|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 |
Have you ever felt like you've lost the edge, that suddenly-- like the changing of harvest into winter-- luck, good fortune, and/or fruitful opportunities no longer walk with you?
I'm a technical writer and documentation specialist. A few years ago, there was a time in which opportunities to advance my skills and experience kept coming in. No matter what I seemed to work on during this time turned to gold, if you know what I mean. Suddenly, though, the opportunities stopped presenting themselves, even if I sought them out. And the projects that I worked on failed to generate the buzz that my previous work did. It was as if people had become accustomed to my style and work and so their feedback stopped. Of course, as all writers tend to do, I psycho-analyzed why. It was hard not to take it personal to a certain degree.
This month, however, there has been a sudden shift again. I have been sought after for contract jobs and have been asked to help with high-profile projects at work. Though it's hard work...though it is challenging, I love these seasons that force me to better myself.
While recently reading one of my favorite books, God is a Verb, by Rabbi David Cooper, I came across this paragraph on the cyclic nature of good fortune. I intend to remember the message during the next dry season. From page 94:
There are times when things just seem to go better than others in our relationships, our financial situations, our well-being, our moods, our luck, and just about everything else. It is not as important for us to explain the differences in our rythms as to become aware of them. This awareness helps us understand the cyclic nature of everything in creation. When we fully comprehend these cycles, our choices and decisions are far better informed. We do not get caught in the roller coaster of events or whipsawed by our emotions. Understanding cycles is a key to success in all areas of life.
10:33:25 PM  | |
|
|
|
Thursday, November 25, 2004 |
Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.
--Cicero, 54 B.C.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all!
10:05:34 AM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 |
Altruism is dead, my friend criticized after listening to U2's latest CD How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, which by the way is one of the greatest titles of a CD ever.
Well...no one in rock today is U2. And no one does altruism like U2. In fact, U2 would be a fish out of water if they didn't dish out their themes of positive affirmations, selfless attitudes, the lost and searching soul, unquenched love/desire, roots of hatred, American materialism and global supremacy attitidudes and inclinations, to name a few.
What makes the lyrics of Bono and The Edge continuously relevant and endearing is that they capture truths about the human condition -- that we are a fallen and lost lot in search for hope, happiness, love, acceptance, and redemption -- and reveal them in slivers of poetic phrases and cliches that alight in us like the sun coming out from behind dark clouds.
We never feel like we're being drowned in sentimentality. Rather, we feel buoyed up and thrilled by their honest representation of real life. Call it pop-psychology or pop-spirituality, U2's voice is credible and beloved. The fact that this CD is one of the most anticipated releases of the year, thanks to a clever advertisment contract with iPod and that damn fine song "Vertigo," (and the fact that they are the only band of their era whose CD is not a comeback attempt), is mighty impressive evidence of this.
Dismantle is classic U2, with sounds reminiscent of The Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby. It's a solid work. There are plenty of songs to sing to, a couple to dance to, a couple to get high to (if I believed in getting high), and quite a few to meditate to.
When it comes to U2, each new effort is under such scrutiny because of how successful and loved many of their previous songs have become. Some of my personal favorites are Mysterious Ways, With or Without You, One, Where the Streets Have No Name, Desire, Pride (In the Name of Love), Elevation, Pop, to name a few. With Dismantle, there are a few songs that would make my cut-- Vertigo (hands down), Love and Peace or Else, and Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own. But I also love All Because of You, A Man and A Woman, City of Blinding Lights, Miracle Drug, and Yahweh.
The song "Love and Peace Or Else" is this generation's new anthem of peace. Bring back the long hair and hippy chicks. This is the song of the movement; the anti-Iraq war song: "...the troops on the ground are about to dig in and I wonder where is the love?...We need love and peace." Great guitar riffs and lyrics make this circa-70's song one of the most hipnotic and best on the CD.
Track 3 "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" is a beautiful and highly singable ballad. Bono's voice on the higher notes is as clear and awe-inspiring as the blue sky in summertime.
