10/15/2004: "Voting, competition and Al Gore's internet"

So much to write about, I will try to keep it short...try being the operative word. On second thought...better sit back, grab thta beer and get comfortable...this could be a long one....bear with me...some good stuff...


So I was reading through my HUGE voter proposition supplement booklet which is as big as a tree (the Greenies must be thrilled, though it is recycled paper) and was reading up on some of the propositions. If you have one of these I HIGHLY reccomend you take a look, if not to inform yourself about the ballot you should be marking on November 2nd, then to amuse yourself a bit. It's the first time I remember getting something so extensive to educate myself and whoever is responsible for getting these out is damn cool.

The first section has a simple one page summary, pros and cons, arguments and explanation of each proposition on the ballot for this election. Fair enough, I understood al but the two run downs of the triabla gaming props). It's a short 100 word of less from each side that explains the VERY basic impacts, principals and functions of each bill inclduing who backs them and where to get more info. Some of the ALL CAPITAL letters in the "arguments for" and "arguments against" CRACK me UP. Very propoganda oriented. Emotional phriasing like "don't be fooled" or "California LOSES if tis prop wins" are really strong.

THEN to my suprise after all that, there is a much more ELABORATE section on each proposition. Pages in fact on specifics...but still in laymens terms essentially and nowhere near I imagine the legal and technical of the bills. It's like you have the 2 minute version and the hour version. Low carbs lite politics for the minimally motivated and then the supersized "I can speak difinitively and want to be informed on this decision" level. Of course if I actually wrote to one of these places I could get pamphlets and no doubt an endless supply information to help me choose.

I particularly like it when one bill says something like supported by doctors, scientist and educators and then the other side of the argument also sites, supported by doctors, LEADING scientists, nurses and seniors. I wonder if two seniors who say sure, we think this is a good thing counts as "seniors" supporting a bill. Anyway, this is the last weekend to register to vote...if you aren't..I would seriously consider it...some important issues beyond even just the presidency to be decided upon.

NEXT...

In a conversation with Chris last night the never ending argument of Winning verses Competeing came up and didn't finish, much to my disappointment.

Win: 1)To achieve victory or finish first in a competition. 2)To achieve success in an effort or venture: struggled to overcome the handicap and finally won.

Compete: 1)To contend emulously; to seek or strive for the same thing, position, or reward for which another is striving; to contend in rivalry, as for a prize or in business; as, tradesmen compete with one another.

There is a somewhat in my opinon outdated version of what competition is. It's not how you play the game but lets make sure we all win. No maybe I just haven't been on the kiddie soccer fields lately, or maybe being raised in a crunchy can't we all get along area of enlightened palo alto makes me exempt but I don't think we are taught to win, but rather to compete to the best of our ability. And if we are rewarded for that great, nice to strive for a trinket to remember the event, but I truely don't believe that people feel LESS of an athlete if they don't win. Yes you see the faces of the football players, and you see the occasional illogical sore loser smack some Ref, and of course we love to wait for the Hockey player to get reved up, but in general its just not logical to have it be ALL about winning.

My stance is, and always has been (as a competetive person, who enjoys a challenge) that winning is a measurement. It's an incentive to do your best, whether you put any meaning on the end result or not. When I swam a best time I was happy, when I qualified for something super, I get to swim again. I get to do what I love. If trying to BEAT the other person is a way to achieve that personal sucess, excellent. I will admit it was an incentive, but I will also admit it was MUCH easier for me to not come in first than to watch someone else who really wanted to WIN not take first place.

Win. It's a word, a lable, just like loser is ( One I don't use lightly becuase I do feel it can demean in a way someone who does COMPETE and plays well no matter the arena, be it deabate, sport, tests what ave you). It is not the end all be all of sport, or election, or grading as far as the spirit is concerned, but it is how the world is presently set up.

