Happy New Year

1 January 2009

So far, the New Year has been pretty productive. And I say that with all sarcasm intended. Last night, our family friends Art and Pam Bennett came over to our house to eat Sloppy Joes and to play "Apples-to-Apples" and a card game called "Phase 10." Ordinarily, I don't like to play games, mostly because I'm competitive, I hate to lose, and defeat is always possible with any game; but to honor the New Year, I decided to make an exception. I didn't do particularly well with either game. I lost badly at "Apples-to-Apples." My mother, who had just been asking me that day the definition of the word "listless," dominated. I had a little more success with "Phase 10," but my luck eventually turned and I went from frontrunner to also-ran. Pam won, which probably was more painful for me than my mother's successes.

The Bennetts left shortly after midnight. I stayed up for a while talking with my mother and listening to music on Windows Media Player, which was encouraging since my computer has been acting up for the past week. There have been moments when my video card doesn't seem to be working, either it fails to register a keystroke or it'll freeze up while I'm trying to watch a video on YouTube or Surf the Channel, or it'll stop and the screen will go dark. The cause behind these problems seems to be the presence of a family of viruses which have set up shop in some of the more scenic locales within my computer (e.g., a file folder entitled "system32" which seems to concern all my media programs). I have been scanning and cleansing it regularly. Though I doubt I can clean it out entirely--the only thing that reproduces faster than a computer virus is a rabbit, I suspect--I think I can keep the problem in hand till I have funds sufficient to purchase a newer model.

As for New Year's Day, I've spent my time watching Looney Tunes and classic "guy" films like The Godfather and Raiders of the Lost Ark. In terms of Looney Tunes, it was fascinating to now watch the misadventures of Daffy, Bugs, Porky, and the others, because I really noticed things that, when you're a child, simply allude you. Take "Birds Anonymous." Sylvester swears off birds thanks to assistance from a friendly organization called "BA" or "Birds Anonymous," which, like its real-world template of Alcoholics Anonymous, applies a twelve-step program that encourages members to watch over and help each other. More tellingly, there is a sequence when Sylvester is up all night suffering through the symptoms one associates with chemical withdrawal: sleeplessness, blood-shot eyes, elevated heart rate, hallucinations, etc.

And then there's the entire issue of speech and language; with the exception of Bugs Bunny, who speaks in a high-pitched, smart-alecky Brooklyn accent, and Foghorn Leghorn with his Southern twang, nearly every prominent character speaks with a lisp or a stammer or some other form of impediment. It's funny and it helps to develop the personality of the characters. Try to imagine a Daffy Duck who doesn't slobber "You're despiscable" to Bugs after Elmer has blown off his bill. But I can't say that the excessively sensitive, touchy-feely, bleeding-heart liberal in me isn't the tiniest bit disturbed by the use of every kind of speech impediment for comedic effect. I probably should watch more House M.D.--A few hours of watching Hugh Laurie heap abuse on his minions, patients, and other travesties against the laws of biological evolution might smother such feelings of pity and sympathy. But then again, I am a registered Democrat now. Difficult decision. We'll see how it plays out.

Anyway, I trust that you all had a delightful evening last night; and God willing, this year will be a damn sight better than the old one for everyone. Tomorrow--I plan on starting to research in earnest for my second paper for HUM310. I'm also going to try to finish another book. I read American Fascists by Chris Hedges last week, and while I won't call on everyone to gird their loins and prepare for a second civil war--Hedges is far too hysterical for one to take his findings as the basis for policy--the man certainly raises important questions about how a society which is founded on principles of individual liberty, pluralism, and tolerance should respond to those who wish to undermine it and replace it with some kind of "new order." The proposition that society should have the right to curtail the rights of any individual, group, or faction to express their convictions is an admittedly dangerous one. The ageless spectre of the slippery slope--If one forbids this newspaper from calling for the life of every abortion provider in the country, what's to prevent one from closing a radio station that reports a story about political corruption which the powers-that-be may not want to see the light of day? But does that mean that a society such as ours should refuse to defend itself and its principles against radicals who argue that blasphemy should be a capital offense or who contend that public education is an invention of the Devil? And more immediately, are we now living in a period where answers to such questions aren't simply interesting or helpful from a philosophical or moralistic perspective, but essential to our continued survival and success? Sleep on it. And I'll talk to you later.