Excerpt #1: The Judge does geology
----------------
In the afternoon he sat in the compound breaking ore samples with a hammer, the feldspar rich in red oxide of copper and native nuggets in whose organic lobations he purported to read news of the earth's origins, holding an extemporary lecture in geology to a small gathering who nodded and spat. A few would quote him scripture to confound his ordering up of eons out of the ancient chaos and other apostate supposings. The judge smiled.
Books lie, he said.
God dont lie.
No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words.
He held up a chunk of rock.
He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.
The squatters in their rags nodded among themselves and were soon reckoning him correct, this man of learning, in all his speculations, and this the judge encouraged until they were right proselytes of the new order whereupon he laughed at them for fools.
----------------------
Excerpt #2: Tobin the expriest and 'the kid' converse about The Judge.
---------------------
No, said Tobin. The gifts of the Almighty are weighed and parceled out in a scale peculiar to himself. It's no fair accountin and I dont doubt what he'd be the first to admit it and you put the query to him boldface.
Who?
The Almighty, the Almighty. The expriest shook his head. He glanced across the fire toward the judge. That great hairless thing. You wouldnt think to look at him that he could outdance the devil himself now would ye? God the man is a dancer, you'll not take that away from him. And fiddle. He's the greatest fiddler I ever heard and that's an end on it. The greatest. He can cut a trail, shoot a rifle, ride a horse, track a deer. He's been all over the world. Him and the governor they sat up till breakfast and it was Paris this and London that in five languages, you'd have give something to of heard them...
The expriest shook his head. Oh it may be the Lord's way of showin how little store he sets by the learned. Whatever could it mean to one who knows all? He's an uncommon love for the common man and godly wisdom resides in the least of things so that it may well be that the voice of the Almighty speaks most profoundly in such beings as lives in silence themselves.
He watched the kid.
For let it go how it will, he said. God speaks in the least of creatures.
The kid thought him to mean birds or things that crawl but the expriest, watching, his head slightly cocked, said, No man is give leave of that voice.
The kid spat in the fire and bent to his work.
I aint heard no voice, he said.
When it stops, said Tobin, you'll know you've heard it all your life.
---------------------
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Helen Thomas and "Why?"
A few days ago I saw a clip from a White House press conference where long time White House press core member Helen Thomas pressed the Obama White House on the question of 'why' Al Qaeda wants to do harm to the United States. Suggesting that the issue of 'why' was what was 'always missing' from this administration's briefings on the issue. I normally have no problem with someone giving Obama and co. a hard time, and in fact almost always encourage it. But in this instance, Helen Thomas is just gone off the deep end.
The reason the issue of 'why' is not commonly addressed is because the 'why' is self-evident at this point. Al Qaeda is not shy about sharing it's goals. They articulate them regularly. Everyone knows why Al Qaeda does what it does, because Al Qaeda tells us exactly why they do what they do. It isn't a mystery. Google is your friend, Helen Thomas.
If the White House were to concentrate on articulating the 'why' on a regular basis they would rightly be accused of redundancy and banality.
In response to Thomas' question the Obama White house (not Robert Gibbs, but the DoD guy), gave a true, but incomplete answer. Basically saying the reason why is because of the terrorist's perverted view and use of Islam. Which is an exceedingly politically correct, and incomplete, way of putting it, though still essentially true. He could have gone further and said that the explicit stated goals of Al Qaeda are a global Islamic caliphate, under sharia law, and the destruction of the West. That is 'why', Helen. Everyone knows why. Why are you asking why? Ah, now that's the real question.
Helen Thomas doesn't really want to know why, and she doesn't want to hear answers. Her question isn't really a question, but an accusation. Her question was intended to elicit admissions of guilt on behalf of United States foreign policy in creating the problem of Al Qaeda and terrorism. The problem here is that, when you do answer the question that she's asking, the answer shows clearly that the goals of Al Qaeda exist wholly independent from United States' foreign policy. If we were isolationists Al Qaeda would want us dead. If we were imperialists Al Qaeda would wants us dead. The goals and aspirations of Al Qaeda exist as they are without regard to US foreign policy, or any 'aggressive' actions of the US on foreign soil. Sorry, Helen, we just are not complicit in this. I know it's a crushing blow to your worldview to find out that there just REALLY are bad guys in the world that we weren't in someway responsible for creating.
So many of the terrorist sympathizers want to believe that our main, or only, issue with the terrorists is with their chosen political tactic of terrorism. In the case of Al Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups, this is not the case. It isn't only that Al Qaeda wants to use death and destruction as a political tool; it's that their political goals themselves are unacceptable and incompatible with everything that the United States and the West stands for. Even if they were seeking power through democratic and peaceful means it would still be imperative for us to fight and defeat them.
The answer to 'why' may be slightly more nuanced than 'they hate our freedoms', but it isn't much more complex than that. Cliche's become cliche' because of the truth associated with them. The 'why' is basically an exhaustive list of 'they hate A, B, C' and 'they want X, Y, Z' (X, Y and Z all being antithetical to freedom, democracy, progress, and civilization).
The reason the issue of 'why' is not commonly addressed is because the 'why' is self-evident at this point. Al Qaeda is not shy about sharing it's goals. They articulate them regularly. Everyone knows why Al Qaeda does what it does, because Al Qaeda tells us exactly why they do what they do. It isn't a mystery. Google is your friend, Helen Thomas.
If the White House were to concentrate on articulating the 'why' on a regular basis they would rightly be accused of redundancy and banality.
In response to Thomas' question the Obama White house (not Robert Gibbs, but the DoD guy), gave a true, but incomplete answer. Basically saying the reason why is because of the terrorist's perverted view and use of Islam. Which is an exceedingly politically correct, and incomplete, way of putting it, though still essentially true. He could have gone further and said that the explicit stated goals of Al Qaeda are a global Islamic caliphate, under sharia law, and the destruction of the West. That is 'why', Helen. Everyone knows why. Why are you asking why? Ah, now that's the real question.
