I started another blog and I'll probably use mostly that one:
pattonmeat.blogpost.com
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
I see...
I see rattlesnakes eating tambourines and spitting out venemous swords of sounds.
I see jackrabbits wearing bandanas and eating the flesh of their kin.
I see deerhooves splitting apart and cowskulls shattering into pieces.
I see blood dripping from the mouths of wolves.
I see children dressed as bunnies hiding in caves.
I see old men sitting against cacti.
I see empty prairies remembering things.
I see feathers buried underneath gravestones.
I see cows grazing on sand.
When water is scarce there will be war. You think scarcity of oil is bad.
I see small groups hushed around campfires while coyote mate nearby.
I see owls fly away from eagles.
I see eagles and gazelles nestle on the tops of iceless mountains.
I see claws rooting around landfills for the juice of bugs.
I see women cannibalize each other.
Sharp teeth. Dirt. Soil. Fingernails.
Moon.
I see jackrabbits wearing bandanas and eating the flesh of their kin.
I see deerhooves splitting apart and cowskulls shattering into pieces.
I see blood dripping from the mouths of wolves.
I see children dressed as bunnies hiding in caves.
I see old men sitting against cacti.
I see empty prairies remembering things.
I see feathers buried underneath gravestones.
I see cows grazing on sand.
When water is scarce there will be war. You think scarcity of oil is bad.
I see small groups hushed around campfires while coyote mate nearby.
I see owls fly away from eagles.
I see eagles and gazelles nestle on the tops of iceless mountains.
I see claws rooting around landfills for the juice of bugs.
I see women cannibalize each other.
Sharp teeth. Dirt. Soil. Fingernails.
Moon.
Monday, March 31, 2008
My Art
is on display in the Bookpeople cafe right now (Austin, TX). I invite anyone to go look at it. I'm also selling the prints for a very affordable price, so if anyone is interested, LET ME KNOW!
patton.quinn@gmail.com
512.431.1059
patton.quinn@gmail.com
512.431.1059
Soul Food
Dandelions eat soul food and howling tongues ingest patches of yam fries. Otis Redding's microphone gobbles up his voice: an irrational sun harvest of hopeful liberation.
Home. Soul. Sounds. And filling the belly.
Sam Cooke's urgent intent to nest the bones, ignore the gritty songs of collard greens. Violent intonations fill Motown and the Temptations devour pork chops and savagery and desegregation.
Murmers break bread on the vinyl of the sad.
From the gut, horn heavy, sex songs suggesting attics filled with the temporal nature of all things.
Home. Soul. Sounds. And filling the belly.
Sam Cooke's urgent intent to nest the bones, ignore the gritty songs of collard greens. Violent intonations fill Motown and the Temptations devour pork chops and savagery and desegregation.
Murmers break bread on the vinyl of the sad.
From the gut, horn heavy, sex songs suggesting attics filled with the temporal nature of all things.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Assigning Meaning
Our money was, at one point in time, backed by the Federal Reserve. (In other words, the paper money represented a portion of gold at Fort Knox.) But long ago, that system became meaningless. The amount of currency printed now far exceeds the actual amount of gold in the Reserve. If a citizen (also oddly known as "customer" to some journalists) of the United States went to Fort Knox to exchange her paper money for gold, she would be rather disappointed when she found out that the exchange could not be made. The reason that might occur is if people realized the dollar is meaningless and someone decided to get the gold just in case the shit hit the fan. But what's funny is that if the shit did hit the fan, gold would be meaningless as well. Gold has no actual physical value. If water runs out, or food is scarce, nobody will care about green pieces of paper or shiny metals.
I'm not an end-timist. I don't stockpile canned food anywhere in my home. (Actually, I avoid buying anything canned.) I'm not even scared of that happening. Not because I know it won't, but because I think it would be fun if it did. An apocolyptic environment would bring whimsical flair to the droningly monotonous times we are living in now. (I admit that to be an exaggeration, but a fun sentence to compose.)
In the age of credit and debit cards, the meaning of paper money is obvious as well (it's meaningless). I rarely even write checks. I balance my account online. All of my "money" is a number in a computer. When money isn't even a physical reality, it's annoyingly apparent how much of an illusion it is. I don't mean illusion in the Hindu "maya," all the world is an illusion, sense of the term. I mean that the concept of money is something we all agree has value; you can't do anything without it and you can do everything with a lot of it (in that sense, you can do everything having to do with buying things with it). I don't know a lot about the history of money. But I do know that somehow we, at least in the U.S., decided that gold had value. And then paper money. And now a card that connects to a computerized account that literally moves a number from one account to the other. We all agree on this. We have assigned it this meaning, therefore it matters.
