I haven’t given any ‘blogging’ advice in a long time. And whom and I to give it?
But I have noticed one little thing that can help get your posts a little edge. Maybe it’s this increasingly ‘real-time’ World, or maybe they’ve always done it, but Google is so much constantly crawling, that when your content changes, even on an older post, the Google ‘bot’ almost immediately notices and comes running to check it out. So in this ‘timely’ World, it could get you a spot on the top or at least on the front page of results, for your particular topic. In other words, one gets the since that ‘timeliness’ is increasingly an ingredient in the secret ‘sauce’ of Page Rank.
Also I’ve noticed another benefit: It sort of gives you a sense of continuum and wholeness to your ideas if you’re keeping them alive in this way. In other words, if you add to them when some new material arises, simultaneously your subsconscious goes to work, ‘effortlessly’ bringing you some new creativity and synthesizing your main ideas, perhaps by doing it’s own ‘crawling’ in the otherwise overlooked areas of your mind.
I saw a headline on Drudge this morning entitled “Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win.” which links to a Politico article entitled “Will Ron Paul kill Caucuses?”
So, does the Iowa governor decide who the nominee is? Or is this a democracy? The caption of the photo says, “GOP elites in Iowa are worried about the ramifications of a Ron Paul victory there. | AP Photo”
What are they worried about? That democracy may prevail? The jist of the article is that a Ron Paul victory there would discredit Iowa as a whole, and especially as the “lead off” state in the Primaries.
So let me get this straight: They’re worried about their status as being a lead off state, but what is the point of being a lead off state if you’re not allowed to have a choice of whom to vote?
Would you rather be the lead off state in a totalitarian regime or the last state in a true democracy?
Would you rather be the lead off state in a Propaganda machine, or the last state in a country that values real principles over sound bites?
Is Ron Paul an ‘Isolationist’?
Towards the end of the article, Politico makes the statement “Paul’s isolationist foreign policy views came to the fore at the Sioux City forum.”
That really caught my ire. Because rather Democrat or Republican, the Establishment seems to label anyone who doesn’t want to use force or “bully” the rest of the World an “Isolationist.”
Is that their definition of Isolationism: Not using force to coerce the rest of the World? Respecting other countries’ sovereignty, treating them as equals? Wanting to be friends and have free trade?
That’s the opposite of isolationism. That’s having the rest of the World really respect you and your principles.
In short, if Ron Paul, or anyone else, doesn’t win in a fair and free election, that’s fine with me. But if people don’t vote for who they want, and instead only vote for their leaders, whether in the media or political establishment, “ordain” or “nominate” then how is that a democracy? If someone says to themselves, “I’m not voting for him because they say he can’t win” how is that a democracy?
Update: 12/27/11: I saw this article today come through my Facebook feed:
Encouraging title and article, but also what caught my eye as it relates to this post is the first replier to the article said this to the author: “Ms. Schultz, please learn the difference between non-interventionist and isolationist; Ron Paul is the former. He’s the opposite of isolationist.”
I was glad to see someone shared and understood my same view that I wrote above, i.e., not only is he not an ‘isolationist’ he’s the opposite! More likely to earn us goodwill around the World. Amazing what some principles can do.
I replied to him: “Exactly. The press seem to think not wanting to attack another country or otherwise manipulate them with money or threats to do our bidding is “isolationist.” Being friendly with other nations, which is what Paul wants, treating them respectfully, respecting their sovereignty, and otherwise ‘engaging’ them as equals and partners, instead of places that are somehow ‘beneath’ us is the opposite of ‘Isolationist’ and might actually garner some real respect. As well as being the moral thing to do.”
It’s a common theme, maybe the most important theme, of Fairy Tales and Mythological stories: when the Hero or Heroin answers the “Call” to adventure,” magical helpers show up seemingly out of nowhere.
What is that a metaphor for?
Similarly in this story, when Gil answers his own inner call to walk the streets of Paris alone at night (instead of following his ‘Social Duty’ or ‘Dharma’ and going with his fiance and her friends, who though attractive, whose views on life and art, he couldn’t stand) the “greatest adventure of his life” magically shows up.
Dance and Dionysus
Inez goes off dancing with Michael Sheen’s character night after night, and in another time and place there’s a very impacting scene of Gil dancing the Charleston at a jubilant outdoor party, apparently given by the Fitzgeralds. That scene was so jubilent and the imagery so exuberant, it got me thinking a lot about dance. Dance is a metaphor for Nature flowing through the body. From this point of view, Nature comes to symbolize something that is good, healing, and perfect, rather than something that is dirty, corrupted, and something to be repressed. Alcohol, which is such an important symbol in this movie as well as the imagery of ‘the Roaring 20s’ along with the art of that period, is of course a symbol of Dionysus (Bacchus) himself and his secret power to unlock the gates that are holding back the normal flow of ‘Nature’ throughout the social conditioned, ego dominated human body. Of course, we know that the reality of alcohol ravaged many a life during this period and continues to do so, but here it is important to realize that it is serving as a symbol for something else. ‘That which unlocks the gates.’
Something spins around
I still think the Genie must spin.
What is happening now?
Why are we in the shape we’re in?
The Goat sucks at the root.
I walk miles in the snow.
There’s nothing we can do.
I’m kept warm by your eyes glow.
It’s not about me, nor not about me
But until the connections made
I’ll go on spinning endlessly
And take each step day by day.
I make it home escaping the bear;
Limbs frozen heart strings ablaze;
But I’m mauled by the nightgown you wear.
High we dance holding the wire of our great escape.
Everything points your way;
You can see the golden eye.
What the Queen has bequeathed to stay
home runs and apple pies loft back into your sky.
Each ruinous nation
rejects finally even the fallen tree;
Above the skies stares salvation
where still the angels sing.
Where were you when she was born?
You were a tree, a river, and finally a tear.
Whose lips were those that were shorn?
Shaven notes from the throat so none could hear.
This dream awakes you, but you still sleep.
Outside the cold wind sings her favorite winter song.
One can feel something moving beneath the Solstice deep:
Eyes that speak of staying and, yet, in their golden radiance, of moving on.
Her face was in a bed of hair,
Like flowers in a plot-
Her hand was whiter than the sperm
That feeds the sacred light.
Her tongue more tender than the tune
That totters in the leaves_
Who hears may be incredulous,
Who witnesses, believes.
