Since I posted. I miss it! So I'm posting. I've been working a lot lately, and, quite frankly, I'm sick of thinking about work. Here's what I've been thinking about today?

Jack London. With the cold weather here (relatively speaking) I can't help but consider the cold weather I've endured as a Chicago resident, and marvel at what I was able to tolerate. Walking half a mile to the El in 20 below weather, with sleet pounding in my face, and I just did it. Now, it's 33 degrees F and I feel like I can't stay warm. So I think about Jack London, a man with whom I had a minor obsession as a child. The man who wrote "White Fang," and "Call of The Wild" and, most dear to my heart, "To Build A Fire." I was always struck by his depictions of the Yukon, the beauty and brutality of nature, the primal battle of life vs. the elements. I'm pretty far removed from all of that, and I always have been. That whole, half-baked "Into the Wild" thing never appealed to me. I like climate control. But I respect how nature challenges the hubris of mankind. So that's one thing I've been thinking about. 

Another thing: the shootings in Tucson. There has been a lot of talk about violent political rhetoric, lately, and I think there should be. Here's the thing: the rhetoric, by itself, is by no means the cause of the violent shootings that occurred on January 8th. Neither is mental illness, or handguns, for that matter. But I do think we should be talking about rhetoric, simply observing it, without attempting to lay blame. The fact is our political climate is one in which using violent metaphors has become somewhat normalized, more so as of late. Is this the cause of the shooting? Certainly not. But I do think events such as this--when the figurative becomes the literal--should engender a mindfulness when crafting political speech. Which is why it's ironic that Sarah Palin used the term "Blood Libel" as a metaphor in her latest press release--does she not know the historical implications of this term, or does she simply not care? 

Final thing I've been thinking about--the BBC reports that 2010 was the worst year (chartwise) for rock n' roll since 1960. What does that say? I don't think it means that Rock is dying--I think it means the people who listen to the really cool music aren't paying for it. My interpretation? Charts are old hat and the whole system needs to be revised. This was not a bad year for music. Great albums by the Eels, The Toadies, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, The Hold Steady, The Black Keys and Yeasayer (and many, many more) prove that no, Rock is not deader than dead--we just need a better empirical measure. 

That's it for now....and I'm going to go to bed, so that I can get up and WORK some more--hooray!