Yahweh is a great conclussion to the CD, a pleading to the God of Mercy to help us conquer our hate and to find the light:
Take these hands
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don't make a fist
Take this mouth
So quick to criticise
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss....
Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Why the dark before the dawn.
Yes, Dismantle is another one of those altruistic CD's, if you must describe it like that. Sit at the footstool of Bono's voice and listen. Maybe you'll pick up on a few gems that ring true, like: love can lift you to higher levels of awareness, that in order to succumb to love's impression you must first learn how to kneel, that freedom has a scent as fresh and new as a newborn babe's, that you don't have to go through life alone, and that pain often proceeds the blessing.
There is plenty in Dismantle that is memorable.
11:38:25 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, November 18, 2004 |
Two opinion articles have impressed me about the latest assault on Fallujah. This Salon article by J. Scott Smith, consider this opening paragraph:
Perhaps, being a new father, I am overly sensitive to such things, but today the image I saw on my computer screen brought me to tears. The photograph, appearing on the BBC's Web site, was from some street or another in Fallujah, Iraq. The caption, although gruesome enough, was a comparatively bland statement that "Bodies have been left uncollected for days." Yet what the picture depicted was testimony to the unmitigated and unavoidable tragedy of war. In the picture we see the "uncollected" body of a man lying in the street, his arms still clutching yet another uncollected body, that of a child. The child's body was clasping the man's shoulders, holding on for what was dear life to the now headless corpse of, who knows, his (or her, you cannot tell) father, uncle, brother, someone he trusted to protect and shelter him.
And this from our very own Rayne, who had a heart-to-heart with her daughter about the comparisons between her era's My Lai and our era's Fallujah.
8:58:50 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 15, 2004 |
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Written by: Billy Bob Thornton & Tom Epperson
Starring: Cate Blanchett (Annabelle 'Annie' Wilson), Giovanni Ribisi (Buddy Cole), Keanu Reeves (Donnie Barksdale), Katie Holmes (Jessica King), Greg Kinnear (Wayne Collins), Hilary Swank (Valerie Barksdale), Michael Jeter (Gerald Weems), Kim Dickens (Linda), Gary Cole (David Duncan), Rosemary Harris (Annie's Granny)
(Rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/nudity.)
Before SpiderMan 2 and SpiderMan, Sam Raimi was better known for his horror films The Evil Dead (1 & 2) and Army of Darkness. He toyed with the comic book characteristics in the film Darkman, starring Liam Neeson. And he toyed with the Western genre in The Quick and the Dead. But I think it was his exceptional film A Simple Plan, starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridgette Fonda that gave Raimi name-recognition in the genre of drama.
Raimi's following film, The Gift is a marriage between his successes in horror and drama. It's a very fine who-dunnit murder thriller set in the deep bayou!
And the script, written by the very talented Billy Bob Thornton (who won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for his 1996 critically acclaimed film Sling Blade, which also is set in the deep south) echoes in my mind three great storytellers: William Faulkner, John Grisham, and Stephen King. Each one of these had a way of layering their stories with sub-plots and highly intriguing characters that we can sink our interest in. (Tom Epperson co-wrote the film.) Consider the storyline:
When a high-profile young woman (who is engaged to the handsome and very eligible principal of the school) goes missing, her father and police turn to the local psychic in hopes of finding her. The local psychic, Anabelle, masterfully played by Cate Blanchett, has her own struggles. She's still mourning the death of her husband. She's struggling to care for her three young boys, both in a physical and mental capacity. And she has to deal with all of the unique effects of doing psychic readings for people--she's threatened by an angry and abusive husband for trying to break up his marriage; she befriends a young man who has serious mental problems because of being abused when he was a child; and she continually battles the "she's a witch" mindset of the townspeople. Anabelle accepts to help. It's a decision that nearly costs her her life.
The photography in the film is likewise rich and comes off as symbolic, like a natural representation of There are some incredible moments in this film. One imparticular is when Annabelle is hanging laundry in her backyard when her grandma (who has passed on) comes walking out of the swampy forest carrying a basket of parmisians to tell her that a storm is coming.
