Lyrical Musings II

The Wisdom That the Workers Just Won't Wait For

Among the talks of how things are and all these petty academians, I crumble.
Realizing I'm just me.
I got my face behind these books are making shelves.
And I believe its too much w o r k to set me free.
And my method is flawed
And my way is wrong and they would let me
Sell myself if it would mean that they could buy themselves a drink; I'm helping everybody die and I'm forgetting it.
But I tend to preaching life into the lifeless walking corpse out on the street
And not regretting it
Among the tales of jobless people there's a wisdom that the workers just won't wait for.
But I will hold my breath
It's crowded all the time and everywhere I go.
And I wonder if the talkers hear themselves
And believe it
I've got my hand attached to paper and pretending that the talkers do not k n o w the things I know.
But it so is not so
There is nothing that I know.

Connections

I saw her take

From the bottom of the barrel
And I was thinking did she think I thought her selfess.
But I know
It was only obligation
And besides
The only thought I had was thinking she was cute

And so we see
Ourselves in hopeless situations
Entertaining motives motioning for clues
But I am blind
To the existence that surrounds me
Can I behold what I claim to be the truth?

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

There are connections
That my friends are just not making
But my finger's been found missing from what point do they begin
To see the bridges
That I'm burning at a blazing speed.
But they understand the gulf
Oh, they understand the gulf.

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

I'm going to stand under a burning sun that burns me
Let it paint me reddish colors slowly fading to tan
And then relax inside a cubicle of entertainment
I'll return to beige and pink and cream

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

Eternity In Our Hearts?

"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!"- Johannes de Silentio (Soren Kierkegaard)

I have lots of things to teach you now, in case we ever meet, concerning the message that was transmitted to me under a pine tree in North Carolina on a cold winter moonlit night. It said that Nothing Ever Happened, so don't worry. It's all like a dream. Everything is ecstasy, inside. We just don't know it because of our thinking-minds. But in our true blissful essence of mind is known that everything is alright forever and forever and forever. Close your eyes, let your hands and nerve-ends drop, stop breathing for 3 seconds, listen to the silence inside the illusion of the world, and you will remember the lesson you forgot, which was taught in immense milky way soft cloud innumerable worlds long ago and not even at all. It is all one vast awakened thing. I call it the golden eternity. It is perfect. We were never really born, we will never really die. It has nothing to do with the imaginary idea of a personal self, other selves, many selves everywhere: Self is only an idea, a mortal idea. That which passes into everything is one thing. It's a dream already ended. There's nothing to be afraid of and nothing to be glad about. I know this from staring at mountains months on end. They never show any expression, they are like empty space. Do you think the emptiness of space will ever crumble away? Mountains will crumble, but the emptiness of space, which is the one universal essence of mind, the vast awakenerhood, empty and awake, will never crumble away because it was never born.-Jack Kerouac (Jack Kerouac)

