Saturday, September 25, 2010

Howling Antiquities

        
            Seven hundred turned out in 1967 to see the Great Angry Poet.  We came to hear him howl.  We came to cheer as he banked coals of invective against the walls of the establishment.  We came as a congregation to stand in the light of the conflagration.  We meant to use the flames to melt our chains, to weld us together, to illuminate the dark hidey-holes of life as we knew it.
            The Great Angry Poet had other ideas.  He had shucked his black clothes, un-knit his black brow.  He showed up in a flowing white robe—all-natural fibers.  He floated in the middle of an all-natural entourage.  He brought thumb cymbals, a tambourine, a squeeze box, for crying out loud!  He glowed with the inner, hidden fire of brotherly love, the too-cool flame of nebulous mysticism.  He just wasn't that angry anymore.  He wasn't going to burn down anything.  The pilot light was out.  Seven hundred strong, we seethed in uncertainty.  We stumbled in the dark.
            The Great Angry Poet chanted mantras.  He shook his tambourine, clanged his little cymbals, squeezed his squeeze box.  The all-natural entourage, skinny boys and skinny girls, crawled around the stage like adoring cats, curled at his feet,  purred a harmonious OMMM in rhythm with the cycles of the universe.
            Somewhere in the middle, the Great Angry Poet read his Great Angry Poem to remind us what it was that made him Great in the first place.  But, out of context, it didn't remind anyone what made him Angry, and so the multitude looked at one another furtively as if to say.  How are we going to knock any walls down with these few little loaves and fishes?  Or, man, you should have been there when he was really pissed.
            When it was over, the Great Angry Poet took questions from the audience.  Only no one asked the real questions like WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO NOW? or WHO'S THE NEW ENEMY THEN?  IT'S NOT THE RUSSIANS AGAIN, IS IT?  Or more succinctly, HUH?
            We were rescued, finally—all of us:  the multitude, the Great Angry Poet, the moment, the Age—by a cheerleader.  She was blonde, naturally, maybe.  She wore a plaid skirt, white blouse, green blazer, knee socks, penny loafers.  She was the perfect prep-school perk-noid.  She was impertinently pertinent.
            "IS IT TRUE," she began.  Her voice, clear and strident, ricocheted around the room, scraping bits of its flesh off on every surface until nothing was left of it except the bare bones of contention, the soul of censure.  "IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ARE MARRIED TO A MAN?"
            We all sucked in our breath.  The Great Angry Poet dropped one end of his squeeze box, which sucked in its breath too, and noisily.
            "WHOOSH," went our breath.
            "WHEEZE," went the squeeze box.
            "OMMM," went the all natural entourage.
            "UHM," went the Great Angry Poet.
            "WELL?" went the cheerleader.
            "Yes," said the Great Angry Poet at last.  "Yes that is true, but we don't fuck anymore."
            Six hundred ninety nine of us took flight in a swarm, the way having been lit, finally, by the Great Angry Poet who wasn't getting any anymore.  His flame rekindled by a perky spark, he shone like a beacon, lighting the hidden recesses of craggy convention.  We flew in its face.  We dive bombed.  We strafed.  We harried.  We defoliated.  The Great Angry Poet was a flare in the night.  We picked our targets and fought and fought and fought.
            Convention plodded on.  Sure it stumbled a few times, seemed ready to go down once or twice, but convention was already thousands of years old.  Convention had built up a lot of momentum.  Even if we had distracted it, convention had only to look at its wake to see what direction it had been headed. 
            Bored, convention yawned and we were swallowed up.  Some of us persisted, refusing to be assimilated.  We were thorny roughage—fibrous and resilient.  We would give convention a belly-ache.  We would give convention gas pains.  We would never break down.
            And we didn't break down.  Forty years later, nature having run its course, we came out the other end wearing steely grey pony tails and Birkenstock sandals, the uniform jack-boots of ancient hippies, our defiance emblazoned on silk-screened T-Shirts.  Thank goodness for male pattern-baldness.  You can finally tell the boys from the girls.
            We're still plenty pissed, but maybe not so focused anymore.  We need the T-Shirts to remind us of our agendas.  We need the Birkenstocks so our tired feet don't distract us from our purpose.  Instead we're distracted by our children and grandchildren.
            We worry that they would rather watch Brady Bunch re-runs than fire bomb the administration building, rather play video games than picket, rather have a new iPod than a clue.  We want to find them a pertinent cheerleader, but the cheerleaders are all drinking Jack Daniels and puking in the bathtub while skinny boys with earphones video the event and post the innocence lost on the Internet.  Nobody's not getting any anymore, and that sure takes the edge off.
            The Great Final Irony is that our children are angry at us.  Of course the most they can bring themselves to do about it is to whine, but when they can manage to pry their consciousness out of Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil and unplug themselves from whatever current alternative to music has been boiling their corpuscles, what they want to know is, how come we didn't get down to business when we had the chance and leave them a world that included a place for them to work... or at least a BMW?