The acting is superb, including Keanu Reeves impressive performance as the abusive husband. The Gift was a genuine surprise and very memorable. It's one of the better films of 2000.
10:13:57 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, November 14, 2004 |
You would think that after helping raise two kids that I would be on top of my game with this third one, specifically, that nothing would surprise me or take me off guard. NOT!
Case in point: If you are familiar with newborns, their first series of bowel movements are meconium, that black, tar-like poo that sticks to the baby's bum like bad bubble-gum and it takes nearly an entire case of Huggies Wet Wipes (shameless plug) to clean it off. It's less than 12 hours since Merrick has been born. He was fussing and so we checked his diaper and sure enough there was evidence of poo. So I laid him down in his hospital basinet, removed him from his "baby-burrito" wrap, and removed his diaper.
Number 1: I forgot how newborns freak out when they are undressed.
Number 2: I forgot how newborn babies kick their legs around when they are angry or when they are simply being changed. It doesn't matter how strong you are or how quick you think you are, trying to keep their legs and feet still and out of the poo is simply easier said than done.
So there I am trying to hold his legs out of the way so I can wipe away the tar poo with a cold wet wipe and suddenly he starts pushing out more of it. I catch what I can with the already used wipe, dispose of it, and grab a new one. But then out comes another stream of tar. He was screaming and I was sweating, trying hard to keep the black ooze from going all over his blankets and clothes and up his backside.
It was a nearly a disaster in mini-proportions. I don't know where all this poo was coming from but it sure did seem like all 8 pounds of him.
As J laughed from the hospital bed, I said "Welcome to parenthood....again!"
9:46:02 PM | |
|
|
|
Friday, November 12, 2004 |
J delivered our new son Merrick last night at 11:34 PM. It was the easiest delivery of the three kids, if you can equate any delivery as being easy. Merrick was 8 lbs. 8 ounces, 21 inches long, blonde hair, blue eyes. He was born under the number 11-- eleventh month, eleventh day, and in the eleventh hour. (Doc and I teased J about pushing the baby out in time to meet the 11:11 PM mark but she would not entertain the idea of doing any additional pushing. Oh well.)
If anyone out there is a numeroligist or knows the science behind the characteristics of birth-order, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
But most importantly, dear J is doing well. And handsome little Merrick is doing well too.
9:24:12 AM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 09, 2004 |
Written and directed by: Stephen Sommers
Starring: Hugh Jackman (Van Helsing), Kate Beckinsale (Anna Valerious), Richard Roxburgh (Count Vladislaus Dracula), David Wenham (Carl), Shuler Hensley (Frankenstein's Monster), Elena Anaya (Aleera), Will Kemp (Velkan), Kevin J. O'Connor (Igor), Alun Armstrong (Cardinal Jinette), Silvia Colloca (Verona), Josie Maran (Marishka), Samuel West (Dr. Victor Frankenstein), Robbie Coltrane (Mr. Hyde), Stephen Fisher (Dr. Jekyll)
There are crimes against humanity and there are.....well.....in the entertainment sense.....crimes against humanity. Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing is an applicable example.
And considering these facts that the film cost $150 million to make (without including the funds Universal dished out in marketing), was expected to have a revenue of $175 million, but actually generated only $120 million, one has to believe that Universal is thinking this film was a crime as well. (I can only surmise that Universal agreed to the project because they wet themselves over the prospect of Dracula and his vampire wives making thousands of Undead babies that can only come alive when Frankenstein is strapped to an electric table and tortured via lightning strikes.)
The biggest crime of the film is Sommers' revisionist ways in creating this storyline. Sommers grabbed all of the Victorian villains and monsters-- Dracula and his three vampire brides, werewolves, Frankenstein, and Jekyl & Hyde-- and brought them all into one film in which Van Helsing (who works as an assassin for the Catholic Church) is commissioned to hunt them down and kill them.
In Junior High, the joke about Friday's lunch menu was that it was mystery-meat surprise-- whatever leftover meat from the week's menu was uneaten it would be incorporated into one dish on Friday. I'm sure that wasn't the case but it sure did taste like it sometimes. Van Helsing is the film version of mystery-meat surprise.
