Mercurial Musings

Terrible injustice has been wrought for millennia, and no one seems to have noticed, much less cared. I speak of the maltreatment (whether beknownst or unbeknownst) of the shadow.      That’s right, the shadow. For thousands of years the shadow has been subject to humankind. Think about it. They are constantly forced to follow the lead of some oblivious human. If the arm moves, the shadow has no choice in the matter. What if the shadow doesn’t feel like moving his arm? No sir, none of that – the shadow has to move. Furthermore, if a human so decides, a shadow can spend most of his/her life on the ground. I mean, the ground is nice and all, but would you want to be there all day? Oh, and little Joe Bob doesn’t think about it when he scampers blissfully over a pile of rocks. Don’t you think that hurts? Who does it hurt? Not Joe Bob.

Because of humans, some shadows have to stay put day after day after day. Because of all the cute little items Cindy Lou has stacked around her house, she is punishing other shadows besides her own. She buys lamps, not thinking of the new shadows she will bring into torturous existence. Why do you think they take the opportunity to run away when you turn off the light? I would, too…if I were a shadow, that is. Shadows of all inanimate objects are cursed to a static life. “But,” you might interject, “what about mountains? Surely humans cannot be responsible for that.” They are, indeed! They are responsible for not taking notice and taking action to alleviate the pain of that super-sized shadow.

Sadly, many shadows resort to boxing in order to vent their frustrations. At least, the ones that can. Mr. Mountain’s shadow could probably deliver a hell of a punch, what with his size advantage and all, but will he ever get the chance? Probably not. What can we do for such a shadow, anyway? Maybe nothing, but why not do something about the ones you can? It would boost the moral of the denizens of darkness, and it probably would make you feel good about yourself as well.

My job is not to provide a solution to this problem, of course, because I have absolutely no clue what can be done, but there has to be something. Let’s not run from the issue, but rather face it in light of the darkness it creates.

I am not a breadwinner. I do not win bread. I frequently eat large quantities of it, but said bread is in no way, shape or form, won by me. Does this make me a bread loser, seeing as how I’m not winning any bread? Perhaps so, for it is not uncommon for a certain porcelain entity in the nether parts of the household to summon me at various junctures during the day to bestow upon me the opportunity to lose some of this bread I have not won, though have indeed both ingested and digested.

Such unpleasantries aside, though, it is nonetheless possible to lose bread that you have not won. In fact, it is often easier (and more fun) to lose bread that someone else has won than to lose bread of which you yourself have been the winner. Bread may be lost after a number of interesting fashions.

For example, one could lose copious amounts of bread by simply not winning any at all. People will come and take your bread away from you in exchange for your mere existence in something say, similar to an apartment. And it would behoove us not to forget the myriad ways in which bread may, indeed, be lost wittingly, as in the cases of the souse, the junkie, and otherwise addicted. These poor saps freely donate a goodly portion of their hard, unearned bread to other saps, who in turn squander this newly acquired bread in variegated manners.

Besides these concerns, I wonder how exactly bread is won; that is, in what particular manner does one win bread? Is there some sort of jousting contest, or is it more of a general melee? This, I confess, I do not know, since I am not a winner of bread, as I have noted previously. I therefore and thusly salute all who name themselves winners of bread, for it seems a noble task, and one that deserves consideration for all winners in general. After all, if you are a winner, you might as well be winning bread.

On a more serious line of thought, today I thought I would write about the beginning of the universe, or whatever. I recently attended a lecture by Michael Shermer, editor of The Skeptic magazine and frequent writer for Scientific American. The basic content of the presentation was Creationism vs. Evolution. He raised many interesting points, but there was one thing that bothered me about his lecture. Although the topic was mentioned and discussed from several perspectives, he never really addressed the issue of the beginning of everything.

Shermer talked about Intelligent Design, and said that if it is logical to say that one can look at the earth and claim it must have been designed, then it should be just as logical to look at the intelligent designer and say that he must have been designed as well. Then, it would be equally plausible to look at the “superior designer” (the one who designed the designer) and infer that he/she, too, must have been designed by a super superior designer, and so on. The point he made was interesting, and it highlighted a question I have, as have many, struggled with. To wit, how did everything (the universe or whatever) begin? More specifically, is it logically evitable that something (whether it be God, a superior being, the universe, etc.) be eternal?

Mr. Shermer mentioned the idea again when he pondered, “What was before time?” or “What did the Big Bang bang into?” He acknowledged the question, but did not provide any sort of answer. He said that these were “questions with very interesting answers,” but he did not proffer any such answers. The purpose here is not to criticize Mr. Shermer, for I realize that the question under consideration is something that has been investigated for millenia. I do not fault him for failing to provide a solution to the quintessential puzzle of life.

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must be eternal. In other words, it is impossible to have a beginning. If there was a beginning, what was before that beginning? This leads us logically to the notion of eternality.