It is similar with other things. Take the diamond ring. An important SYMBOL to engaged girls in this country. (Or diamond anything: a grill that rappers might wear over their teeth or diamond collars you can buy for your tiny dog from Juicy Couture.) Or what about the car? Very specific cars have more value than others. We have assigned much value to these things, but as far as I can see the only reason a diamond has any meaning at all is because we say that it has meaning. Or because someone sold us a bill of goods and told us it had meaning and we kept on believing it. Some of the most expensive cars are so expensive because they go very fast. Which we have assigned a high value, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
It's almost as if very expensive things have value because of the fact that they are very expensive. The value in that is that other people will see your Mercedes, or giant diamond, or the Yves St. Laurant lable on your handbag and know that you threw a bunch of cash down and therefore are very wealthy (or are dating someone very wealthy). It's a flaunting of wealth that I find excessive in this country, and for some reason excessive in the city I grew up, Dallas. (Although this is, no doubt, everywhere.) We not only assign meaning to gold, paper money, and the objects that those things can buy (the more money put down, the higher the value), but we have assigned value to having a lot of money. Rich people are successful, and they can do anything, and on and on. Everyone wants more money than they already have. Period. Everyone I know wants more money than they have; I include on this list my upper middle class parents and my blue collar (but not factory-worker) friends.
Capital is the supreme symbol of capitalism. I stand somewhere in between admitting capitalism is better than socialism and admitting capitalism sucks and we should all become communal, socialist-anarchists. The problem I see is that many people equate the value of a dollar (which we have assigned) with the ability to accumulate things. Accumulating more and more things. Never being satisfied with what you have. The need to consume. This is a form of greed. Not your typical, "all the guy wants is money" definition, but greed--"I DESERVE more than I have, in fact I DESERVE anything I want" definition.
There are countless narrative themes in which people finally have all the money or fame they want, and they are surprised when there is no true peace or happiness there. We could all decide to agree that simply getting rid of things, the ecologically sound way, is of highest value. And then we will finally be happy. (Or not, but we can create that myth and see if it's true.) You see, in greed we can never be satisfied because there is always something else to buy, something else to consume: the new version of some tech device, a new spring wardrobe, a house that we can't afford. But in getting rid of things there comes a point when you just can't get rid of anything else. Except yourself. And that's a good thing.
A common conversation that comes up when my family eats dinner together is variations of answers to this question, "If the shit did hit the fan, what would your role be?" I come from a family of lawyers, and so the talents for foraging and instinct survival are little. Because of my gender, I can fall back on the answer, 'Well I can produce children, so that's a talent." But I can't do much else in the wild, where paper won't fill my belly, gold won't keep me warm, and a Mercedes won't drive me anywhere, unless I miraculously rediscover oil.
I'm not an end-timist. I don't stockpile canned food anywhere in my home. (Actually, I avoid buying anything canned.) I'm not even scared of that happening. Not because I know it won't, but because I think it would be fun if it did. An apocolyptic environment would bring whimsical flair to the droningly monotonous times we are living in now. (I admit that to be an exaggeration, but a fun sentence to compose.)
In the age of credit and debit cards, the meaning of paper money is obvious as well (it's meaningless). I rarely even write checks. I balance my account online. All of my "money" is a number in a computer. When money isn't even a physical reality, it's annoyingly apparent how much of an illusion it is. I don't mean illusion in the Hindu "maya," all the world is an illusion, sense of the term. I mean that the concept of money is something we all agree has value; you can't do anything without it and you can do everything with a lot of it (in that sense, you can do everything having to do with buying things with it). I don't know a lot about the history of money. But I do know that somehow we, at least in the U.S., decided that gold had value. And then paper money. And now a card that connects to a computerized account that literally moves a number from one account to the other. We all agree on this. We have assigned it this meaning, therefore it matters.
It is similar with other things. Take the diamond ring. An important SYMBOL to engaged girls in this country. (Or diamond anything: a grill that rappers might wear over their teeth or diamond collars you can buy for your tiny dog from Juicy Couture.) Or what about the car? Very specific cars have more value than others. We have assigned much value to these things, but as far as I can see the only reason a diamond has any meaning at all is because we say that it has meaning. Or because someone sold us a bill of goods and told us it had meaning and we kept on believing it. Some of the most expensive cars are so expensive because they go very fast. Which we have assigned a high value, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
It's almost as if very expensive things have value because of the fact that they are very expensive. The value in that is that other people will see your Mercedes, or giant diamond, or the Yves St. Laurant lable on your handbag and know that you threw a bunch of cash down and therefore are very wealthy (or are dating someone very wealthy). It's a flaunting of wealth that I find excessive in this country, and for some reason excessive in the city I grew up, Dallas. (Although this is, no doubt, everywhere.) We not only assign meaning to gold, paper money, and the objects that those things can buy (the more money put down, the higher the value), but we have assigned value to having a lot of money. Rich people are successful, and they can do anything, and on and on. Everyone wants more money than they already have. Period. Everyone I know wants more money than they have; I include on this list my upper middle class parents and my blue collar (but not factory-worker) friends.