If neither of these quotes make a ton of sense to you, its probably because they didn't make all the sense in the world to their authors either. Kidding aside, Kerouac and Kierkegaard are two authors always worthy of comparison. Both relied heavily on pathos, both used pseudonyms, both were prone to depression, and both were highly introspective, concerned not with grand schemes, but with the particulars and quirks of everyday happenings. The main differences, in my mind were that one, Kierkegaard is considered a philosopher, (although he rejected the label), and Kerouac a novelist and poet (although a philosopher in his own right). I own the books from which both these quotes came, but I have neither of them on hand, so I looked them up via internet. The funny thing about the site from which I got the Kierkegaard quote was that it was called "Stream of Consciousness". Kerouac practically invented, stream of consciousness writing. Truman Capote, a contemporary often compared with Kerouac, as both novel writers wrote what was coined, "the autobiographical. novel", about Kerouac's style quipped, "That's not writing. That's typing". When you read Kierkegaard it sometimes appears he was just "shooting from the hip", but this is more likely than not, because of his intentional aloofness, and not as Kerouac's "typing". Now to compare these two quotes, which turn out to be quite contrasting. Or more precisely, Kerouac proves Kierkegaard's/de Silentio's point. (From now on we will refer to the author of the former quote as "de Silentio").
There's a ton of analysis to be done on Silentio's . I'm not sure a Google blog is the place for that. Let it suffice to say that at the bottom of de Silentio's rhetorical charade, is the singular statement: men believe in eternity, because they must; they must in order to prevent themselves from utter despair upon despair upon more meaningless despair about the utter despairing vanity of everything.
At the bottom of Kerouac's pathos laden quote is the denial of reality as he knows it, so that he can claim everything is eternity, for if everything is eternal, then everything is nothing, and if everything is nothing, there is nothing over which to despair. It's a convenient belief for Kerouac, but albeit one that you could never shake him of, even you drop on him the soundest, most compelling skeptical analysis in the world. For Kerouac, like de Silentio know, that if there is no such thing as eternity, then their is only lies and despair.
The Bible agrees. It says, "God has set eternity in the hearts of men."
However, Stephen Hawking has argued that an materialistic assurance of no-after life does not necessarily lead to despair. He has seemed to prove that true as one of the happiest men alive (for all appearances). Those who disagree with Hawking's strict materialism can say that he's out of touch with his feelings, and that he's just in denial. I say that's just begging the question, and mean prejudice. Perhaps he really is happy, then de Silentio's comments are not necessarily true for all men, maybe for de Silentio, but not for everyone. None of this sheds any light on the existence of God or an afterlife, nor the validity of a skeptical worldview. But it at least contrasts two paradigmatic psychological perspectives. On one hand, you have the scientific objective observer, and the other, the introspective subjective thinker. Neither can make his case perfectly for his opponents. Both can only edify those who share the psychological predispositions. The main question, the meaning of life, ultimately is left without an absolutely doubtless conclusion. But as one who identifies with an introspective approach. It is perhaps the case that I have an unhealthy obsessive fear of the unknown, namely death. But I do believe that the scientific approach deals with the question by denying the importance of the question. The introspective person deals with the question by posing eternity. Both are going to die. That's the inescapable bear truth. And I cannot believe that the irreligious blind denial of an afterlife is any less religious or superstitious handling of the question than the religious blind affirmation of eternity. For now, I can only appeal to Mr. Pascal and his wager.

Who Should Christian's Have Voted For in 2008?

