Hey there again folks.

It is perhaps to cultivate self indulgence and banality to blog too often, but on the other hand, some noteworthy writer once said that he always wrote down his dreams so as to preserve what would otherwise spill over and be lost.

So anyway, earlier today I had a moment of stepping outside my mind, and examining the thoughts therein from something of an outisder perspective. Just a brief glimpse, mind you. This morning when I woke up very annoyingly early again and again could not get to sleep, I spent some time thinking about the awesome sexual relationship I had with my first giirlfriend, Amy. Thing about it was that seeing a woman's breast, represented in a mind viewed from an outsider perspective, itlooked a lot smaller, and it kind of reminded me of Spaghettios. Kind of similar in color and shape, and quite soft and squishy. Perhaps one of the stupidest things you'll read about all day I guess.

Today at work presented some vexation. I had two loads to pick up to bring back to the Rome DC. I had a bit of difficulty finding the second one, because, in part, when you're in a spagettios complex mess of looping on and off ramps you might not pick the one your gps is trying to tell you to go onto if its refresh rate is not fast enough to get you on the right track. Anyway, I got to the second pickup on time, but the shipping and receiving office told me that they had not been called to schedule my pickup. After some phone calls and rigamarole they did load me, but I spent way too much time there and as a result I'm way benind sched for my deliveries tomorrow. They've already postponed them two hours but I'm thinking now that I'll need at least another hour, realistically. They told me to get as far as my hours would allow, and to run with the load, and that rubs me very much the wrong way, that I should be asked to hurry on account of other peoples' mistakes. I resent that people want me to hustle or get into a state of mental agitation for the sake of dellivering a load of bottom end retail merchandise on a predetermined schedule that naively assumed nothing would ever go wrong. Whatever. You could level the criticism at me that if i had true peace of mind such a trivial occurence as this could not overthrow it and you'd be right. True peace of mind is stable, it makes itself.

Was also thinking a bit about the "bong hits for Jesus" thing that was in the news a while ago, that the Nana dustup reminded me of, Not that Nana's photoset was really comparable in its intentions.

Thing about the Bong Hits for Jesus censorship debate, is that noone that I came across really understood what the BHFJ sign really meant. What it was was a critique of our culture's hypersensitivity towards various taboo subjects. It was a critique of literal mindedness and the psychology of those who tend to place themselves in positions of custodianship of institutions. "bhfj" does not represent any movement of thought that actually exists, as far as I know. Noone could construe it as a serious advocacy of anything. The point of creating a sign that said that was to provoke literal minded unsubtle custodial types into spoofing themselves, to reveal their reactivity and stupidity,

I recall an NPR interview of the defense attorney in the case; he was careful to make the point that he disliked the message of the bhfg sign, but that he was defending its right to be displayed on the basis of constitutional grounds. The attorney who defended larry flynt before the supreme court was also careful to point out that he didn't like what larry flynt was doing, but was also defending the constitutionality of flynt's publishing activities. It seems to be standard procedure for attorneys in these types of cases to make it clear that they have unassailbly bourgeois sensibilities but that they must uphold the constitution. But anyway, the bhfj attorney demonstrated his nonunderstanding of the sign's message in that interview, and I suspect that that was syptomatic of a broad based cultural nonunderstanding of that sign's true message.

The supreme court ruled that the school principal could infact censor the sign, even though it was not on school grounds, for whatever reasons I didn't really look into. But what I see as very dangerous is the precedent that has been established whereby the State can regard things as not being protected speeech by virtue of being too stupid to understand the nature of what is being said. If the stupidity of the state can thus be empowered , if the state can decided what speech is or is not criticism of the state and therefore is or is not protected speech, based on ITS standards, you're really setting the fox to guard the henhoue. To have the most unsubtle minds judging sharp criticism is repugnant to me. I despise a great many human minds for their lack of vision.

Anyway, enough ranting for today I guess

Ta-Ta

JBL