![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I woke up at 6:30 this morning, and spent my first hour reading a thoroughly useless well-written novel about a vampire apocalypse. You wouldn't think an apocalyptic hellscape full of good world-building and thoughtfully put together characters could be boring, but the writing style is what you might call gritty and reminded me strongly of No Country For Old Men. Metaphorically speaking, a lot of very artistic camera angles of sunsets, adding up to a novel full of characters whose relationships I didn't care about getting into fights with characters they couldn't beat, only to be saved by another vampire, a girl, who was so inhuman and feral as to be incredibly boring, and I didn't think you could make half-vampire saviors boring.
It's not that it was a bad book, it's just that the third or fourth time you lovingly describe a gruesome death I stop paying very much attention.
Attention brings me to a different line of thought, which is politics. I was talking to Rowyn the other day about whether or not politics should intrude on people's lives, and if so how much. We came to the tentative conclusion that the libertarian view was that politics should leave people alone if they wanted to be left, and that my view was something different, though I'm not sure what the word is. I suspect part of the divide there is rural-urban - it's far easily to not have very many group decisions if there isn't a critical mass of people to have decisions with in your area. I tend to feel that the solution to the rural-urban resentment in the United States should be solved by good old fashioned bribery. The cities have money, often taxed from the countryside, and they should use it to buy the countryside, again metaphorically, flowers and chocolate and, I don't know, some sustainable public transit like train lines.
The trains are not a metaphor.
I was reminded of the conversation this morning when a friend mentioned not understanding why someone would bring up politics out of the blue - which, granted, does seem a little rude, you should have some small talk first, but at the same time I don't see how we're supposed to govern ourselves as a democracy without a national conversation. Is national conversation a cliche? The national conversation I'm seeing right now is 'Donald Trump, is this guy for real?' but I feel like we could more usefully discuss 'the tax code, what's up with that' or 'infrastructure, who wants a bridge? doggy treats for everyone!'
I have finished two slices of whole wheat toast with butter and homemade crab apple jelly, and two big cups of tea. I am now going to drink one more cup of tea, and consider the rest of my work day.
It's not that it was a bad book, it's just that the third or fourth time you lovingly describe a gruesome death I stop paying very much attention.
Attention brings me to a different line of thought, which is politics. I was talking to Rowyn the other day about whether or not politics should intrude on people's lives, and if so how much. We came to the tentative conclusion that the libertarian view was that politics should leave people alone if they wanted to be left, and that my view was something different, though I'm not sure what the word is. I suspect part of the divide there is rural-urban - it's far easily to not have very many group decisions if there isn't a critical mass of people to have decisions with in your area. I tend to feel that the solution to the rural-urban resentment in the United States should be solved by good old fashioned bribery. The cities have money, often taxed from the countryside, and they should use it to buy the countryside, again metaphorically, flowers and chocolate and, I don't know, some sustainable public transit like train lines.
The trains are not a metaphor.
I was reminded of the conversation this morning when a friend mentioned not understanding why someone would bring up politics out of the blue - which, granted, does seem a little rude, you should have some small talk first, but at the same time I don't see how we're supposed to govern ourselves as a democracy without a national conversation. Is national conversation a cliche? The national conversation I'm seeing right now is 'Donald Trump, is this guy for real?' but I feel like we could more usefully discuss 'the tax code, what's up with that' or 'infrastructure, who wants a bridge? doggy treats for everyone!'
I have finished two slices of whole wheat toast with butter and homemade crab apple jelly, and two big cups of tea. I am now going to drink one more cup of tea, and consider the rest of my work day.
