This morning when I arrived at work and did my regular peruse of different news agencies I frequent when bored at work, an startling article appeared. Now i don't really know anything about business. I wish I did (maybe i will have to learn now). Anyway, a French bank suffers from a rogue trader I suppose trading away 5bn euros of bank profits.
I didn't fully understand the article because 5bn euros seems like a lot of money, but the bank didn't seem to be too worried...at least not as it was reported. Well just now as I checked back to try and better understand the situation...one how does any one perhaps have the power to control 5bn euros, two why would someone do something like that, three what is the impact of such an act of fraud I read a headline "Bank uncovers $7bn fraud". I thought, oh the plot thickens. But no, the reporting agency (the same one I read the first article at) had just changed the original article so the amount was reported in American dollars instead of Euros. Press...that is not your job! It was Euros that were lost, report the lost Euros, don't try to inflate emotions by misleading readers. Grr it makes me upset. As a non-money type, a little help Media, would be nice. Perhaps explain what was this trader doing..."massive fraudulent directional positions in 2007 and 2008 beyond his limited authority"...what is a directional position...it sounds like a bet. but do banks bet...i guess, they must, even the weathermen bet to try and keep their inability to demonstrate and real predictive force of the weather afloat. How can you bet 5bn Euro...who would take that bet...im sure not the local bookers...
I'm worried about this, it seems like the cash system is more delicate than even i had imagined.But so what....what should we do.
Anyway, any of you businessy types, if you can suggest places to get laymans explanations on this story I would appreciate it.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Gone with the wind on 'kite ship'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7205217.stm
Its as though, we forgot that ships used to be the greenest form of mass transport. I don't get it, check out the link for the full article, but look at the "kite" that is helping this ship...what happened to sails? Maybe i should do some research first. But I see this massive barge with a single kite to help if reduce fuel use.
I mean check out this barge from treasure planet, a remarkable ship that uses sails to catch galactic winds, the sails are made of a solar cell fabric, that catches solar radiation to supply a backup energy supply and uses a traditional furnace to keep transportation power consistent, supplying extra thrust when necessary.
And so far we have managed to add a kite.
Go team green. This is about as exciting as hydrogen cell fueled cars.
Its as though, we forgot that ships used to be the greenest form of mass transport. I don't get it, check out the link for the full article, but look at the "kite" that is helping this ship...what happened to sails? Maybe i should do some research first. But I see this massive barge with a single kite to help if reduce fuel use.
I mean check out this barge from treasure planet, a remarkable ship that uses sails to catch galactic winds, the sails are made of a solar cell fabric, that catches solar radiation to supply a backup energy supply and uses a traditional furnace to keep transportation power consistent, supplying extra thrust when necessary.
And so far we have managed to add a kite.
Go team green. This is about as exciting as hydrogen cell fueled cars.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Correctness
I received a very hurtful, but perhaps well intentioned forward today, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. Looking down the back links its been forwarded from friend to friend down a chain of born and bred Canadians. So perhaps as an immigrant I'm a bit touchy on the subject of what is and should be expected of people moving to countries like Canada, America and Australia. ie. English speaking colonies founded in the past 300 years largely by Christians and neo-Christian politicians looking to change and reshape European values. I had an easy time, having moved from and English speaking country with very close values to Canadian values, and having moved at a young age that I did most of my growing up in Canada.
The main belief supported by the forward (and alleged speech by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia...though a quick google will show it is a highly edited shoddy fabrication of sound bites and clipped together and given under the name J.H.) is that because the colonies were founded by WASPs that it is good and right that the main moral, legal and cultural code should be that of the former WASP. It lays claims such as "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!" and "It is immigrants, not Australians that need to adapt."
When did the rules change? Did the founding immigrants of our countries adapt? Did they learn the language of the land they came to? Did they even speak English? (in the case of Canada) Did those who wrote our constitutions and who continue to REVISE our constitutions adapt to their setting, or bring about and insist on change? Change is the most necessary and most exciting part of life. And especially for those of us who live in the new world--in countries whose cultural legacy can be remembered in its entirety, whose countries are a diverse fabric of people bringing to that table what they can--it is our identity.
