Farts in the wind

I like to categorize my friends, even if those categories only last till the end of my breath and the beginning of an action on their part to make my cubby-holing a vain useless attempt to get a laugh.

So anywayz, i like to kick it with Tenz cuz he’s all heart and Johnny cuz he’s all balls and Scott cuz we get all intellectual on each other. So today me and big scott were talking about Obama and we basically came to the conclusion that, hey, we love the guy and he speaks like a messiah and sure we hate the hating-ass republicans who jump on him and will continue to jump on him till 2012, but you know, the truth is, we should have known better.

The whole idea that an elected representative in America can do any good or put through an idea or really make a change is dead and gone. On the national level. On the state, county and municipal level, maybe. I still reserve the right to scoff at any political debate.

We got to talking about States’ rights. And this led us into a discussion that brings this question into light — the legalities of marijuana. In each state, the laws governing the cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana are different. And these laws almost always come into conflict with the federal government’s War on Drugs. So we have the DEA swooping in on a legal operation, according to State/County law, and cutting down plants, taking bins of weed out of a dispensary and so on. And never pressing charges.

Now i learned in history class that the battle between States and Federals is eternal (princes and kings, vassals and warlords etc) and the weakness of one will result in the victory of the other.

So this discussion led to a broad appraisal of America as a nation and its health and the condition of its psyche. I quoted this:

“A nation long united must divide, long divided must unite.”

So we talked about where in the grand scheme of things was the US: long divided? or long united?

Interestingly enough, we found the debate to switch places according to what kind of division and unity we spoke of. Racially? Culturally? Politically? Economically? It seems to be a little confusing. Politically, one could argue that the US has been “long united” based on the acceleration of history in the 20th century. By Acceleration, we mean here that things move quicker: the Holy Roman Empire lasting 800 years vs. the American Empire lasting 80 years is a function of epoch, not strength.

Culturally and Socially, we are slowly working towards a “unification” or are we?

I remember looking at a map of Blue and Red regions (Democrat and Republican) and saw that the divisions were spread out across the US and it could be said of anywhere in the nation that “over the hill” were idiots who knew nothing about the “right way to live.”

All of these topics are linked and I Know it:

Obama’s rise and subsequent failure (so far) to be what we believed him to be (not his fault, but so what) and the battle over marijuana legislation in California and the divisions in a unified society ultimately will decide if we are a society “long divided” or “long united” because we, in essence, are one or the other and we are reaching a point where we will swerve in the opposite direction.

Why do I say we are reaching a point in which a change must happen? Well, because so many things (war, banking, Obama, weed, energy, climate, hippy mysticism, discontent) are, well, coming to head. Its a feeling i guess. And its one of those things that the stats back up, but no one at the coffee house really bothers to look at the stats cuz the coffee house guy just kinda feels it. (again, the never ending debate: didn’t those guys FEEL something in late summer 1929? or late summer 1939? or even way back in 1529? and look. we are still here dammit, like roaches. AHA! good analogy. Roaches. How many times has a kitchen straight GOTTEN IT from a can of raid and all the roaches experienced the Apocalypse and for them, that was it? many many times. Still we have roaches. And still, many times a day, roach colonies all over the world are convinced that they FEEL something about to change their lives forever. Hence their skittering.)

Back to the tangent:

If, as is most likely, the US as a nation of people is both (divided yet united in division), then what chaos would emerge out of a nationwide about-face? Or, what is just as possible, what ennui would result out of this about-face, a switching of modes and modalities that is so widespread and involves so many people moving in opposite directions to each other that, in effect, (in math, so to say) no one is moving at all … well … that would be nothing to see now wouldn’t it?

It would become cliche before it could have any impact because all those who turned left would ridicule those who turned right who would ridicule those who turned left and in the end Fox’;s ratings would go up and the Daily Show would make jokes about it.

So i say, hit up the strip club, grab some numbers, tell jokes to your friends, eat good at the Ethiopian spot and flirt with the waitress, call yer lady up and make her giggle, read a good book, think deep and say something almost wise in front of someone you don’t know that well, come up with another nickname for yer homie, check facebook again (imagine this rant slowly fading out so i can stop typing.)

Bookmark and Share

Picture of Sascha Matuszak
Sascha Matuszak

2 thoughts on “Farts in the wind

  1. The quote from the first line of Three Kingdoms is an interesting basis for your discussion. But how does the discussion change if the line is translated as "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce." rather than "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide." (See http://www.yellowbridge.com/literature/translation.php) If "coalesce" is truly accurate, then we are looking at Hegelian dialectics and coalesce may well be a new synthesis. And even if we use your translation, what constitutes "long" for a nation? The concept inherent in the quote appears so easily applicable to the nation the quote describes (China). But does the Chinese concept of "long" apply to a country as young as America?

  2. Very nice thank you for this comment.

    The translation is somewhat tricky, because the Chinese does not have any reference to Empire at all, i assume you know of the original:

    "fen jiu bi he, he jiu bi fen"

    Which literally is:

    "apart long must together, together long must apart"

    So your idea of Hegelian Dialiectics is very interesting, because if seen literally, the quote can apply to relationships of any kind, which I would agree move to a new state as opposed to disappearing.

    And in my last post, aptly titled "Farts …" the whole idea of a new synthesis is what I am really trying to get at, in terms of the Idea of America.

    The Chinese (and especially the author of Three Kingdoms) do not see cleaving asunder or dis-unity as an end, but a new state, constantly moving. So i suppose what I am trying to figure out is,

    What state will America be in next?

    And here is where it gets a bit much for me to comphrehend. So i welcome welcome welcome more input!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sascha Matuszak© Copyright 2021. All Rights Reserved.