America--and this may well be true in other countries--is obsessed with firsts. First drink, "time", car, house, girl/boyfriend, date, every holiday you can think of, and so on and so forth. (Not kidding: I saw "Baby's First Halloween!" cards at Target. What the hell.)
I really don't understand it.
What is there to be nostalgic about when the first time you do something, it's generally not that fantastic?
I know that Americans love looking back at stuff just to see "how far they've come" since then...if your first house was a shack, living in a dump doesn't seem quite as bad. And, of course, there's the assumption, again, of progress: 2009 will be better than 2008, etc., etc.
It's alright, I guess, to look back on 2008 and get all googly-eyed about the major events of the year, but it seems so pointless when it's all over the television and most of it is just a long list of pop culture names. Once something passes, it's not coming back. Learn from the past and get over it.
As for the anticipation: again with the googly eyes! Nothing good will come of expectations unless something is done to meet them.
Maybe people just need things to get excited about and a decent excuse to party and throw money around, but celebrating the arrival of another year has always seemed the tiniest bit futile to me. Maybe it's the modern equivalent of the rituals people were convinced they had to do to ensure the sun keeps rising: a countdown and a disco ball make sure that the next year happens.
12.29.2008
12.23.2008
Holiday Spirit
Talking about donating to charity--this is the time of year when people go all-out, right? (Well, either that or right after they find out how much they owe in taxes...).
Makes me wonder, though: how come people don't behave like this the rest of the year?
This is the season where all those gooey feelings are extolled over and over again in film, TV, even the Internet now--but what about the other 50 weeks? All year, no one cares about homeless people or trash-talking their own family or enjoying the snow*, but make it that one time of year involving presents and suddenly everyone is good!
I find this phenomenon confusing. Hypothesis: caring is like syrup, impossible to enjoy it in large quantities.
If you're wondering what the point of all this rambling, ranting, whatever, is: it's this--I'm done with apologizing for the Scrooge inside me. Why should I feel guilty for wanting people to either be like this all the time or drop the hypocrisy? (And yes, I volunteer and all that jazz. Haven't started donating yet, but I know who I'm not donating to: anyone claiming that the money goes to a cure for cancer.)
*which I loathe on principle no matter when it is.
Makes me wonder, though: how come people don't behave like this the rest of the year?
This is the season where all those gooey feelings are extolled over and over again in film, TV, even the Internet now--but what about the other 50 weeks? All year, no one cares about homeless people or trash-talking their own family or enjoying the snow*, but make it that one time of year involving presents and suddenly everyone is good!
I find this phenomenon confusing. Hypothesis: caring is like syrup, impossible to enjoy it in large quantities.
If you're wondering what the point of all this rambling, ranting, whatever, is: it's this--I'm done with apologizing for the Scrooge inside me. Why should I feel guilty for wanting people to either be like this all the time or drop the hypocrisy? (And yes, I volunteer and all that jazz. Haven't started donating yet, but I know who I'm not donating to: anyone claiming that the money goes to a cure for cancer.)
*which I loathe on principle no matter when it is.
12.21.2008
South Asian Conflict
According to an Indian newspaper (and this is based on hearsay as well as knowledge of the kind of Indian newspapers available in the U.S., so many grains of salt are required), the U.S. has encouraged India to attack Pakistan--it's a bit unclear since I didn't read the article, but the idea seems to be that the U.S. wants India to take direct action against Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks.
To which I say: why not? It's good for the war on "terror" because the U.S. can't be criticized for ditching two countries (Iraq & Afghanistan) for a third in an attempt to expand its already excessive sphere of influence. Plus, the U.S. would be expected to support India, allowing for nudges in the direction of Westernization and West-friendly policies.
The only real problem is: what if India botches the job? Considering the competency level shown by the police in Mumbai, I shudder to think about the state of their army (and there hasn't been much going on in Kashmir lately, so it's probably gotten worse). If Indian action in Pakistan actually happens (which I doubt) and India isn't winning, that's going to look pretty bad.