Helen Thomas doesn't really want to know why, and she doesn't want to hear answers. Her question isn't really a question, but an accusation. Her question was intended to elicit admissions of guilt on behalf of United States foreign policy in creating the problem of Al Qaeda and terrorism. The problem here is that, when you do answer the question that she's asking, the answer shows clearly that the goals of Al Qaeda exist wholly independent from United States' foreign policy. If we were isolationists Al Qaeda would want us dead. If we were imperialists Al Qaeda would wants us dead. The goals and aspirations of Al Qaeda exist as they are without regard to US foreign policy, or any 'aggressive' actions of the US on foreign soil. Sorry, Helen, we just are not complicit in this. I know it's a crushing blow to your worldview to find out that there just REALLY are bad guys in the world that we weren't in someway responsible for creating.
So many of the terrorist sympathizers want to believe that our main, or only, issue with the terrorists is with their chosen political tactic of terrorism. In the case of Al Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups, this is not the case. It isn't only that Al Qaeda wants to use death and destruction as a political tool; it's that their political goals themselves are unacceptable and incompatible with everything that the United States and the West stands for. Even if they were seeking power through democratic and peaceful means it would still be imperative for us to fight and defeat them.
The answer to 'why' may be slightly more nuanced than 'they hate our freedoms', but it isn't much more complex than that. Cliche's become cliche' because of the truth associated with them. The 'why' is basically an exhaustive list of 'they hate A, B, C' and 'they want X, Y, Z' (X, Y and Z all being antithetical to freedom, democracy, progress, and civilization).
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Poker and Life Lesson #1 - Money
Playing poker has an interesting affect on how you view various aspects of life. Many of the lessons that poker teaches can be translated to life. The most obvious and direct way is the way in which you feel about, and use, your own money. Playing a lot of poker, for a steady income, at once fosters a higher disregard for money, on one level, and a higher respect for it on another. Which is approximately, I feel, what a healthy view of money should be. Respect for what it represents (a product of your own hard work, and a means by which to sustain one's life), while at the same time recognizing that it is ultimately not an end unto itself, and is rather unimportant, in the larger scheme of things.
When I first began playing poker, and put like $200 on a site, losing $20 felt like a really big loss or downswing relative to the total I had available. As I started to win money and moved up in stakes a $20 tournament loss, or downswing, started to feel like nothing. But the $100 loss or downswing still hurt. I would look at my account after it went down from $1000 to $900 and think "dang! I just had $1000! I lost ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! That's a lot of money!", and I would feel it. As I continued to move up in stakes, $100 fluctuations become unnoticed and negligible. But $500 downswings still hurt, etc. Phil Ivey says "everyone has a pain threshold", where the losses start to hurt. Even the best high stakes players who experience frequent $200k downswings, for them it might take, maybe a $1 mil losing day before they really feel it, but everyone has a point where it hurts.
One might think that my attitude toward 'poker money' would differ from 'real life' money. And it does, to a certain extent. I do tend to keep them separate. But as my tolerance for larger and larger swings in poker money increased, so to did my tolerance for spending larger amounts of money in real life. Not that I started to spend extravagantly on things I didn't need. I always have been, and still am, very practical and conservative regarding money management. But now if I do need or want something, or if I want to buy something for someone else, money is no object. Whereas before I would always check price tags and be concerned with them, now I don't even look at them. Which, I think, is a healthy attitude to have towards money, assuming that your finances are in order and you're not living paycheck to paycheck where you need to be very consciously aware of what money you do and don't spend. Before poker I would not like spending $100 on much of anything, but not because I didn't have the means of spending that amount if I wanted to, but because it just "seemed like a lot of money". And now it doesn't. Which is not to say I have a ton more money now than I did before poker, because I don't. I have a similar net worth today to what I had then. The only difference is that now I see money more as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself, which is, I think, a good thing.
When I first began playing poker, and put like $200 on a site, losing $20 felt like a really big loss or downswing relative to the total I had available. As I started to win money and moved up in stakes a $20 tournament loss, or downswing, started to feel like nothing. But the $100 loss or downswing still hurt. I would look at my account after it went down from $1000 to $900 and think "dang! I just had $1000! I lost ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! That's a lot of money!", and I would feel it. As I continued to move up in stakes, $100 fluctuations become unnoticed and negligible. But $500 downswings still hurt, etc. Phil Ivey says "everyone has a pain threshold", where the losses start to hurt. Even the best high stakes players who experience frequent $200k downswings, for them it might take, maybe a $1 mil losing day before they really feel it, but everyone has a point where it hurts.
One might think that my attitude toward 'poker money' would differ from 'real life' money. And it does, to a certain extent. I do tend to keep them separate. But as my tolerance for larger and larger swings in poker money increased, so to did my tolerance for spending larger amounts of money in real life. Not that I started to spend extravagantly on things I didn't need. I always have been, and still am, very practical and conservative regarding money management. But now if I do need or want something, or if I want to buy something for someone else, money is no object. Whereas before I would always check price tags and be concerned with them, now I don't even look at them. Which, I think, is a healthy attitude to have towards money, assuming that your finances are in order and you're not living paycheck to paycheck where you need to be very consciously aware of what money you do and don't spend. Before poker I would not like spending $100 on much of anything, but not because I didn't have the means of spending that amount if I wanted to, but because it just "seemed like a lot of money". And now it doesn't. Which is not to say I have a ton more money now than I did before poker, because I don't. I have a similar net worth today to what I had then. The only difference is that now I see money more as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself, which is, I think, a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)