Perhaps the unfortunate reality is that, at this time, we simply do not have the mental capacity to observe, comprehend, or explain this ill-defined quandary. The two options that remain are simple: 1. Continue the search, hoping to arrive at the truth, or 2. Ignore the question completely and enjoy life for what it is. I’ll leave that debate for another time.

It’s probably not a good sign when you find yourself flipping through seventy channels of mostly nonsense in search of inspiration for writing. Nonetheless, doing just this, I stumbled across “Judge Judy”. This has to be one of the most aggravating programs I’ve ever seen. Regardless of who is right or wrong in the case, Judy always seems to know the verdict that is most just. She can, based on a couple of key words and telling aspects of body language, accurately determine the guilt, or lack thereof, of every defendent.

Would that I had such powers of perception. I know a few circumstances where this ability would be quite handy. Say, for example, you find a heaping pile of feces in the corner of your living room. Now, there are only two possible culprits – your constantly yapping, lapping Pomeranian, or your wife. In honor of justice and due trial, you don your black robe – which you keep on hand for just these occasions, and you issue subpoenas to the alleged suspects. You set them down, courtroom-style, and begin the proceedings. Since the dog voices no complaints, you designate him as the defendant, which would make your wife the plaintiff. She is suing Mr. Fluffies for the amount of one roll of toilet paper, half a bottle of cleanser, and what was left of an old can of Lysol. First, you ask both parties what has happened. The dog cocks his head and looks at you as though you have made some strange noise he finds difficult to interpret, yet is interesting enough to warrant his attention.

You take careful note of his side of the story, then turn to your wife for her version. Her response is nearly identical to that of the Pomeranian. Now you have a dilemma. Both accounts of the events leave much for the asking, so you are forced to rely on your intuitive powers of reasoning to make a decision. Citing your wife’s lack of sufficient evidence, you rule in favor of the defendant, Mr. Fluffies, and order the plaintiff to pay the court costs and pet the dog for no less than twenty minutes.

In the post-trial interviews, both parties decline to comment, which is bizarre in the Pomeranian’s case, since he has just been vindicated and cleared of all charges. As you hang your robe back in the closet, you cannot help but feel a sense of pride in knowing that justice has once again been served. Satisfied with yourself, you plop down on the couch to watch some Jerry Springer.

I agree with George Carlin when he said he only watches the news for entertainment purposes. Almost every day, for some untoward reason, I find myself flipping back and forth between Fox news and CNN. Is it just me, or is it blatantly hilarious how biased both sides are? Consider the Scooter Libby trial. On Fox all they can talk about is Bill Clinton. When Clinton was exposed for perjury, he was impeached, and there was a big to-do about the whole thing. The conservative media’s approach with regard to Libby seems to be to bring up the Clinton situation as often as possible, as if to deflect attention from their assaulted conservative politician’s plight. They find it unbelievable that Libby will face 25-30 years in prison for covering up something they say initially wasn’t even a crime.

Of course, they have a somewhat willfully blind view of this matter, because we all know that even if Bush doesn’t pardon him at the end of his administration, Libby will undoubtedly serve much, much less than 25 years. It seems to be Fox’s modus operandi, however, to ignore this information, instead exaggerating the situation as much as possible in order to make conservatives look as good as possible and liberals as bad as possible.

Now, don’t take the above statements as a declaration of loyalty to CNN. They are just as bad when it comes to biased, partisan media interpretations of events. CNN treats the Libby incident as just another scandal they’d expect from Republicans. Moreover, although CNN strives to appear level-headed and objective, they still fall into the grade-school tactics of insults and name-calling, though admittedly they practice such after a much more subtle fashion than their conservative counterparts, who can often be found sputtering and yelling in interviews, talking over their guests or interviewers.

The truly newsworthy element of all of this is the fact that it is virtually impossible to get unbiased media. Sure, you can try the international media sites, but in the end you cannot avoid committing to some degree of trust with respect to what you are hearing or reading. For the skeptical person, this is difficult, and for the extreme skeptic, impossible. That’s why I agree with Carlin – news media is primarily for entertainment purposes. I say enjoy it for what it is, but don’t take it too seriously. Don’t get swallowed up in an agenda. Consult as many perspectives as you can, and hope that such empirical comparisons will get you somewhat closer to the truth. That being said, though, don’t hold your breath in the hopes of finding unbiased media.

The first keystrokes of this document mark my official return to writing. Ok, </boo> and </hiss>. Indeed, I shall once again disgrace blank screens and white pages with my dubious content. Nonetheless, it is not for the reader, should any exist, that I pick up my quill and dip it unceremoniously in the ink of thought, but for my own well being and growth as a semi-person. I remain uncertain with regard to the subject matter of my alleged subsequent musings, but I am determined to stay the course, regardless of the fact that it is wholly possible that some unsuspecting aficionado of random minutia will stumble across these diatribes and pontifications. To any such unfortunate and ill-fated souls, I offer my humblest and sincerest condolences. That being said, I shall terminate this nonsensical introduction to my renewed writing endeavors.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!