As Canadian working in South Korea, helping students practice and learn to speak English, and as a Canadian who had to take those painful 10 years of French classes, I have a sence about learning a language. 1. it takes time. 2. its not easy. 3. Its not necessary to function in a society. Our three countries have the amazing benefits of having people from all countries in the world living in them, this means we may well have speakers of close to every language in the world. We have amazing knowledge in that, amazing power for communitcation and community. So how can we be so pig-headed as to insist all new immigrants be fluent in English? Especially when there are ways to function in a native language through family, friends and community. Granted, I'm only a migrant worker and not an immigrant here, but I've learned to function in a society that speaks mainly Korean, that there are many ways to function without being able to speak, or with only the most rudementary knowledge. Its a matter of support and networks.
And this question of adapting. If Australians don't want to adapt anymore thats for them to decided, I for one hope i never stop adapting, I hope that those adaptations are mostly for the better--for the improvement of my condition and of those around me--I hope Canadians and Americans and Australians and Saudi Arabians, and Sri Lankans and Koreans and Indians and Pakistanis and Mongolians and Brazillians and Europeans (as a whole and in their individual cultures) and Eritrians and Kenyans and all the rest of everyone continue to change and adapt to the many new and exciting posibilities that are presented to them.
Now the root of the problem. Sharia Law. And I agree here with the position Australia took, with the position Ontario took and with the position that you obey and follow that law of the land. WHATEVER that law is. If that means no pot in Korean, that is the law, and we must obey it. If that means I cannot enter Libya until I'm married or without my father, that is the law I must obey. If that means I must cover my body entirely in Saudi Arabia, that is the law and I must obey. If that means I can pay for sex in Amsterdam but not in Sweden, so be it. Those are the laws of that land, and I am obliged to follow them. That's what a law is, we agree to follow them, that is how they help all of us. Also that as a citizen of a country you have the right to challenge, ammend, rewrite the law, to introduce new law and to have old laws removed. A great example of this is the announcement today that women in Saudi Arabia can now stay at a hotel alone. Recognizing the great limits on women in this culture this is an exciting move towards recognizing the road to gender equity. It seems small but its how we go about making our countries better places. The government also allowed that it would consider allowing women to drive. Again, bit by bit we see who a government is moving to adapt to changing times, to better serve its citizens and to allow its citizens to better serve the government.
If there are laws in Sharia Law that can be used by all Canadians then it is for those citizens best versed in these laws to help bring them to legislation. Where we as a nation can decided if this is a law for our nation. But yes, in a country there is only one law and it applies in the same way to all citizens in that country. But that doesn't mean that we turn our backs on everything immigrants bring to their new homes.
Its scary how the rhetoric of things like this so easily sweeps us up, makes us forget to think for ourselves, to reflect on how much we owe our immigrant parents/grandparents who put up with the racist shit, so that we could have an easy life in these countries.
Which brings me to the title of this entry: correctness. Not political correctness. Political Correctness is not saying what you mean so as not to offend or exclude anyone. While its a practice that upsets many people because it reduces our ability to express our feelings and opinions, its a dangerous practice because it marrs the more important practice of correctness. That is speaking in ways that are considerate of the fact that we don't know everything, we can't take everything into account all the time, its also a way of speaking that is forgiving of difference, that helps us to recognize that we are all strangers trying to build this dream of a world that works, fully. I think it is blind, selfish and pig-headed to insist that the way things have been is the way things always will be. Instead of spending our energy writing and propegating hate speech, we should be working on solutions; rather than laying blame on the new guy, we should be working to recognize the problem; rather than engaging in empty rhetoric that affirms division of societies, that insists on the continued antagonism of different cultures, we should be opening our hearts and minds and affirming our beliefs while listening to new beliefs.
The main belief supported by the forward (and alleged speech by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia...though a quick google will show it is a highly edited shoddy fabrication of sound bites and clipped together and given under the name J.H.) is that because the colonies were founded by WASPs that it is good and right that the main moral, legal and cultural code should be that of the former WASP. It lays claims such as "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!" and "It is immigrants, not Australians that need to adapt."
When did the rules change? Did the founding immigrants of our countries adapt? Did they learn the language of the land they came to? Did they even speak English? (in the case of Canada) Did those who wrote our constitutions and who continue to REVISE our constitutions adapt to their setting, or bring about and insist on change? Change is the most necessary and most exciting part of life. And especially for those of us who live in the new world--in countries whose cultural legacy can be remembered in its entirety, whose countries are a diverse fabric of people bringing to that table what they can--it is our identity.