So I was reading this book. The book was written by a fairly well known evangelical pastor. I actually know the guy, but that's neither here nor there. In 2008,he informs his readers, he voted for Barack Obama. And he wasn't the only evangelical Christian to do so. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I would be curious to see if more Evangelical Christians went Democrat in the recent elections than ever. (post moral majority) Here was this Pro-life/family values pastor reasoning. (I'm being slightly unfair by paraphrasing, but I feel its necessary for brevity's sake)
Having concluded that God no longer forbids nor demands that Christian's vote, he decided to use that freedom to vote. (This is, I think, a good way of approaching this issue as a Christian). Having also decided that The United States of America is an earthly kingdom that is not the kingdom of God, he must vote according to which candidates position is more in line with Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God, realizing of course the extreme improbability that any candidate would completely embody all Jesus' vision. (Discerning, and commendable). So while he believed that Jesus would've been Pro-Life (I presume, and presume he would've agreed) and would've thought that homosexuality was a sin, the presentation of Jesus' political attitude spelled out in the Gospels was about social justice, help for the poor, downtrodden, and outcast, enemy love, and a generally pacifistic attitude, something that is at least by first appearances, not Republican. So he decided that although President Obama, was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage,(unlike Jesus presumably) that he was also pro-people, and pro-diplomacy, and pro-little guy, like Jesus, that Obama was the obvious candidate, and he could excuse the pro-choice thing basically because the Gospels don't address it.
This seems to be the natural way to approach the issue as a Christian. We're awaiting the kingdom of God, realizing that America is not the kingdom of God, exercising our right to vote, we make the decision based on the information we have, according to the candidate that best lines up with Jesus' political perspective which we glean from the Gospels.
Now I'm going to give this Pastor the benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that he doesn't believe that voting is his final contribution to politics. But voting is a contribution. However, I want to point out that regardless of political party, whether the candidate is running on a Republican or Democratic ticket, he is not running for an office that is elected by God to represent His Kingdom. You cannot vote for King Jesus. He is never on the ballot.
But while being convinced, as I think is this pastor, that the American Government is not the Kingdom, I'm not sure that the Democrats best represents the Gospels. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in talking about this, we're trying to bridge gaps that are not close to each other. The difference between the kingdom of God and the American Government (A kingdom of man) is a more fundamental difference, than the difference between Republican or Democrat. The Christian vote just doesn't exist.
In order to showcase the fact that the Christian vote doesn't exist, I will now ask questions that throw wrenches on the issue. It's not as simple as: Republicans believe this. Jesus doesn't. Democrats believe this: Jesus does too. What would Jesus think about about big government? What would Jesus think about welfare and social programs? Jesus asking us to care for the poor is not the issue at hand when it comes to who we should vote for. Democrats would like you to believe that Republicans don't care about the poor, but the real issue is that Republicans believe that small government is better for the poor. Whether they're right or not is another issue. Jesus wasn't advocating state welfare, nor was rallying against it. It was a completely different atmosphere. But the main thing that Jesus was rallying for politically was that oppression is the natural outcome of any man-made political endeavor, no matter how well-intentioned the original idea, whether it be Rabbinical, the Pax Romana, or the Declaration of Independence, but also that any direct revolt is as worldly and man-made as the existing political power and is doomed to the same fate. The kingdom of God is like a small, insignificant mustard seed at first. You don't notice it's growth until all of a sudden, it's an all pervasive tree, casting it's shadow over everything. That's the kingdom we represent as Christians as we wait. As such we fight for social justice, the equality of all people as image bearers of God, the right treatment of God's creation, all things Democrat, but we don't like laziness, nor can we stand for a system that enables thievery in the name of welfare. All things, Republican. We consider the pro-life issue an issue of social justice, the physical life of a human being taking precedence over the free choice of a human being. Republican. We don't believe the government can solve our problems, definitely not Democratic, but not all that Republican either. Granted everything I said in the last paragraph is stereotypical, sharply rhetorical, and just plain polemical. There is room for interpretation. We can discuss that. But does not my point still stand that it is impossible to stand with any party absolutely and at the same time call ourselves Christians? And more importantly, there is almost no way that Christians can call any vote for a candidate an expressly Christian vote except by appeal to conscience.

In the Contest for Best Season...