The script becomse too big for itself right away, especially in regards to the characters Dracula and Van Helsing, both taken from Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula. In Stoker's book, for example, Van Helsing is an old doctor and professor who figures out how to kill the Undead. He successfully kills Dracula in the end of the novel by driving a stake through his heart.
But in Summers' film, which takes place after the events in Stoker's novel, Van Helsing has transformed from an older man into the strapping Hugh Jackman, who sports long and thick hair (that probably made Fabio green) and a physique chisled exclusively at Gold's Gym. Was he reincarnated? Did the Pope give him the elixir of everlasting-life? Who knows.
And when Dracula informs Van Helsing that he indeed was killed by him years ago, it wasn't only Van Helsing scratching his head. Anyone familiar with Stoker's novel was scratching theirs too. Indeed, Sommers copped out when he did not explain how Dracula came back to life, how his vampire brides came back to life, how they were able to have thousands of Undead babies, etc.
Other crimes:
1) I won't be surprised if I read a news byline in Variety that the Transylvanian accent has been banned from being spoken in films. This movie could be registered as a comedy because of it.
2) What was up with all of the James Bond-like gadgets that the Vatican Secret Service built for Van Helsing (i.e. semi-automatic silver arrow shooter with changeable cartridge and an explosive that consisted of the equivalent of the light-intensity of ten suns)?
3) Van Helsing seemed a rip-off of better films such as Indiana Jones, James Bond, Aliens (the Undead babies hanging in egg-like wombs), Star Wars (Dracula's workers looked like those Jawas with goggles), and Gremlins (the Undead babies look like Gremlins sporting bat wings).
10:59:18 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 08, 2004 |
Links to my Iraq War and Elections 2004 posts should be working now in the banner table. Crossing fingers that they do.
9:08:27 PM | |
|
|
My blog is continuing to morph and transform. One day I'll be finished.
8:21:43 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, November 07, 2004 |
(Russia, with sub-titles)
Directed By: Alexander Sokurov
Written by: Alexander Sokurov and Anatoly Nikiforov
Dialogues: Boris Khaimsky, Alexander Sokurov, Svetlana Proskurina
Director of photography: Tilman Buettner
Visual concept and principal image design: Alexander Sokurov
Art Directors: Yelena Zhukova and Natalia Kochergina
Costume Designers: Lidiya Kriukova, Tamara Seferyan, Maria Grishanova
Music Performed by: The Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra
Conducted by: Valery Gergiev, State Hermitage Orcestra, Sanct Petersburg Kamerata
Composer: Sergey Yevtushenko
To many cultures, death is a journey to that land of eternal rest, even to that ancestral homeland across vast landscapes and seas of spiritual significance. Sometimes, the departed soul even meets up with guardians or oracles who request tribal passwords, tokens, or signs. Sometimes, departed ancestors meet the newly departed on their journey to help guide them home.
The writers of Russian Ark cleverly use this theme as the soul of their extraordinary film on the historically important Herimitage in St. Petersburg. This film is as much a tour of Russia's famous Winter Palace as it is an archetypal journey through Russian history and one man's journey to the afterlife.
The Hermitage, in many ways, is the central character of the film. According to the director, there has not been one image of the Hermitage in the history of cinema. It was this fact that influenced them to embark on this amazing project, from both a historical and a technological standpoint.
Historical Standpoint
The Herimtage, recognized as one of the largest museums in the world and the most beautiful palaces in Russia, consists of "six magnificent buildings situated along the embankment of the River Neva, right in the heart of St Petersburg. The leading role in this unique architectural ensemble is played by the Winter Palace, the residence of the Russian tsars that was built to the design of Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli in 1754-62. This ensemble, formed in the 18th and 19th centuries, is extended by the eastern wing of the General Staff building, the Menshikov Palace and the recently constructed Repository. Put together throughout two centuries and a half, the Hermitage collections of works of art (over 3,000,000 items) present the development of the world culture and art from the Stone Age to the 20th century." (http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/index.html)
Russian Ark begins with the narrator awaking from being hit on the head. He's confused. He doesn't know how long he's been unconscious; he wonders if he is still dreaming. As he walks about, he's entreated to follow a throng of people into the Winter Palace. He follows them. What transpires is a journey through many of the main quarters of the six buildings of the Hermitage.