As Canadian working in South Korea, helping students practice and learn to speak English, and as a Canadian who had to take those painful 10 years of French classes, I have a sence about learning a language. 1. it takes time. 2. its not easy. 3. Its not necessary to function in a society. Our three countries have the amazing benefits of having people from all countries in the world living in them, this means we may well have speakers of close to every language in the world. We have amazing knowledge in that, amazing power for communitcation and community. So how can we be so pig-headed as to insist all new immigrants be fluent in English? Especially when there are ways to function in a native language through family, friends and community. Granted, I'm only a migrant worker and not an immigrant here, but I've learned to function in a society that speaks mainly Korean, that there are many ways to function without being able to speak, or with only the most rudementary knowledge. Its a matter of support and networks.
And this question of adapting. If Australians don't want to adapt anymore thats for them to decided, I for one hope i never stop adapting, I hope that those adaptations are mostly for the better--for the improvement of my condition and of those around me--I hope Canadians and Americans and Australians and Saudi Arabians, and Sri Lankans and Koreans and Indians and Pakistanis and Mongolians and Brazillians and Europeans (as a whole and in their individual cultures) and Eritrians and Kenyans and all the rest of everyone continue to change and adapt to the many new and exciting posibilities that are presented to them.
Now the root of the problem. Sharia Law. And I agree here with the position Australia took, with the position Ontario took and with the position that you obey and follow that law of the land. WHATEVER that law is. If that means no pot in Korean, that is the law, and we must obey it. If that means I cannot enter Libya until I'm married or without my father, that is the law I must obey. If that means I must cover my body entirely in Saudi Arabia, that is the law and I must obey. If that means I can pay for sex in Amsterdam but not in Sweden, so be it. Those are the laws of that land, and I am obliged to follow them. That's what a law is, we agree to follow them, that is how they help all of us. Also that as a citizen of a country you have the right to challenge, ammend, rewrite the law, to introduce new law and to have old laws removed. A great example of this is the announcement today that women in Saudi Arabia can now stay at a hotel alone. Recognizing the great limits on women in this culture this is an exciting move towards recognizing the road to gender equity. It seems small but its how we go about making our countries better places. The government also allowed that it would consider allowing women to drive. Again, bit by bit we see who a government is moving to adapt to changing times, to better serve its citizens and to allow its citizens to better serve the government.
If there are laws in Sharia Law that can be used by all Canadians then it is for those citizens best versed in these laws to help bring them to legislation. Where we as a nation can decided if this is a law for our nation. But yes, in a country there is only one law and it applies in the same way to all citizens in that country. But that doesn't mean that we turn our backs on everything immigrants bring to their new homes.
Its scary how the rhetoric of things like this so easily sweeps us up, makes us forget to think for ourselves, to reflect on how much we owe our immigrant parents/grandparents who put up with the racist shit, so that we could have an easy life in these countries.
Which brings me to the title of this entry: correctness. Not political correctness. Political Correctness is not saying what you mean so as not to offend or exclude anyone. While its a practice that upsets many people because it reduces our ability to express our feelings and opinions, its a dangerous practice because it marrs the more important practice of correctness. That is speaking in ways that are considerate of the fact that we don't know everything, we can't take everything into account all the time, its also a way of speaking that is forgiving of difference, that helps us to recognize that we are all strangers trying to build this dream of a world that works, fully. I think it is blind, selfish and pig-headed to insist that the way things have been is the way things always will be. Instead of spending our energy writing and propegating hate speech, we should be working on solutions; rather than laying blame on the new guy, we should be working to recognize the problem; rather than engaging in empty rhetoric that affirms division of societies, that insists on the continued antagonism of different cultures, we should be opening our hearts and minds and affirming our beliefs while listening to new beliefs.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Black Vote
I guess I'm late on this since the controversy broke days ago. But, I think my inclination to write comes from something lately inspired by the "race" issues in the Democratic campaign.
