Anti-admiration equals. . . ?

I'm in a bad mood, and don't particularly want to write a blog/journal about something happy. I like my bad mood; it makes me feel important. So, in order to remain in this brooding state of disapproval, I am consciously avoiding avenues of thought that I know will lead me towards a brighter directive. I know that "admiration"—or more specifically, "What I, Bonnyjean Hoffert, find admiral"—is supposed to be the subject of this blog, and that the purpose of such a subject is to invite other people into my realm of personal belief(s) and/or dogma(s) of thought. 

I could go on and on about courage, and success stories about people overcoming personal struggles, against all odds, when nobody else believed they could, while drinking club soda out of a licorice straw, while turned upside-down holding the bridge position, while contemplating the aerodynamics of airplanes made of notebook paper. However, that would effectively lift me out of my bad mood, and where'd be the fun in that? Nowhere, I tell you--absolutely nowhere. It would be sad--savage--a travesty forsaking all that I, in this moment, hold low in dark, smoldering disregard. 

Well, heck! This is just a venue for creative expression, is it not? And right now, I want to creatively express my dark, brooding anti-admiration of those people who so artfully maneuver around the fact that perception is r e l a t i v e in order to rally the people into the dangerous realm of "groupthink"—people whose goal it is to bring others to adopt their own, personal "mindthinks" because they believe they are doing mankind a service by 'enlightening the unenlightened'. Here's one example: "English is important." To whom? To what end? Through what means? By whose judgment? (. . . Actually, I believe these questions are advocating fallacious thought, and I abhor that I asked them with such incredulity.) How about this one instead: "Humanity is the most sacred faction of nature". Now, there's a fun one. So, just because we have the brain capacity to reason and logic our way out of sticky situations—like responsibility for man-induced disaster—we are the most sacred part of the planet? Even to the detriment of everything outside our own, personal worlds and avenues of perception? Sacred? 

You know what I admire? I admire people who think outside the box. I know that's a cliché blanket statement, but I mean, what's the use of having a brain if one doesn't use it to question other people's directives? So what if a band of literary bigwigs got together and decided on a standard of theories and concepts and structures for writing that the rest of the academic community is expected to follow! So what if I don’t adopt group-accepted conventions into my personal perception of the planet. However did conventional become a requirement--and when? And. . . how? And. . . and. . . when?! Who stood up and said that conventional was acceptable? Perhaps nobody stood up and said anything, and instead everybody stood down and smoldered quietly at anything that threatened their sacred set of preconceived notions. Maybe it was this act of not acting that allowed convention to take over and slowly choke the creative spark out of most of humanity. 

Well, I’ll tell you what: I’ll fail classes and tank papers while going against convention (not to mention that teachers could perceive me as a pompous, naïve, self-important glob of wasted drive). I’ll lose jobs if I decide to go against the convention of wearing appropriate attire to work, i.e. if I show up in a scanty Halloween costume and the words, “F*CK CHRISTMAS” painted across my face. So what is there left for me to do but to comply with rhetoric, and do assignments the ‘appropriate, conventional’ way that was decided for me by thousands of literary adepts? I’d be lost in a lonely world, even if I surrounded my hobo home with the unconventional. . . like, silly string meant to ward off bad juju. Because then I’m not being ‘unconventional’, I’m plain acting crazy. 

Next time we're assigned to interview family members, I think I'll "get in an accident."

Let me preface this interview with a quote from the bible. "Oh my people, put on sackcloth and roll in ashes." Jeremiah 6:26

Now, you may be wondering why I've included a biblical reference in my blog. I am not religious. Or Christian. So it could be considered blasphemy, or some type of heresy; in fact, it's borderline mocking. However, when interviewing my dad on politics, it's a lot like listening to a sermon; you've just got to sit and take it. I have no idea what this particular quote means (since I am aware that it is taken completely out of context), but something about it seems very appropriate.

So. Without further ado or aplomb or any such giberish, may you enjoy this interview.

What’s your position on the stimulus bill?

I would say that it’s the wrong solution at the wrong time. It’s going to prolong the pain. I mean if you have your own household and things start unraveling because you’ve spent too much money because the economy is going bad, do you just max out your credit cards? Spend more money? They’re trying to spend us out of debt. I don’t know how you spend your way out of debt.

What would you propose we do?

Let the banks fail. And let the auto industry declare bankruptcy and restructure. Sure, it would tank for a while, but the good businesses would prosper. It would encourage people to get back to work, once the bottom of the housing industry is hit. It’d be real painful for a while, put its like pulling off a bandage slowly, or yankin’ it off. Which hurts more? The auto industry would have to renegotiate its contracts with their unions, and with their suppliers, who also are unionized, so everybody in the industry would have to renegotiate their contracts. That what bankruptcy does, it protects companies from creditors while they restructure. Cut your losses instead of try to save everybody. If they use that stimulus package, they could put 2700 bucks peope’s pockets. But what do you think the people would do with it? They would save it, or use it to pay off their credit cards. They sure as hell wouldn’t spend it, which is what the government is doing. And we’re all going to pay it back.

What do you think would happen if the bill was passed?

In short term it’s going to create jobs, but it’s not going to create long term jobs like building an industry. But once the short term jobs are done the gov’t will be out of money. California can’t even sell its bonds. And it’s the 8^th largest economy in the world. Who is going to buy the bonds that the us gov’t is putting out there? It’s not gonna be you and me. Who’s it gonna be? China, the Arabs? Well that’s the only people that have money right now. Europe doesn’t have money. Japan doesn’t have money. That means they’re going to put more interest on the bonds to attract people to buy them--

Dad, if you could give me a more generalized--

--People will be attracted to buying the bonds instead of investing in business which will make business people have to pay more for business loans, and then they have to charge more for their goods and services to cover the interest. It makes everything cost more. That’s what inflation is.

Dad, I know what infla--

--There won’t be any capital available for business because the gov’t already borrowed it all. And if you think that’s not a recipe for depression, then you haven’t read any history. And I’m not talking recession, either. Anytime you put money into gov’t projects, people go to work, but it’s usually the same people that already have a job. It’s not going to give new people jobs. They have to pay union wages, so when you could get two people on the job, you’ll only get one.

. . .

It’s the chicken way out. They’re going to ease the short term pain, but there’s no long term gain. . . Do you have any more questions?

No, Dad. I . . . I think I'm good.