For the first winter since 2005 I am not working outdoors. This has to be the main contributing factor to my sudden affection for the season. The only amount of time I spend in the cold are the seconds to minutes between my car and my destination. (If it's minutes, it's never even two) If it is even 2 minutes, it is 2 minutes in anticipation of some warm drink I will be consuming very shortly, with a book and/or friends, and potentially intellectual conversation, or fun meaningless banter about coffee, beards, or sports. On my way to this presumably coffee laden location, I am wearing my new coat, new scarf, new sweater, and sweet hat.(I have never sounded more metrosexual).
Fall used to be the most appealing season to me, and probably will remain that way after the winter in Northeastern Pennsylvania finally ends somewhere in early May, and begins again the second week of October. And you will probably be hearing a different tune on this blog come post-march madness.
I have always declared Fall to be the best season. I love the mild conditions, the partly sunny days, and the re-busting out of the sweaters and hoodies. I love the colors, the smell of the air, the restart of academia on the college campuses, and gettin' ready for some football. But in NEPA it lasts for a week and a half.
Spring is fun, but its manic, and again short lived here in NEPA. There's the one day, where everything is suddenly alive again. It's like a religious revival. Exciting, but eventually disappointing, deflating, and grossly inauthentic. Spring exists to prepare us for summer, and make us forget that there's this drudgery called work that we all have to do, and we must always remember this if we wish to avoid letdown. Spring is the ultimate tease.
I'm a fan of books and sports. Both of which get kicked to the curb in the summer. I like baseball, but it is the only thing between quad-annual World Cups, and always crappy quad-annual Summer Olympics. And baseball just never ever ever ends. Maybe it was a good idea to play over a hundred games when it was America's pastime. America's sport is now Football and they play at most 20 Games, and when's it over people can't wait for September. By the time Baseball is done with their near 200 games, people are saying, "Oh, ___. If opening day comes before July, I'm going to purposely choke on a cracker jack." Books are not in vogue in the summer. People go hiking and climbing, and on horrible family vacations. (If someone has fond memories of family vacations, please let me know) There's this feeling pervading the summer atmosphere that says, "to relax indoors is stupid". Why? Because outside is an oven? I am not a fan of oppressive heat cured only by "thirst quenching" lemonade, or going to the pool. I am not a fan of swimming.
Now, when you were a kid, summer was awesome. Now as an adult, unless you're a teacher, you gotta go work in the hot summer sun, and it's oppressive no matter where you are in the populated places of North America.
And there you have my rundown of the seasons. Let me just point out some other things about winter, as it pertains to reading and viewing sports. Winter has the NFL playoffs, the Superbowl, the BCS Bowl Games, and March Madness. Are you kidding? Sports fans spend the months of January, February, and March in pure open mouthed ecstasy. Reading is off the chain in winter because it's too cold outside. After further review, in the contest for best season, it's a push between Fall and Winter. Considering that winter has hazardous roads, snow shoveling, and car scraping, and is really long, if winter was shorter and didn't include Valentine's Day, it would win, but barely. Official decision: Push.

The Church

My facebook status right now contains what I think is a great definition of the church. "It is God's embassy in a specific place". Embassy is a great word. The church is not the kingdom, but it is the kingdom represented, the voice for the kingdom, the ambassador of the kingdom of God. What is the kingdom of God? This is an entirely different blog post, nay, an entire book? Briefly, I think the kingdom of God is how the earth conducts itself when every man, woman, and child lives in total submission to God's will, and is full recognition of his awesomeness. The church is the ambassadors for this kingdom, which has been inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus, which has disarmed the evil powers that previously held sway over the affairs of men and women. The church testifies to the Lordship of Christ as demonstrated at the cross and His Resurrection as the meaning of everyone's life. This works out in the unique way in which the people of the church go about their lives before the watching public. The church does this by worshiping, committing heartily to one another, and calling light into both private and public darkness, through word and deed. In this way the church is an embassy.
But in order for the church to do this, it must be visible. People must recognize it as a church. This does not mean that it has to have the word church in it's name, but that it has a place that everyone knows they can go where they will be in the midst of followers of Jesus. Church however is a good name for that group, because "church" avoids cultic associations. The point is that the church is visible and stationary. If the church was invisible,that is, a mysterious conglomerate of believers in Jesus, how did the messenger know to deliver the letter to the Corinthians? Feel free to add to the discussion with your comments.

Double Standard

The reason for the not convicted Big Ben Roethlisberger's suspension was "conduct detrimental to the integrity of the league". Yeah no kidding. Still vague. What is the "integrity of the league" anyway? Apparently its whatever Roger Goodell says it is. Because a Brett Favre "sexting" incident that's well documented empirical evidence is not "conduct detrimental to the integrity of the league."
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't disagree with the Roethlisberger decision. I wouldn't even have a problem with a no decision both ways. But you can't have a split decision. Roger Goodell has concocted an image of terse morality; a disciplinarian spring cleaner. Except Brett Favre has no accountability. I'm not resorting to throwing our conspiracy theories. I'm just saying, why the double standard?