Not once do we see the narrator. In fact, we are the narrator and we see and experience the Hermitage as he does. We enter such grand rooms as the Hermitage theater auditorium, Italian Skylight Hall, Gallery of Ancient Painting, Van Dyck Room, Ruben's Room, Tent Hall, Rembrandt Room, Pavillian Hall, the Hanging Garden of the small hermitage, St. George Hall, Memorial Hall of Peter the Great, Portrait Gallery of the Romanov Dynasty, Great Nicholas Hall, and the Main Staircas of the Winter Palace.
We realize as we go from room to room that each space is a template of its time of creation or of historical events that transpired within. It doesn't take long before we sense that we are amidst ghosts of Russia past-- Catherine the Great (Maria Kuznetsova), Catherine the First (Natalia Nikulenko), Orbeli (David Giorgobiani), Boris Piotrovsky (Alexander Chaban), Peter the Great (Maxim Sergeyev), Nicholas 1 (Yuliy Zhurin ), Alexandra Fedorovna, a spouse of Nicholas I (Svetlana Svirko), Alexandra Fyodorvna, a spouse of Nicholas II (Anna Aleksahina), and Nicholas II (Vladimir Baranov).
Technological Achievement
Russian Ark is one of the greatest achievements of film because it is one continuous shot. That's right. There were no scenes. There was no splicing involved.
Russian Ark was filmed using a Sony HIigh Definition (SONY HDW-F900) camera, which capitalizes on digital technology to capture the same quality of photography as film cameras but with the ability to record or shoot in one long take. Because of this, Russian Ark was recorded straight to hard disc.
Digital technology was also used to enhance the end product. From the film's website, this modern and sophisticated technology allowed them to enhance images. For example, they mixed several images and/or used special video effects to light candles in the Hermitage halls and to make clouds fly above the Niva.
The Producer of the Russian Ark, Andrey Deryabin, explained the significance of the film was two-fold: 1) It was the first Russian motion picture made in HD format. And 2) To reach the younger generation (who love and understand the importance of computers) and bring them into "the world of real Art, using the technology they are used to."
Conclussion
Russian Ark is not only a historical or technological masterpiece. It is an intrigunig story amidst backdrops of exquisite art and noteable philosophy.
It doesn't take long on our journey through the Winter Palace before we sense that we ourselves might be the soul on the journey home. As we walk through rooms looking at world famous paintings, statues, and amazing architecture, one can't help but ponder on what each of us brings to this viewing and what we are taking from it on our journey onward.
I suppose many won't even get through to the end of this film. Russian Ark isn't much of a traditional storyline as much as it is like a dream, playing inside of us in a stream of consciousness manner. I suppose that the closed-minded viewer will likewise turn the film off before the end, irrated at what they might perceive as nonsensical chatter. It takes a seasoned mind to appreciate wisdom.
If you have the attention span of an adult, you will find this film rewarding in your own personal way. For me, I will never forget the scene in which Catherine the Great and her servant run through the hanging garden in the small hermitage. At first, the narrator keeps up with them but slowly they run further ahead until they disappear into thin air before our eyes.
Most of all, I loved walking in and out of conversations. Within them were the observances of life and ruminations on the human experience, like this ever-prescient thought: "Everyone can see the future. But no one remembers the past."
Information about the film can be viewed at http://www.russianark.spb.ru/eng/
10:29:03 PM | |
|
|
Don't mind me. Still working on my new look and feel. Hope you like the new banner structure. I do not have links to all of the titles listed above. But I'm working on it the next few days. Stay tuned.
2:53:36 PM | |
|
|
|
Friday, November 05, 2004 |
|
Thursday, November 04, 2004 |
More reconstruction......trying to get blogrolling up and running.
