Tag: Logic

  • Debate Thought

    I should have made snacks last night. The wine was good, but I needed something to eat. If only I had some popcorn…

    The spin has begun from what happened last night between Harris and Trump. Consensus is that Harris won the debate, and I have to agree with that. I won’t waste your time, as there are plenty of news outlets you can go to find out why and how this happened. I do find it odd that you would come here first, though I am flattered, as I do not believe that I am a solid or creditable news source.

    The one thing that I noticed last night with the spinning and analyst, and even in the paper this morning, is that the criticism, for both Harris and Trump, concerns that they didn’t go into detail about their plans. They didn’t give enough information.

    I’m sorry, but that’s not what televised political debates are about, and it has never been about information. Look, the first one, Nixon and Kennedy, what does everyone remember about it? Nixon sweating under the lights and Kennedy looking calm and in control. Does anyone remember the tax policy they discussed?

    What do people remember about these debates? Reagan’s “Four Years” line, or the “Not exploiting his opponents youth and inexperience.” How about, “You’re no Jack Kennedy,” or Bush looking at his watch, Gore loudly sighing, binders full of woman… I think you get the point.

    These debates are about creating and capturing emotional reactions. Logic has no place here; it’s window dressing. Besides, everyone is sitting at home with a smartphone in their hand, so when they want to find something out, like is that how tariffs work, or how does the child tax credit get paid for, they just look it up. Why would a candidate waste valuable screen time, getting all wonky on policy, when they can work to get voters comfortable with the idea of them being President? I believe Trump and Harris are of this thought.

    So please, political talking heads and hacks, please drop this crap about not learning about policy in these debates. You should know better.

  • Short Story Review: “Wood Sorrel House” by Zach Williams

    (The short story “Wood Sorrel House,” by Zach Williams, Appeared in the March 21st, 2022 issue of The New Yorker.)

    (I see spoilers!)

    I do not know what to make of this story. I haven’t stopped thinking about the thing since I finished reading it, but I still can’t come up with what it’s all about. And this is meant as a compliment. If a story lives on in the reader’s mind, and does dissolve into forgotten nothingness as soon as they are finished with it, then that author has achieved something. I tip my hat to you Zach Williams; your story is taking up space in my brain.

    “Wood Sorrel House” is about a couple and a toddler seemingly trapped in a cottage in the woods. Days pass, they age, but the toddler does not. Each morning food and supplies are replenished in the house, thus allowing them to live in the cottage. The couple tries to figure out where they are and why they are there, and soon they discover the toddler is never able to get hurt.

    I have an ego, and some days I think I am smart, and when I started reading this story, I was like, “Oh, this is an absurdist styled story, and it’s a metaphor for death.” Because, if my college education taught me anything, it’s that absurdist/surrealist/modernist stories are all really about death. But as I kept reading, I began to doubt my ego-driven conclusion. Why was the snapping turtle killed? What happed when the male in the couple disappeared? What happened to the toddler when the woman went down to the lake for days at a time? Why did the couple age, and get injured, but the toddler was immune and also ageless?

    I found that this story was taping into emotional territories that made me react. Perhaps it’s because I’m a parent, but I kept feeling this sense of dread for the toddler, that something awful was going to happen. There was a sense of disgust in how the man went out a destroyed nature. And a sense of sorrow as the woman tried to make sense of all of it. I was reacting to this story, I was compelled by it, but I couldn’t make sense of it. If it wasn’t about death, what was it about? Was it the lack of logic? Things stayed the same at the cottage, but the outside world seemed to keep moving; not changing into something different, but just moving along. Was this a metaphor for dealing with Covid? Maybe it had no meaning, but that would make it about death, right? What was it? Like I said, I don’t know what to think about the story, but the story is making me think about what it could be about. That’s a pretty successful story.

    (Say, don’t forget to like this post, or share it, or leave a comment. I got bills to pay, you know.)