FREE relationship between the individual, his caregiver, and his health. Ron Paul – “This is a Command Society, now”