I don't understand how there is a black vote, but not a woman vote. Maybe because there are women ...well everywhere. We are innocuous even...but that doesn't change the fact. Why is Obama forced to run the campaign as a Black man relying on the Black vote, when Hilary doesn't have to run as a woman, or Edwards as a White man, relying on the White vote...its dumb. They are each running as a Democrat...that's all. Get over it America, Martin Luther King Jrs dream did come true when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Accept it, the law is made, now get over it and move onward and upward. The only thing that has stopped this dream coming true is the US's ass backwardness about laws.
It seems in the US a law is not made to affirm the desire to change; its made to scapegoat, deny and avoid; its made to be a place where US citizens can claim their rights are being infringed (uhh...hello, without laws you wouldn't have anything to claim you have rights beyond an instinct inside yourself that somehow you deserve something for stumbling upon this planet); a law is a thing that someone off in some hidden place invents and magically appears one day and disappears the next as the people with money decide it will make making money more difficult, as it will raise the price of ink for fabricating bills.
I don't understand how there is a black vote, but not a woman vote. Maybe because there are women ...well everywhere. We are innocuous even...but that doesn't change the fact. Why is Obama forced to run the campaign as a Black man relying on the Black vote, when Hilary doesn't have to run as a woman, or Edwards as a White man, relying on the White vote...its dumb. They are each running as a Democrat...that's all. Get over it America, Martin Luther King Jrs dream did come true when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Accept it, the law is made, now get over it and move onward and upward. The only thing that has stopped this dream coming true is the US's ass backwardness about laws.
It seems in the US a law is not made to affirm the desire to change; its made to scapegoat, deny and avoid; its made to be a place where US citizens can claim their rights are being infringed (uhh...hello, without laws you wouldn't have anything to claim you have rights beyond an instinct inside yourself that somehow you deserve something for stumbling upon this planet); a law is a thing that someone off in some hidden place invents and magically appears one day and disappears the next as the people with money decide it will make making money more difficult, as it will raise the price of ink for fabricating bills.
Monday, January 14, 2008
It took a law...
I was just thinking about this line from that film. "It took a law to get seat belts into cars. It took a law to get airbags too." I don't think we should doubt that. Particularly when you look at countries without those laws...are they going along...for the fun of it...no. They have seatbelt free air bag free cars. So lets not get to fussy about a law to force corporations to employ more women on their boards. It won't come about any other way, i think that it is almost wise too...it takes a law to instigate change...at least it does now. Lets hope we have the balls to stand by this law, to not let those with the money corrupt our desire to change. Okay maybe it isn't all of our desire, but its mine. and i think its also the desire of some of the norwegian law makers, which makes me think there are some norwegian taxpayers who agree. So some of us desire it. And feel its time has come. Let support this law...and not try to hack it down. It may, like seatbelts make us a little uncomfortable, maybe chaif our necks a bit...but its for our overall good...i think.
i wonder...want to reduce obesity...would a law with strict enforcement work? or stop alcohal abuse, or increase donations to those with less money than ourselves? Dunno...but its a brilliant move by norway to prove it true and possible. We like laws, we like to follow them, we like to have and to hold them in our hearts and minds...at least it keeps things orderly...
i wonder...want to reduce obesity...would a law with strict enforcement work? or stop alcohal abuse, or increase donations to those with less money than ourselves? Dunno...but its a brilliant move by norway to prove it true and possible. We like laws, we like to follow them, we like to have and to hold them in our hearts and minds...at least it keeps things orderly...
New virus, old tricks
I find it interesting, I made a silent note maybe three months ago, because i now work on two computers. It never occured to me before that all systems get the same updates at the same time, till I had to update at work, only to arrive home to find my laptop wanted some too. But having gone through the update twice, i guess it stuck in my mind maybe a week later when i first read "new virus warning" on BBC. I though smuggly to myself, i know im updated and patched; i had to do it last week...twice. Then again last month, patches came in, my two machines burbled, a week later i read "new virus warning" and again today, a week since the update warnings started here it is the Mebroot stealth virus that installs other programs on your comp and steals banking information.
I think its nice BBC is watching out for us, but it still makes me feel a bit spooky. Is there an agenda of reminds that the BBC has, don't forget we need to remind our readers to update, but we don't want to nag them, just keep them aware that patching is important. maybe.
Still, the culture of scaring us into action is getting a little old. And so i'm trying, perhaps a little resolution, not to act out of fear. I watched "Who killed the electric car last night" and while i usually have a fairly predictable knee jerk reaction to these sorts of docudramas, i found myself strangly calm. Not all excited about some new threat, some new possibility, some new project. Just, thanks for the information. I still prefer to travel in self propelled vehicles anyway.