Winning is skill (and luck)...example....I study hard to be smart to get a good job or get into a good college, and maybe to get and A so my parents will give me more allowance, but what does and A mean especially in anything non mathematical or historical where you are all being judged anyway. If you don't respect the teacher and you don't ENJOY educating yourself, an A means crap. And when you place a value on your talent sometimes a C is as good as an A.

Gymnastics at the Olympics is a perfect example...There it was all about winning ( NOT just by AMERICANS than you very much) by .001 or something of a point. How is that a win when it is JUDGING? That's why I always liked swimming. Barring equipment malfunction you are pretty much equal....it's mathmatical....Sure you could have swum faster

And What about the academy awards...Sure, nice to win, you get to make a speech, wear a pretty dress, but they always say it's just great to be nominated. Well, yes, I think there is plenty of that...part of human nature is validation and wanting acknowledgment and recognition, it would be great if no greed existed, no ulterioir motives but in something as subjective and political as the arts, can't you be happy if ANYONE acknowledges you. Maybe the bigger question is can you be happy say in a performance if you were never to get any feedback. No clapping, no review, no acknowledgement. Would that undermine the pupose to a certain extent of art? Example: I sing int he shower. That is an art ( No really, I'm much better in the shower) but noone hears me. I do it because I enjoy it and I don't get paid, and to be honest it's almost just an instinctive impulse. But is that the exception to the rule maybe? Is a majority of what artists do to make themselves vulernable to at least one other personand hope they think or feel something in their reaction? I hear artsist (which I'm not sure I believe) when they say they can hate or love my work, just so long as they feel and have some opinon. Maybe they are more evolved artists than me. Sure I like constructive criticism, but it would hurt to be sure if someone just said you suck. Well it would hurt at first but I would put ice on my fist after smacking them and then it would go away. =] SEriously though, even with a strong ego, we do want to be liked....Sally field especially.

I guess my frustration and defensiveness over this topic is aggrivated by Chris's comments as he is one of the most competitve people I know. THAT's NOT A BAD THING and more to the point it is a true thing. He is one of the first people to make a bet, take a dare, or enjoy and engage in a challenge. TELL him he can't and he does..why...to prove to himself he can, to prove to OTHERS he can too, to get validation and to suceed. To check it off the list he has in his head. DON"T DENY IT, that's only being dishonest with yourself and we are trying desparately to break you of that mister.

This is not chris bashing, it applys to myself as well, I only try to point out that someone who says America is all about winning ought to examine how he lives or at least how others in the country he lives in percieve him to be living...I am just saying we are as base as any other animal when it comes to competition. Competitioin and posession...ownership...be it a title, a trophy, a job or position, a mate, etc.

I await Chris's completeion of the discussion ( I promise to listen if you wil, and not to smack you when you don't) on his correlation between my stance and a christian fundamentalist. He could have had something there, but it wasn't finished in his head, and it may have been the homebrew talking. It could have been obnoxious chris coming out to upset susannah, forcing her to release tension through raising her voice too. Anyway very interesting ideas here as too if things have changed, if I am in my own bubble or chris is a freak.


to Sum up:

1) It's not all about winning, but it does allow people to compete professionally in a sport and make money as it allows a way (albeit somewhat superficial) to measure outcome, success and to a certain extent talent and luck manipulation ability.
2) Swimming rocks!
3) Chris is a freak who won't finish a discussion.
4) that home brew has a kick

FINAL TOPIC....Breath...

I am always amused while I search for images for Artsopolis what images com up. Now I have my "smut" filter at moderate so I would assume when I type in "flute" to search that the 2nd picture that comes up shouldn't be 4 naked Asian chicks playing silver flutes...but it does. I would also wonder why when seraching for "Neruda" as in Pablo...the 12th picture should be a naked chick on a beach..not NUDA, and her name isn't NERUDA either....All the other pictures were of Pablo....Do you think it's just something to keep you awake, or do you think these people pay money to have thier image come up first. Another email on what I found when I searched for my name, but for now I think I will just leave you with Flute and Neruda....happy hunting....

Have a good weekend!

pencils down.