Giving Up Everything to Get Everything and More Back

Today I lived a hipsters' dream. I went to a coffee shop and in no particular order talked about beards with friends, wandered aimlessly on facebook, talked about the Christian's attitude towards capital punishment, and typed on my computer for about four hours. Then I went and got a chili-dog, went to Starbucks, wandered facebook some more, and read Kierkegaard. While I was at the coffee shop I ran into many folks that I knew and had varying degrees of interesting conversation with them. Now I'm at the same coffee shop drinking a yerba mate, listening to a local hipster kid sing John Prine, typing this blog post. If this was life all the time, I think I would be happy.
While I was struck by the perfection of my day, I was struck by the happiness of the chili dog place. If my day was the hipster's dream day, then Coney Island Lunch is the Scrantonite's dream spot. The owner is a connoisseur of baseball and a collector of classic baseball memorabilia with which the store is chock full. There are bobbleheads, pennants, and old newspaper clippings plastered on the walls. The employees are one of two kinds of people. They are either middle-aged men, or twenty-something girls. Everyone knows everyone that comes in the little shop and they all talk a little smack, a little sports, a little politics, and chops are being busted like plastic Christmas gifts. I feel like when Scranton was founded, that the little chili dog shop scene was exactly what the founders had in mind.
As it is, my hipster days are few and far between, and while the original vision for the city was that everyone would just own a storefront and bust each others' chops, this is not how it always is. Sometimes people flip you off. Sometimes they curse you out. Sometimes they fire you.
I think we all have our own visions of what life could or should be like. I think we all flock into groups that share our vision, and I think most of the visions are pure, albeit idealistic. And it's a shame that they're idealistic. It's a shame that despite their distinctive purity, that they are in competition with each other. We cannot all have our way.
I also think that most of us have never exactly thought through our vision. For many of us, it is undeveloped or sub-conscious. But either way we act on it, more often than not in ignorance of why we're really doing what we're doing; without any idea of what we're striving for. We call this the human condition.
The nice thing about religion is that it gives us the vision and the method outright. It does all the work of figuring out the meaning of life for us. We just have to do what it says.
So I'm a Christian. (If you're an old subscriber, you know this.) I don't believe in the hipster way. I believe in Jesus' way. But Jesus' way is hard to believe in. I read in Luke yesterday that Jesus' asks me to follow Him. And then I realized his destiny was the cross. Of course the hope is the resurrection, but the cross is inevitable. Jesus says I can only have life if I am willing to give up my own; if I am willing to lay down the hipster way of life. Some might think that this means that the ways we find to live in this world, whether it be "hipsteresque" or Scrantastic are by self-definition sinful. I wonder if when Jesus says if one is willing to lay down his life he will not fail to receive it back sevenfold when His kingdom comes, if he means that these pure but various ways of life which we choose to embrace will not be given back to us, but in a form in which they compliment each other instead of compete against each other. It makes sense to me that one must be willing to lose his life, to gain it. For God is not able entrust us with our own life while we live in the flesh. Our flesh is under the influence of our common ancestor, Adam. But the second Adam, Jesus, has by his own sacrifice, freed us through faith in Him to have our life without the hindrance of the flesh, but we must pass through the fire. We must actually be willing to stake no claim on our own life. We must entrust it to Him, and then we will be free, despite the fact that the decision of faith, that is the decision to entrust our life to Jesus, is a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice that returns freedom.

Brd, Trd, nd t f ds.

Dd ths nc bfr. wrt n ntr blg pst. Th prps ws t s f flks cld rd wtht th s f vwls. Ddn't trn t t rdbl lst tm. Bt hv nthng bttr t wrt bt. Lbrn Jms s a lsr. Th Brwns wll mk th plyffs nxt yr.

