Same in the end
Same in the end
If you're told different
It's a liar...
...or a friend

Harry Potter. My blog is a spoiler free zone. By even SAYING that, I'm afraid that someone will post something in the comments. I actually left a showing of The Princess Bride at the Somerville Theatre (during ArtBeast 2007, an arts festival in Davis Square) because I was worried about spoilers.

So I spoiled it for myself. It was the only true way to take power away from those who would spoil it for me

That's right, I read the end of the book. The last chapter. Well, I more skimmed it than anything, so I'll still reserve the pleasure of reading it at a later date.

But honestly, I'm not going to let something as trivial as Harry Potter control my life, even a small portion of it.

Life or Death: Same in the end!

I have my secret thing with the secret company tomorrow. It's barely a secret, actually, since my boss already knows. I'm pretty nervous, but I definitely intend to post a full review here afterwards, if only because I know it will increase my page views.... :)

In other news, only about a half dozen people have downloaded my songs off of here. This is unsurprising, but still a bit disappointing. The original point of putting them up here was so that I would be inspired to compose/record more, because I would have an outlet for my creative output. Well for the first couple weeks that I had the songs up, that was definitely true. But nowadays, I've seemed to have a built-in creative drive, where I'm composing and recording almost every day with no thought to posting any of it. And that's a fantastic feeling!

I've always considered myself 'Liberal' in political views.

However, I just read the following footnote on page 18 of The Monk and the Philosopher (which is a very interesting book and deserves its own post):

'Liberalism' means in Europe almost the opposite of what it means in America. Thinkers considered liberal in Europe are John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill.

Damn! That's always what I've thought I meant when I've said I'm liberal. That I believe in, you know, Liberty. Freedom. That we have free will. That our government has been established to protect our Freedom and never to take it away.

But I guess that means I can't be 'socially' liberal at the same time? Because that would entail big government and lots of social programs, which would be against the ideals of Smith and Locke?

ARGGH, I wish I had taken a BASIC polisci course in college. It's times like these when I feel just woefully undereducated.

I hate the federal government, but I love America. That's the way I truly feel. I love the American people, I love the ideals of freedom and liberty on which we were founded. I hate unchecked Capitalism and privatization of public lands and resources. I love the fact that we have a highway system, a post system, the internet, and clean running water almost everywhere. I hate the fact that we don't have health care, that social security is bankrupt, that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

I hate George W. Bush. He's a fucking asshole; and absolute idiot and a clueless anti-leader. Him and his cronies are quite literally ruining America. But as this article from LiveScience points out, presidential power has been growing for decades, and George W. Bush is only the latest manifestation of an Executive Branch that is out of control.

As Jefferson pointed out "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" (Declaration of Independence). So whatever is wrong with America, it would not be prudent to throw the whole Grand Experiment out the window. However, we must not let our leaders (Bush in particular, also the Supreme Court) trample on the traditions and precedents that have made our country great.

So like I said, I hate the federal government.

But I fucking LOVE America.

Happy Independence Day! Fuck the Brits! :)

The first line of the Tao Te Ching, roughly translated, is "The Tao that can be known is not the true Tao". I struggled a lot with that last night, but the following paragraphs, ripped wholesale from Stan Rosenthal's introduction to his Tao Teh Ching 'translation', helped a great deal.

Consider a thing such as a strawberry. If we wish to find the word 'strawberry', we look in a dictionary; if we wish to find a description of a strawberry, we look in an encyclopaedia. But if we are hungry, we do not go to the library, but to the field where fine strawberries may be found. If we do not know where there is such a field, we might seek guidance as to where fine strawberries may be found. A book on the Tao is like such a guide.

It can point us in the direction of the strawberry patch, but cannot provide the fruit itself. It can give an idea of the taste of Tao, but of itself, has no taste to compare with direct experience of the Tao.

Consider now three things: There is the universal principle which enables all things to be, and to flourish naturally; there is the name 'Tao', by which that universal principle is known; and there are words which describe the manifestations of the Tao.