Although, i must slithly say i do remember the ads for electric cars (i loved them, they were so stark and unusually, that was a time i considered advertising as a nice thing to do with my time) i do also remember the swing away from them, the sudden villanous turn on the poor machines as no better than the gas guzzler. I think i had a debat on it in highschool. i remember especially my indignation when the hummer came out. THinking, could we have gone any further in the other direction, even if the electric car is as bad as a regular car this monster is worse that 10 of them together. [i admit i was insulted by the tax breaks for the hummer, that is sick]
Two things the docudrama did highligh for me: More disappointment has come out of california than any other state. They have, it seems, always had the best brightest most progressive ideas, and they have also managed to mangel destroy and booby trap everyone of those ideas with extreme efficiency. Second, that Detroit is i think the most let down city in the world. I think infact as a place a collective of people Detroit has been cheated out of more than anyone (including younger siblings taken as a whole, the people of cambodia, very child who has ever been hungry, and people who expected X3 to live up to its prequels).
I don't think there is an american docudrama that doesn't highlight the every way Detroit has be given more false candy than any other city in the country. How it has time and again be forced to remain in its pseudo slum nearly big city way it was while i lived so close. (i'm now regretting not taking more advantage of the gifts that city has to offer...except that it is still part of America...a place im not to fond of...in the way lots of people just aren't to keen on visiting Pakistan)
If California has been the hub of great ideas, Detroit has been the home of the reality of their suppression.
how did i get into this film review...sorry. Anyway, this fear stuff is i don't know...is it getting old? It works clearly. or maybe it doesn't, maybe i had already updated my computer when i got the warning. Maybe i had already switched to self-propelled transport when the electric car died. Maybe i already had a deep skepticism for the US when two planes lost track of time in the side of two towers. Maybe no one tried to scare me into doing anything, the scare came after the fact...after the act...after the attack i was already prepared for...maybe.
I think its nice BBC is watching out for us, but it still makes me feel a bit spooky. Is there an agenda of reminds that the BBC has, don't forget we need to remind our readers to update, but we don't want to nag them, just keep them aware that patching is important. maybe.
Still, the culture of scaring us into action is getting a little old. And so i'm trying, perhaps a little resolution, not to act out of fear. I watched "Who killed the electric car last night" and while i usually have a fairly predictable knee jerk reaction to these sorts of docudramas, i found myself strangly calm. Not all excited about some new threat, some new possibility, some new project. Just, thanks for the information. I still prefer to travel in self propelled vehicles anyway.
Although, i must slithly say i do remember the ads for electric cars (i loved them, they were so stark and unusually, that was a time i considered advertising as a nice thing to do with my time) i do also remember the swing away from them, the sudden villanous turn on the poor machines as no better than the gas guzzler. I think i had a debat on it in highschool. i remember especially my indignation when the hummer came out. THinking, could we have gone any further in the other direction, even if the electric car is as bad as a regular car this monster is worse that 10 of them together. [i admit i was insulted by the tax breaks for the hummer, that is sick]
Two things the docudrama did highligh for me: More disappointment has come out of california than any other state. They have, it seems, always had the best brightest most progressive ideas, and they have also managed to mangel destroy and booby trap everyone of those ideas with extreme efficiency. Second, that Detroit is i think the most let down city in the world. I think infact as a place a collective of people Detroit has been cheated out of more than anyone (including younger siblings taken as a whole, the people of cambodia, very child who has ever been hungry, and people who expected X3 to live up to its prequels).