8:55:12 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 |
Time to start updating blog site. Removed Kerry banner.
11:01:36 PM | |
|
|
I sit before my computer this evening still reeling from John Kerry's loss. Last night, I went to bed feeling like I had just been broadsided by a freight train. My head and heart ached. It was one of the most painful evenings of my life.
I've held the belief from the beginning of the Democratic Caucus' that beating Bush was a tall order. John Kerry was always the underdog in my book because he not only was tackling a formidable foe but he had to wrestle with a media that has been soft on this administration.
Heading into the election Tuesday, I was optimistic of his chances because of the successes of the new voter registration movements, weak polling results for Bush, monstrous campaign rallies, the support of Bruce Springsteen and Bill Clinton, and the report of missing explosives from Al Qaqaa dogging the Bush campaign. (For more information, see my posts prior to the election Bush: The Little Dutch Boy and Election Predictions.)
Plenty of pundits and bloggers are sharing their thoughts on what the Democrats did wrong, even announcing the party dead. Whatever. Vinchero, perdero.
I've been told that the Democrats lost because our focus was not on Kerry but on Bush, especially focusing on his negatives. I know Bill O'Reilly had it as a main talking point on one of his shows last week. The argument goes something like this: Michael Moore and his film Fahrenheit 9/11 actually helped out the Republicans because of how divisive and spurious that attacks on Bush were.
Indeed, Moore may have been a motivating factor for the Republicans this election cycle. But he played a significant role for the Dems.
If any of these Moore haters would have seen the film, they would have realized that Moore also excoriated the Dems for being soft and maleable. After 9/11, Bush seemed to have them all on leashes and begging for doggie bones.
Howard Dean will go down in history for establishing the modern Democratic organization and volunteer movements. Michael Moore should be remembered for giving the Democratic organization back its spine. In this Fight Club political environment, Moore showed us how to jump in and fight rather than stand at the sidelines crying foul and calling for ethical language and behavior -- play them at their own game.
In Writing 101, one of the first rules you learn is to "know your audience." You have to give both parties credit for adhering to this principle when constructing their gameplans.
I would not change anything about the issues the Democratic campaign picked for this election cycle. I thought that the Democrats were wise in focusing on the issues that face us as a country, especially the economy and the Iraq war debacle. Exit polls suggested that moderates, women, and students leaned toward Kerry because of these issues.
Rather than playing defense to these issues, the Republicans, headed by the mastermind Rove, laid out their own strategy based solely on moral issues and the threat of terrorism. These issues literally brought their base out in storm across the nation, especially in Ohio and Florida. It proved to be the stronger election draw and the winning gameplan.
Like 2000, this election cycle was close. Bush won the popular vote with 51%, that's only a mere 1% of the majority. We can conclude a couple of things from this stat and the electoral college mapping: 1) There is still a great divide in America, a fact that was recognized in both Kerry's concession speech and Bush's victory speech. And 2) we might be seeing a solidification and prominence of Christian fundamentalism in America. More on this later.
I supported Kerry because I believed in his service record in Vietnam, his courage in standing up for what he felt was right when he returned home, his long and notworthy service as senator, his grasp of international and domestic policies, and his vision for America. To me, he was the epitome of a leader. He would have been a damn fine president.
And to you Bush supporters who read my blog, congratulations. I know that this election cycle has meant as much to you as it has for me.
10:51:57 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, November 01, 2004 |
In Alfonso Cuaron’s magnificent film Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabon, Professor Trelawney (played by Emma Thompson) has the students practice the fine art of interpreting tea-leaves. In this particular scene, Harry gives his tea cup to Ron Weasley, who is supposed to interpret Harry's future. Ron, who always has that "oh crap, I’m in trouble now" look on his face, is puzzled at what the configuration of leaves is saying to him. Trelawney recognizes his befuddlement so she takes the cup from Ron and looks inside. She sees the Grimm, which signifies death.