Capital is the supreme symbol of capitalism. I stand somewhere in between admitting capitalism is better than socialism and admitting capitalism sucks and we should all become communal, socialist-anarchists. The problem I see is that many people equate the value of a dollar (which we have assigned) with the ability to accumulate things. Accumulating more and more things. Never being satisfied with what you have. The need to consume. This is a form of greed. Not your typical, "all the guy wants is money" definition, but greed--"I DESERVE more than I have, in fact I DESERVE anything I want" definition.
There are countless narrative themes in which people finally have all the money or fame they want, and they are surprised when there is no true peace or happiness there. We could all decide to agree that simply getting rid of things, the ecologically sound way, is of highest value. And then we will finally be happy. (Or not, but we can create that myth and see if it's true.) You see, in greed we can never be satisfied because there is always something else to buy, something else to consume: the new version of some tech device, a new spring wardrobe, a house that we can't afford. But in getting rid of things there comes a point when you just can't get rid of anything else. Except yourself. And that's a good thing.
A common conversation that comes up when my family eats dinner together is variations of answers to this question, "If the shit did hit the fan, what would your role be?" I come from a family of lawyers, and so the talents for foraging and instinct survival are little. Because of my gender, I can fall back on the answer, 'Well I can produce children, so that's a talent." But I can't do much else in the wild, where paper won't fill my belly, gold won't keep me warm, and a Mercedes won't drive me anywhere, unless I miraculously rediscover oil.
Friday, March 28, 2008
More things I like:
-Animals: Buzzards, eagles (forever and ever), hawks (and people named Hawk, but not Tony Hawk), and bison.
-Parts of animals: ram's skull and deer antlers.
-Material: denim, leather, pine, fur, feather, and human hair.
-Sounds: tambourine, harmonica, train horn and engine, bass drum by itself, snare drum by itself, whistling in the distance, typewriter, and all of these things together all at once but independent of each other.
-Flavors: maize, yam, flour, pork, and hops.
-Places: thickets, woods, ponds, forests, deserts, beach, jungle, mountain, Texas river, or swamp.
-Peculiar Behaviors of People in my Family I Like: Compulsive Hoarding, Obsessive Cutting of Hair, Overdoing it at the Bar (a euphemism of sorts), the Overwhelming Urge to Report Stories to the Paper (journalism), Praying over the Phone, Cursing to People you Should Not, and the Need to Attack and/or Put Down Scientologists and/or New Agers and their Fundamental (so-called) Belief System.
-Parts of animals: ram's skull and deer antlers.
-Material: denim, leather, pine, fur, feather, and human hair.
-Sounds: tambourine, harmonica, train horn and engine, bass drum by itself, snare drum by itself, whistling in the distance, typewriter, and all of these things together all at once but independent of each other.
-Flavors: maize, yam, flour, pork, and hops.
-Places: thickets, woods, ponds, forests, deserts, beach, jungle, mountain, Texas river, or swamp.
-Peculiar Behaviors of People in my Family I Like: Compulsive Hoarding, Obsessive Cutting of Hair, Overdoing it at the Bar (a euphemism of sorts), the Overwhelming Urge to Report Stories to the Paper (journalism), Praying over the Phone, Cursing to People you Should Not, and the Need to Attack and/or Put Down Scientologists and/or New Agers and their Fundamental (so-called) Belief System.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Patriotism and Shit
From the OED, here are some of the listings uder the word 'patriot'-
a person devoted to his or her country; a person (claiming to be) ready to support or defend his or her country's freedom and rights; a member of a RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (my caps) or patriotic front
From dictionary.com-
a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed INTERFERENCE (my caps) by the federal government
Of the many vague words that get tossed around the political arena, these are the most offensive (not that the words offend me, but that the words are so misused and often people either cannot define them, or everyone has a different definition of the word): 1.) patriotism, 2.) fascism, 3.) communism, 4.) freedom, 5.) terrorism, 5.) zionism and 6.) individual rights.