I don't think there is an american docudrama that doesn't highlight the every way Detroit has be given more false candy than any other city in the country. How it has time and again be forced to remain in its pseudo slum nearly big city way it was while i lived so close. (i'm now regretting not taking more advantage of the gifts that city has to offer...except that it is still part of America...a place im not to fond of...in the way lots of people just aren't to keen on visiting Pakistan)
If California has been the hub of great ideas, Detroit has been the home of the reality of their suppression.
how did i get into this film review...sorry. Anyway, this fear stuff is i don't know...is it getting old? It works clearly. or maybe it doesn't, maybe i had already updated my computer when i got the warning. Maybe i had already switched to self-propelled transport when the electric car died. Maybe i already had a deep skepticism for the US when two planes lost track of time in the side of two towers. Maybe no one tried to scare me into doing anything, the scare came after the fact...after the act...after the attack i was already prepared for...maybe.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Book Review
I guess I can write a book review. I like books. I read them, when I think i should be doing something better. I just read possible the most depressing book i will ever read in 2008. We need to talk about Kevin by Lionel Shriver. I can't really decide. I think i may have enjoyed it. But also i think it may have been a surreptitious waste of time. Though hiding out in my flat for a day and a bit to get through it before i committed suicide was fun.
I don't want to say "it was one of those books that makes you want to kill yourself." It was no Cam Jansen mystery, or SVH serial novel. It was horribly depressing, wholly traumatizing. But a bit like facing Jim Lahey's shit-void. "Yeh hear that boys, those are the shit winds. You are facing here, the shit-void.It's opened wide in front of you. I did think if i didn't finish it before bed i might just have to kill myself rather than face sleep with such a painful and possible un-resolution so fresh in my mind.
So i suppose it is with caution that i highly recommend this novel. Of course you probably aren't as prone as i am to nightmares. But i think those with the most well ordered dreams should be careful to give reading a sleeping a wide berth.
The story unfolds an amazing play with the temporal obsession of most people with being happy. The obsession with finding and filling our lives with things to "make us happy." Its not that it particular warns against, or challenges the practice. it skirts around and affirmation of anything really. A 400 page affirmation of "i don't like that."
For the protagonist her amazing writing of the average American, of what we hate about them and of what makes us fear to be them. Telling of the vast span between what we think we desire and what we have that fills that desire. Calling us out for projections, blaming, and complaining about...well ourselves in the third person.
It starts slow. And only gets slower until you are too deep in the shit pool to climb out, and must wade across to the other end. At which point you paddle fervently to escape the sense of drowning in the despair of being in the life you planned, exactly as you planned it (whether you want to admit it or not).
Though it is lovely to feel like shit before 2001. The book set entirely before April 9th 2001. When there was still life. Its so easy to forget, as though the great divide that failed to materialize when the computers all still worked on January 1st, 8 years ago, later manifested as something we actually had to care about (not that it effected me much. But others felt the shockwave, and im still stuck in the world where we can't remember what life felt like on April 9th 2001).
So read it, i guess. if you want. or don't. Now, i'm not really sure. not sure which.
I don't want to say "it was one of those books that makes you want to kill yourself." It was no Cam Jansen mystery, or SVH serial novel. It was horribly depressing, wholly traumatizing. But a bit like facing Jim Lahey's shit-void. "Yeh hear that boys, those are the shit winds. You are facing here, the shit-void.It's opened wide in front of you. I did think if i didn't finish it before bed i might just have to kill myself rather than face sleep with such a painful and possible un-resolution so fresh in my mind.
So i suppose it is with caution that i highly recommend this novel. Of course you probably aren't as prone as i am to nightmares. But i think those with the most well ordered dreams should be careful to give reading a sleeping a wide berth.
The story unfolds an amazing play with the temporal obsession of most people with being happy. The obsession with finding and filling our lives with things to "make us happy." Its not that it particular warns against, or challenges the practice. it skirts around and affirmation of anything really. A 400 page affirmation of "i don't like that."
For the protagonist her amazing writing of the average American, of what we hate about them and of what makes us fear to be them. Telling of the vast span between what we think we desire and what we have that fills that desire. Calling us out for projections, blaming, and complaining about...well ourselves in the third person.
It starts slow. And only gets slower until you are too deep in the shit pool to climb out, and must wade across to the other end. At which point you paddle fervently to escape the sense of drowning in the despair of being in the life you planned, exactly as you planned it (whether you want to admit it or not).
Though it is lovely to feel like shit before 2001. The book set entirely before April 9th 2001. When there was still life. Its so easy to forget, as though the great divide that failed to materialize when the computers all still worked on January 1st, 8 years ago, later manifested as something we actually had to care about (not that it effected me much. But others felt the shockwave, and im still stuck in the world where we can't remember what life felt like on April 9th 2001).
So read it, i guess. if you want. or don't. Now, i'm not really sure. not sure which.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