Predicting elections seems as scientific as reading tea-leaves - it's so subjective. Even the polls, which are supposed to be scientific in nature, seem to be developed for a specific demographic so that the results favor a certain candidate. And this election cycle, we have learned that polls were unable to poll users of cell phones, which represents a vast swath of our teenage and college-age citizenry. What poll is a viable reflection of America without knowing this constituency's candidate of choice? I have also heard that minorities have been neglected in these same polls. Likewise, what poll is viable without a representation of this voice? Absurd.
I figure, in this light, that my prediction too is nothing more than a highly subjective animation of my own hope. So bugger it, I am going to do my own reading. (Of course it's absurd. But this is my election prediction, remember?)
Since I don’t drink tea and thus have no access to tea-leaves, let me intuit the ice chips left over at the bottom of my 34 oz. Diet Coke fountain drink mug.
I sit quietly and concentrate a few moments, clearing my head and tuning into my inner-feelings. I whisper, so as not to break the focus. "Who will win the election tomorrow?"
I then take the lid off the mug and look at the ice.
Damn, I think immediately. It's totally bone dry in there. Not even a hint of Diet Coke coats the ice chips. I definitely need another drink! Then I realize how significant this first impression is - the lack of jobs and the weak economy have left thousands impoverished and/or struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living - groceries, petrol, and basic health insurance costs - have increased while jobs are dwinding and wages stagnate.
The second thing that captures my attention is a hole where the straw sat. The first thing that comes to mind is "spider hole." Obviously, capturing Saddam justifies many Americans support of Bush. The second impression of this hole is the U.S. deficit. This impression favors the supporters of Kerry, who seek an administration with better management skills.
The third thing I notice is how the ice chips are piled haphazardly on top of each other like dead bodies filling a hole. The first impression coming to mind is of the rising casualty rates of the U.S. troops in the Iraq war. The second impression is of the rising casualty rates of Iraqi civilians. Does this indicate that Iraq will get worse for all parties involved no matter who wins the election? Disturbing thought.
The fourth thing I notice is a shape of a finger in one of the ice chips. The position of the finger suggests that it is pointing up. I think of heaven and an overwhelming sense of hope. America desires a candidate who can reclaim hope in a better nation and world.
The only other shape I can intuit inside of the ice chips sitting on the top looks like Darth Vador’s helmut. The word "oppression" comes to mind. John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act come to mind. The helmut sits side by side to the finger. The helmut is smaller and is overpowered by it. This fact suggests to me that America is looking more toward a hope for a better America than in the oppressive/totalitarian measures instigated by this Administration for security's sake.
The last thing I notice actually encompasses the entire circumference of the mug. The ice chips underneath the chips sitting on the top are slightly shadowed. The chips sitting above these shadows create the image of the Peace sign. I'm overwhelmed with the sense that the heart of America wants to move past the warring attitudes that have defined it since the buildup and invasion of Iraq. It wants to heal the collective wounds throughout the world that have been caused by hate and violence. It wants to rid itself of pre-emptive war. It wants communication and diplomacy to once again be the backbone of domestic and international policy. The key is seeking and establishing unity using time-proven dipolomatic skills and ethical qualities that generate respect and welcome genuine cooperation.
The drive toward change and a hope in a future that is a direct 180 from the direction we are heading today is going to bring the voters out to vote Kerry tomorrw.
Kerry is going to win the majority vote tomorrow 53% to 46% and win the Electoral College 315 to 220.
If Bush wins, well, what do ice chips know anyway?
Electoral College Predictions
I’m awarding Kerry upsets in the states Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Hawaii in the West. Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the Great Lakes region. And despite Jeb Bush's strangle-hold on Florida, I'm picking Kerry to win there. (Even without FLorida in this configuration of states, Kerry could still win 288 to 247.)
There is a big "what if" here and it is if Bush wins the four western states (New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Hawaii) and Florida, he wins the electoral college 270 to 265.
But if the electoral college proposition passes in Colorado, then Bush and Kerry will tie at 269. It would be up to Congress then to pick the winner.
This is my blue and red map of America after tomorrow:
9:22:45 PM | |
|
|
|
|
