I have nothing in particular to write about. This will be a ramble or, for those familiar with literary theory or like to think they are, stream of consciousness.
I am very depressed. About a month ago I got stood up twice by this Russian cutie who makes me slobber (not conspicuously, mind, only metaphorically, but sinfully nonetheless). Not only is she drop-dead gorgeous, she takes 9-11 conspiracy theories seriously and has the only possible sane reaction to Thomas Friedman's annoyingly pollyannish huckstering of globalization: she retches. I think I am in love, and needless to say I was on the verge of exploding mortal sin when she not only agreed to meet me for a coffee (that's also metaphorical because I eschew coffee--and other reasons as well) but agreed with (what I thought, at least, was) enthusiasm (but I may have misread her emoticon--ah, the wonders of the communication revolution!). Well, she had to reschedule the first date and cancel the second--with no mention or hint of a rain check. Maybe I showed too much enthusiasm. Women sense these things better than a doberman pinscher senses fear, and I am not terribly subtle either. I am apt to address her as The Radiant One that brings Light and Warmth and Joy into this nihilistic, green-housed world run by sinister neo-cons. That's a lot to live up to. No wonder she canceled. Story of my entire social life. And I never ever learn.
Politics. Will people quit saying Nader is running simply because of egomania? If Nader were an egomaniac, he would have exploited his fame or notoreity (depending upon your politics and wealth) to get laid--just like Carl Sagan did. I don't think the man has even had a french kiss. He is too dour for such frivolities.
Nader's rationale for running is that a true democracy gives people real choices, and the choices available should reasonably reflect the make-up of the Demos. Well, the make-up of this Demos is hardly a duality. The two-party system is simply an insult to true democracy, especially when after primary season, one party tries to mimic the other. Obama's incredibly clumsy move to the so-called political center makes Nader's argument obvious. We need a Parliamentary System, where a party that can get five percent of the vote gets official representation. Yes, there is, of course, messy coalition building after the elections. But that goes on in our system as well, only before the elections, and, thus, you don't know exactly the make-up of the coalitions because the various factions only get informal and indirect representation, if that. In a parliamentary system all the factions are officially recognized and so the coalition building is far more transparent.
Look, I am not for democracy. As an anal-retentive Catholic and closet Platonist, I think Democracy leads to relativism and eventually to tyranny. Nevertheless, if we're gonna call this a country a democracy, then we should be redlich about it and have a democracy, one that truly reflects the will of the various peoples in this nation, and we do not have just two kinds of peoples or two political camps. We have many. It's a pluralistic nation, and social conservatives who bitch about diversity and multiculturism should shut up and suck it up. Some people want laissez-faire, let-the-poor-die Capitalism but don't want the perpetual war that makes McCain nostalgic for his randy Beach Boy-listening youth. Well, let them vote for a Ron Paul Party, for example. Some People want universal health care, more regulation of the casinos we call the financial markets, an end to this bloody nonsense of perpetual war, but also want an end to legalized abortion and think gay "marriage" would be a disastrous social experiment. Let us vote for a Catholic Center Party. Some people are into crystals; let them vote for Shirley MacLain (sp.?). And the people who love endless conflict, torture, and the manipulation of the price of the basic necessities for the sake of the lazy Rentiers, well, they already have the G.O.P.
Religion. I have been remiss about answering a question put to me by a recent convert to the Catholic Faith. It seems that this man plunged into a dispute about what the Early Christian Writers said about the Eucharist. This is common. Catholics like to point to the ECWs and say, "Looky, here, you Prots. The Christians of the first centuries believed what we Catholics do now. We've got history on our side, and you don't. Nya nya na nya nya." To which the Protestants will say, "Read more carefully, and you will see that the Early Christians were actually Bible-Believing Protestants." For instance, apparently my friend was alerted to a passage in which Justin Martyr calls the Eucharist a symbol, and I can imagine the Protestant who showed him this said somewhere in his gloating soul, "See, a second century Christian thought the Eucharist was just a symbol, a representation, not the real Body of Christ. So much for Transubstantiation. Justin Martyr was a good Protestant, but thanks for playing."
Well, yeah, he did use the word "symbol", but it is doubtful that he used it in the sense of representation or token. "Symbol" is a Greek word that means "taken together". The Christian Creed was called "symbol" because it "takes together" all the beliefs of the Christian. A symbol therefore is a summation. Calling the Eucharist a summation or a "taking together" does not contradict the Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence. It merely says that the Eucharist is the center of Catholic Worship, where all things are taken together, and the Bible does say that all things are to be taken into the Body of Christ. Hence, it is altogether fitting to call the Eucharist a symbol, even it is not symbolic in the current sense of the word. I hope this satisfies this man's query.