Obviously, India has to do something about the terrorism, but I think that's going to have to be internal.
And dear governments: technology exists. USE IT. It's ironic, considering that the Internet and a lot of high-tech stuff in general started out with a military purpose, that governments in general tend to view widespread, basic change--as opposed to developing increasingly advanced weapons--as anathema.
To which I say: why not? It's good for the war on "terror" because the U.S. can't be criticized for ditching two countries (Iraq & Afghanistan) for a third in an attempt to expand its already excessive sphere of influence. Plus, the U.S. would be expected to support India, allowing for nudges in the direction of Westernization and West-friendly policies.
The only real problem is: what if India botches the job? Considering the competency level shown by the police in Mumbai, I shudder to think about the state of their army (and there hasn't been much going on in Kashmir lately, so it's probably gotten worse). If Indian action in Pakistan actually happens (which I doubt) and India isn't winning, that's going to look pretty bad.
Obviously, India has to do something about the terrorism, but I think that's going to have to be internal.
And dear governments: technology exists. USE IT. It's ironic, considering that the Internet and a lot of high-tech stuff in general started out with a military purpose, that governments in general tend to view widespread, basic change--as opposed to developing increasingly advanced weapons--as anathema.
12.17.2008
Cold War Legacies
It seems we're still dealing with the consequences of Cold War policies and biases, which everyone should be aware of at this point, including bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, various South American powers (Nicaragua's really the only one I can think of at the moment), and that whole mess with Russia where we'll take any side as long as it's not theirs--some of the news articles on Georgia indicated that they may have been the side to blame; at the least, the U.S. acted without bothering to check its facts, and I at least had hoped that we'd learned our lessons by now.
Seriously. How long is the legacy of the Cold War going to screw over the new generation? We have other, pressing problems, mainly concerning the environment and other things like a population too large for the world food supply (which Dubya had no problem blaming on India and China, even though the world's largest importer of food is...the U.S.). And instead we have to deal with all these ridiculous biases and conflicts--why does the U.S. have to spread democracy everywhere, anyway? Why is no one questioning the motivation to stick around in Iraq when Ahmadinejad is using the fear of foreign invasion--sorry, liberation--to solidify his weak base of support?
It's time to drop the pretenses and switch back to an openly realist policy. America needs to take care of itself for the long run, not bumble around trying to fix up other countries as allies. If we were so desperate to have foreign support, we wouldn't have turned our backs on the UN in 2001.
Seriously. How long is the legacy of the Cold War going to screw over the new generation? We have other, pressing problems, mainly concerning the environment and other things like a population too large for the world food supply (which Dubya had no problem blaming on India and China, even though the world's largest importer of food is...the U.S.). And instead we have to deal with all these ridiculous biases and conflicts--why does the U.S. have to spread democracy everywhere, anyway? Why is no one questioning the motivation to stick around in Iraq when Ahmadinejad is using the fear of foreign invasion--sorry, liberation--to solidify his weak base of support?
It's time to drop the pretenses and switch back to an openly realist policy. America needs to take care of itself for the long run, not bumble around trying to fix up other countries as allies. If we were so desperate to have foreign support, we wouldn't have turned our backs on the UN in 2001.
12.15.2008
End of the World
In September 2006, for some reason I was convinced things were spiraling downward--in general, that there was a tendency to destruction and the whole world as well as individuals were deliberately heading for it.
Now: is it perhaps really happening? Or maybe we've just escaped it. After an election that was anticipated by most of the world, if...if Obama had come up in the Blagojevich scandal...but maybe there's too much hope around him for that to ever happen.
Anyway, what with the economic crisis and all, I think maybe we have to re-reevaluate the world order. Traditionalist view favored, maybe the balance of power is that no one is really in control right now.
Next year...we'll see.