Lyrical Musings

Thoughtless Creeds
by Matthew Paul Miller

If dire straights are good
Then Nirvana is hell on earth
And the only thing that prayer is worth;
is knowledge of our pain
I don't know what I should
do in situations such as these
A reference to thoughtless creeds?
If to you it's just the same?

Give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was never right.

If intimacy's good
Then protection is a waste of time
Let's start believing that we'll all be fine;
until there comes a day
In a casket made of wood
They'll be viewing just a lifeless shell
Knowing that we didn't go to hell
'Cause for our sin to Jesus pay

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was always right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?

If television helps;
we can watch a little matinee
Immobile in the middle of the day.
It's just a way of passing time
And all the feeling that we've felt
become invisible and float away
And when they ask us all about our day
we can say that it was fine

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time realize that what I thought was never right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?
I want to know who you are to me
and all other knowledge agnostic-ally.

Ezekiel 32

Your foreskin is showing, exposed, and I don't have the patience to deal with;
the problem
And there's a sword about your waste
And blood on your hand
but its not your own
But it will be someday
It will be someday

And there are swords
lying in heaps upon the hordes
of the dead
sword bearing warriors
And we honor you today
for your success in the campaign
But we've got our own blood on our hands

And I'm inclined to say;
that if you changed your ways
and your style
you'd be better off today
But am I unjust?
in assessing your misdemeanor?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself
You killed somebody else.

Kierkegaard, Not Steinbeck

If you take the time to look at the info on my facebook, you'll notice that one of my favorite quotes is one from John Steinbeck. The book: The Grapes of Wrath. The quote: "Fear the time when the bombers stop bombing while the bombers live. For every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died", which is the climax of the chapter. The chapter, unfortunately, I do not have memorized. But the chapter is exactly what I wanted to share with you today. I do not own the book however. (I don't own many books) So I went ot Barnes & Noble to borrow The Grapes of Wrath, but lo, NO GRAPES OF WRATH! Every other Steinbeck novel, short story, and poem was there, but not the one I wanted.
The truth is I didn't feel like saying anything myself to today, but I felt like saying something. I have this Kierkegaard book in front of me, so I have decided to quote him. (Or should I say, I have decided to quote Climacus?)
"With regard to the dissenting conception of what it isto communicate, I sometimes wonder whether this matter of indirect communication could not be directly communicated. For example, I see that Socrates, who ordinarily held so strictly to asking and answering (which is an indirect method), because the long speech, the didactic discourse, and reciting by rote lead only to confusion, at times himself speaks at length and the states as the reason that the person with whom he is speaking needs and elucidation before the conversation can begin. This he does in Gorgias, for example. But this seems to me an inconsistency, an impatience that fears it will take too long before they come to a mutual understanding, because through the indirect method is must still be possible to achieve the same thing, only more slowly. But haste is utterly worthless in understanding when inwardness is the understanding. To me it seems better truly to come to a mutual understanding separately in inwardness, even though this occurs slowly. Yes, even if it never did happen because time went by and the communicator was forgotten without ever being understood by anyone, it seems to me to be more consistent on the part of the communicator not to have made the slightest adaptation in order to ahve someone understand him, and first and last to watch himself lest he become important in relation to others, which far from being inwardness, is external, noisy conduct. If he does that, he will have consolation in the judgment when the god judges that he has made no concession to himself in order to win anyone but to the upmost of his capability has worked in vain, leaving it to the god whether it should have any significance or not. And this will not doubt please the god more than if the go-getter were to say to him, 'I have gained ten thousand adherents for you'... That subjectivity is truth is my thesis, I have tried to show... which at its maximum is Christianity. That is is possible to exist with inwardness also outside Christianity, the Greeks among others have adequately shown, but in our day things seem actually to have gone so far that although we are all Christians and knowledgeable about Christianity, it is already a rarity to encounter a person who has even as much existing inwardness as a pagan philosopher. No wonder that people are so quickly finished with Christianity when they begin by putting themselves in a state in which receiving an ever so little impression of Christianity is entirely out of the question. One becomes objective, one wants to consider objectively--that the god was crucified--an event that, when it occurred, did not permit even the temple to be objective, for its curtain tore, did not even permit the dead to remain objective, for they rose up from their graves. Thus what is able to make even the inanimate and the dead subjective is now considered objectively by Messrs. Objective"
Good enough.