I'm not starting in on a political rant. Just something to think about. Bill O'Reilly and people like that can easily rub me the wrong way. However, so can left-wing extremists. I'm close to being as left wing as you get. (I support science, I'm borderline atheist AND borderline socialist, I like the gays the ladies the blacks and the Muslims, I'm super-pro-environment, I like the arts, and I don't buy into the culture of fear.) The reason the far-lefters tend to annoy me is that they don't sound very smart when they speak. I mean, if you are so obviously biased that you will not listen to the other side of an argument, then you are sort of a hypocrite. It's like these far-lefters I hear are making a bad name for educated and reasonable liberal thinkers, just like the far-right thinkers make a bad name for educated and reasonable conservatives. On normal news shows, like Jim Lehrer or some other PBS outfit, there will usually be some sort of conservative interviewed for an opinion. They pick the smart ones, you know, that really chose to believe what they believe for specific reasons grounded in education and being well-informed. When I start to listen to the far-far-lefters, when they sound so angry and divisive and reactionary, it's like they are being played. They are being played and they don't even know it.
It's very hard to listen to someone, like Bill O'Reilly, throw around a word like fascist (about liberals). For one, I'm guessing he never read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." Or maybe he did, and he suspects his viewers never did, which they probably did not, thus he can get away with misusing the word. I mean the word is amost meaningless, just like the word 'freedom'; one is an appeal to fear and one is an appeal to emotion (both logical fallacies). Did you forget the logical fallacies class from college? (If you never had that one or didn't finish or never started college you can easily google 'logical fallacies' and find a list of fallacies that people, knowingly or unknowingly, employ in their rhetoric.
I guess my point is this: sometimes liberals get into trouble when they let the fanatical right stir up too many emotions. They want to fight back, they want to yell and pout and prove their point and be right. But the best way to prove that you're right is perhaps to disprove the arguments of the other side, subtley and with ease and confidence. It's so easy to deconstruct someone else's arguement once you see the holes in it. However, if youre talking to a super-smart republican, there may be no holes in her argument, perhaps just something to learn.
a person devoted to his or her country; a person (claiming to be) ready to support or defend his or her country's freedom and rights; a member of a RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (my caps) or patriotic front
From dictionary.com-
a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed INTERFERENCE (my caps) by the federal government
Of the many vague words that get tossed around the political arena, these are the most offensive (not that the words offend me, but that the words are so misused and often people either cannot define them, or everyone has a different definition of the word): 1.) patriotism, 2.) fascism, 3.) communism, 4.) freedom, 5.) terrorism, 5.) zionism and 6.) individual rights.
I'm not starting in on a political rant. Just something to think about. Bill O'Reilly and people like that can easily rub me the wrong way. However, so can left-wing extremists. I'm close to being as left wing as you get. (I support science, I'm borderline atheist AND borderline socialist, I like the gays the ladies the blacks and the Muslims, I'm super-pro-environment, I like the arts, and I don't buy into the culture of fear.) The reason the far-lefters tend to annoy me is that they don't sound very smart when they speak. I mean, if you are so obviously biased that you will not listen to the other side of an argument, then you are sort of a hypocrite. It's like these far-lefters I hear are making a bad name for educated and reasonable liberal thinkers, just like the far-right thinkers make a bad name for educated and reasonable conservatives. On normal news shows, like Jim Lehrer or some other PBS outfit, there will usually be some sort of conservative interviewed for an opinion. They pick the smart ones, you know, that really chose to believe what they believe for specific reasons grounded in education and being well-informed. When I start to listen to the far-far-lefters, when they sound so angry and divisive and reactionary, it's like they are being played. They are being played and they don't even know it.
It's very hard to listen to someone, like Bill O'Reilly, throw around a word like fascist (about liberals). For one, I'm guessing he never read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." Or maybe he did, and he suspects his viewers never did, which they probably did not, thus he can get away with misusing the word. I mean the word is amost meaningless, just like the word 'freedom'; one is an appeal to fear and one is an appeal to emotion (both logical fallacies). Did you forget the logical fallacies class from college? (If you never had that one or didn't finish or never started college you can easily google 'logical fallacies' and find a list of fallacies that people, knowingly or unknowingly, employ in their rhetoric.
I guess my point is this: sometimes liberals get into trouble when they let the fanatical right stir up too many emotions. They want to fight back, they want to yell and pout and prove their point and be right. But the best way to prove that you're right is perhaps to disprove the arguments of the other side, subtley and with ease and confidence. It's so easy to deconstruct someone else's arguement once you see the holes in it. However, if youre talking to a super-smart republican, there may be no holes in her argument, perhaps just something to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)