On a completely unrelated note: Heroes, anyone? I think the chapter end improved on some of the flaws of this season...things are still in srs absurd mode, but I'll stick around for next season...hoping that, by now, they've figured out not to fuck with the space-time continuum. (Also, Peter = way cooler, and far less of a fuckup, without powers. They should keep him that way.)
Now: is it perhaps really happening? Or maybe we've just escaped it. After an election that was anticipated by most of the world, if...if Obama had come up in the Blagojevich scandal...but maybe there's too much hope around him for that to ever happen.
Anyway, what with the economic crisis and all, I think maybe we have to re-reevaluate the world order. Traditionalist view favored, maybe the balance of power is that no one is really in control right now.
Next year...we'll see.
On a completely unrelated note: Heroes, anyone? I think the chapter end improved on some of the flaws of this season...things are still in srs absurd mode, but I'll stick around for next season...hoping that, by now, they've figured out not to fuck with the space-time continuum. (Also, Peter = way cooler, and far less of a fuckup, without powers. They should keep him that way.)
12.05.2008
Let Them Eat Sushi
It's anticipated that the auto industries will, eventually, receive some sort of bailout, albeit with a long list of stipulations set down by the government and, specifically, Obama, forcing them to, well, enter the modern age.
To which I say: why bother?
For at least the past ten years, the Japanese automotive companies have been developing some sort of energy efficient car; the Honda Insight (61 mpg) was released in 1999, and who knows how long they were working on it before then. GM and the other American companies have been lazy. They've assumed that, just because they had a market in the past and that Americans like driving, they could continue in the same vein of **All-American!!** Fourth-of-July ads and monster vehicles and still somehow make a profit.
How do three major automakers manage to completely miss the new dominant trend of the past 10+ years?
This is absurd. Not only should they be held completely accountable, they should not be given a second chance to make similar mistakes. Considering that certain states (specifically, Israel) are already working to implement a national fully electric car system and considering how soon the oil supplies are expected to run out, America does not have the luxury of letting its automakers continue to sit on their asses and pretend to finally get things done. The Chevy Volt is pretty much the only concrete object that is going to come out of the Big Three, and it's been delayed for over a year already.
Let the Japanese, Germans, and whoever's willing buy these companies out, I say. We can add in a stipulation that the factories have to be located within the U.S.--and we should really redefine the idea of "made in America" to include both parts and actual assembly--but the higher management should be left to someone competent.
Of course, we couldn't let capitalism run its course, but America needs to stop being so strongly associated with a few specific businesses. Letting the West define itself not through culture but through products will prove fatal eventually.
To which I say: why bother?
For at least the past ten years, the Japanese automotive companies have been developing some sort of energy efficient car; the Honda Insight (61 mpg) was released in 1999, and who knows how long they were working on it before then. GM and the other American companies have been lazy. They've assumed that, just because they had a market in the past and that Americans like driving, they could continue in the same vein of **All-American!!** Fourth-of-July ads and monster vehicles and still somehow make a profit.
How do three major automakers manage to completely miss the new dominant trend of the past 10+ years?
This is absurd. Not only should they be held completely accountable, they should not be given a second chance to make similar mistakes. Considering that certain states (specifically, Israel) are already working to implement a national fully electric car system and considering how soon the oil supplies are expected to run out, America does not have the luxury of letting its automakers continue to sit on their asses and pretend to finally get things done. The Chevy Volt is pretty much the only concrete object that is going to come out of the Big Three, and it's been delayed for over a year already.
Let the Japanese, Germans, and whoever's willing buy these companies out, I say. We can add in a stipulation that the factories have to be located within the U.S.--and we should really redefine the idea of "made in America" to include both parts and actual assembly--but the higher management should be left to someone competent.
Of course, we couldn't let capitalism run its course, but America needs to stop being so strongly associated with a few specific businesses. Letting the West define itself not through culture but through products will prove fatal eventually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)