EKQ78YBZTQWS

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Technology We Can Live With

          I had a conversation with a kid who made my sandwich at Subway tonight. I’ve seen this kid working there before. He’s fairly new at his job. He was unusually chatty tonight. I guess it’s taken him some time to loosen up enough to initiate a conversation with an older patron. I wasn’t in a conversational frame of mind, but I didn’t want to seem rude.
Anyway he got going about the Lexus automobile model that parallel parks itself. He didn’t think that was a good idea. He was afraid the sensors that enable the car to park itself could malfunction and get him into an accident that wouldn’t be his fault, but for which he would get blamed. He didn’t seem to require any comment from me at that point so I just let him ramble on.
From there he launched into a discussion of the car that slams on the brakes if you are about to have a collision. He didn’t think that was a very good idea either. In fact he thought it was an even worse idea than the self parking thing because it was likely to malfunction at a higher rate of speed than one would be likely to use to park. I couldn’t offer him any argument there either.
Finally he latched on to a thing that’s apparently been reported in the news about a device that would allow the police to disable the cars of fleeing drivers. He thought that was a terrible idea, and stated emphatically that he would never, ever buy a car so equipped.
Here I had an argument because I think that is an excellent idea. It is an idea so good that it ought to be a required addition to the automobiles of everyone who thinks that it is a bad idea. The rest of us, the docile and compliant citizen drivers who think it is a good idea are going to stop when the police tell us to. We don’t need to be disabled. The drivers who think it is a bad idea on the other hand, are precisely the kind of scofflaws who need to be forcibly prevented from leading the police on high speed chases that endanger the lives and property of all the rest of us.
In fact I don’t think that it should be just the police who have the disabling device. Some of the rest of us should get one too. I know for a certainty that I should get one. I said so to the Subway kid. He looked at me like I was crazy. I didn’t care. I had an irrefutable argument.
          “How many drivers have you seen just this week,” I asked him, “Where you really, really wanted to disable their ass?”

Saturday, February 20, 2010

HOW THE LAW OF ATTRACTION REALLY WORKS

          In her best selling book on the law of attraction, The Secret, author Rhonda Byrne maintains that Jesus was a prosperity teacher and a millionaire. She came by this notion from reading, among other sources, Catherine Ponder’s series of prosperity texts called The Millionaires of the Bible. Oh my! Jesus Christ preaching prosperity and living a “…more affluent lifestyle[s] than many present-day millionaires could conceive of.”
         Anyone remotely familiar with the New Testament will have heard many of Jesus’ pronouncements on the subjects of prosperity and poverty. I will list a few of the more famous of these here:
  1. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.   (Matthew 19:24) 
  2. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. (Luke 17:22)
  3. As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on. (Luke 21:1-4)
  4. Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God… But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. (Luke 6:20,24)
That should be enough to give you the idea of Jesus' real take on riches and prosperity. Jesus was not a prosperity teacher. Jesus preached detachment from riches. He blessed the ‘poor in spirit’ and the poor in fact. Jesus was all about storing up riches in heaven as opposed to earthly treasure. Furthermore, anyone who believes Jesus lived a life of ease and comfort that modern day millionaires could scarcely conceive of is bringing an awful lot of spin to the life of someone who went to his death possessing a single homespun cloak and a pair of sandals. Honestly, this doesn’t sound to me like a guy who was furiously working the law of attraction to get what he wanted out of life. I think suggesting that Jesus was a prosperity teacher and a millionaire sounds rather more like a load of heretical claptrap.
This is how I think the law of attraction really works. Hucksters and charlatans cherry pick and misinterpret Bible verses to attract money from hapless saps who are too easily persuaded that Jesus wants them to have a big house and a new Mercedes when a thorough understanding of everything Jesus had to say on the subjects of prosperity and poverty would lead one to the exact opposite conclusion. Jesus wants us to spend eternity in heaven with Him. He clearly believes that riches are an impediment to that happy result. It's not that he wants you to be poor, but rather than His priorities are completely directed toward the Kingdom on Heaven and not our worldly comfort.