It's Beginning To Feel a lot Like Christmas

I'm not usually associated with one who is bubbling with that vague moniker: "Christmas spirit". I walked out my door today, it was snowing. And I got that feeling. You know that feeling. That little warmness like hot cocoa, teeming in the knowledge of the approaching festivities, the lights, the tree, the wreaths, the smells, the sounds, and the briskness in the air, the feel on your cheeks after taking a walk and coming home putting on your sweater and wool socks and snuggling with your special someone with something sweet in your cup. (Is that Christmas spirit?) I actually thought, "You know it really is the most wonderful time of the year".
And then I had to get gas. As I stood outside for what seemed like 10 minutes, I noticed one, that the temperature was 30, but that also a crisp wind was blowing, so I would say that it felt like 20 on my face, and two I noticed that gas was $3.09 a gallon. And then I got back in my car which takes until I get where I'm going to heat up to a comfortable temperature, and braved the horrendous traffic of downtown Scranton. I finally settled and then walked a block to the cafe' in which this post is being written. The moment I left my house this morning, and noticed that it was snowing, and got that warm feeling in my belly, it was gone by the time I was pumping gas. And I remembered why Christmas exists; to distract us from the reality that December is the most horrible time of the year. The shortest day of the year is in December. I think that the most hipster slackers see is 20 minutes of daylight that day. It's cold. Cold is unpleasant. As unpleasant as hot can be. Cold is much more unpleasant. The first snow is nice and nostalgic, and even pretty, but it is not long until the dogs, the plows, and the children turn into various shades of colors only elsewhere seen in toilets. I do like the evenings of cuddling, but I can't do that in the summer? I can do that in a pool or a beach in the summer!
I will not go into the endless woes of Christmas time. I have already mentioned all that is possibly good about it, which melts away as soon as you pump gas, shovel snow, or scrape the ice off of your car as you become later and later for work. Still, without Christmas, December would be even worse. But we can at least be honest about it.

Movies

I'm not a movie critic. But so what if I was? I'm not an actor or a filmmaker. Just a simple viewer for whom most of these movies are made (thankfully not all) And thankfully I am an American and most likely so are you, so you have to believe I have a right to share my opinion, even if it may be incredible.

So here are my thoughts on some recent movies I've watched.

Doubt-
I wonder how much skill it really took to make a movie as open ended as this. There is a subtle difference between laziness and subtlety. If you're open-ended enough, and know the right philosophical questions you can make anything seem profound. But with a work of art, being different than philosophy, its profundity is found in a large number of things, and is admittedly, annoyingly subjective. However, no aspect of this movie is poor. But what makes it truly outstanding isn't its plot, or its ability to solicit different responses from different individuals, which interestingly, is only remarkable because the movie works on every other level, and the frustrating thing is that the movie's creators are pretentious enough to think that it is the open ended aspect which makes their movie, when really it is the superb acting which makes the open ended aspect really really fun.) The acting jobs take this from the most mediocre movie ever made, to one of my favorite. But give no credit to the director, who simply found good actors who know how to provoke interesting questions that the philosophers conjured up centuries ago.

American Beauty-
If you really want this to be a derivative satire on the American suburban life, you can hate this movie, but given all the other great elements of this movie, can you possibly believe than director Sam Mendes is that dumb? To me its not a satire at all. It doesn't attempt to be. I don't mind unoriginality because I think to a large extent originality is just like the American dream, a mirage. The movie is a simple coming of age tale, and the fulfillment and victory that Lester experiences is real. It's scored well; acted well. The cinematography is great. It's entertaining, it's meaningful, and it understands the human condition.