Perhaps you remember the mashup phenomenon, like, what, two years ago? Where has that gone? That was pretty fun while it lasted. One of the principles of mashup titling seemed to be the "versus" convention. So ignore the mashed title of the post and see that I really meant to say "Death Cab for Cutie vs. Arcade Fire." Only in this case, it has nothing to do with a mashup and everything to do with classic high school literature comparison and contrast!
The songs in question are Death Cab's "Where Soul Meets Body" and Arcade Fire's "My Body Is a Cage." The latter features a line that my co-workers and I see as an incredibly succinct articulation of a gnostic worldview: "My body is a cage that keep me from dancing with the one I love, but my mind holds the key."
Tears came to my eyes as I was driving through western Kansas last Wednesday, not because of boredom, but because I was listening to "Where Soul Meets Body." It contains the most beautiful articulation in semi-pop music of a Christian worldview of embodiment: "I want to live where soul meets body" followed by a number of lines and ideas about living in a fully embodied way with a view toward the transcendent.
I doubt either artist lives or thinks in a way that fully embodies the worldview that their song articulates. But it's fascinating to see these worldviews expressed in music. I want to clarify that hedonism is a more approximate opposite of gnosticism than the Christian worldview. Hedonism focuses on physical gratification without regard for transcendent reality, while gnosticism works for the perfection of the spiritual through eschewing the physical. Christianity is a balance between the two: A full engagement of the physical world, seeking to bring it into submission to the Creator while longing for the Creator to bring heaven back to Earth where all will dwell in unity once again. But what we have today is the attempt to bring peace and concord to body and soul by fully engaging both. "Where Soul Meets Body" provides a beautiful picture of this idea.
It seems to me that it's pretty easy to get this soul and body thing wrong. Most Christians I've know through my life are more gnostic than anything else. There are a few "pagan" gnostics out there, a whole bunch of "pagan" hedonists, and very few Christian hedonists (unless they're titling a book to sell). It's quite interesting to me that a presumably "pagan" musician would come up with this Christian worldview balanced between gnosticism and hedonism.
Is the desire to live "where soul meets body" a natural enough idea that one could come to it without a strong understanding of the Bible and the Christian worldview? Or was Death Cab merely being poetic? Any other options?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Morality infusion
I heard on the radio this morning that French president Sarkhozy is proposing a reformation of the capitalist market system. The key part of the reformation mentioned on the radio was that Sarkhozy wants to infuse morality into the system. The host (in)judiciously juxtaposed Sarkhozy's call with President Bush by saying they were butting heads. Does this mean President Bush opposes morality in the economy? I've tried to be fair to Bush, as hard as that is sometimes. But the next quote was, "President Bush says that the capitalist system has worked fine for sixty years. So why change it?" So maybe he does oppose morality in capitalism.
I can't say French capitalism is the best thing in the world. But I have my suspicions. I hope the meetings of the G20 nations, whether they bring about socialist capitalism or not, do bring morality back to the table. And shame on the American conservatives for lambasting those godless other people for insisting on keeping morality.
I can't say French capitalism is the best thing in the world. But I have my suspicions. I hope the meetings of the G20 nations, whether they bring about socialist capitalism or not, do bring morality back to the table. And shame on the American conservatives for lambasting those godless other people for insisting on keeping morality.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Undermining the parties
I've had thoughts swirling furiously about through my head today.
The first was the realization that I find it really hard to talk to my hardline conservative acquaintances, mainly because I'm not defending a pole. I'm trying to defend a middle ground, and one friend told me I sounded like I was a [political] conservative at heart talking liberal. No, I refuse to go for that. But the realization that it's hard to defend a center rather than an edge is very helpful. My next step will be processing the fact that I probably don't need to be doing any defending of this so-called center.
My next realization was that John McCain is closer to the center than Barack Obama. The thing that will make it very hard for me to vote for McCain is that he seems more prone to foolish military interventions. I think Obama is smart enough, once he gets out of this political season, to do sensible things with the military in Iraq. We know a pull out will take a while. But all my military friends are saying that the Iraqis are pushing hard to make us unnecessary. It's working. Let's help them along and get out of there. So I hope Obama will give the military the resources they need to "get the job done." The only thing more irresponsible than President Bush dragging us in there and racking up a cool $Trillion tab would be to drop everything and run, leaving people ill-prepared to deal with the new vacuum. We would never be forgiven. (And yes, I did say they were people. They all are. Let's not forget that either.) I realize this will take many more billions of dollars, but we need to pay for the sins of our war-mongering leaders by helping to create some sort of peace.
Succeeding that thinking was my absolute desperation for November 5. We need to stop getting mailings talking about non-issues and spinning things. We need programming to get back to its normal vapid self. (I rarely watch TV, but I'm still sick of all the ads.) As I thought about Wednesday morning, I realized that if McCain wins, 90% of my workplace will have drained looks of relief on their faces and will be muttering "Praise the Lord!" all day (week, month). I began to parse that. What does God have to do with any of this. President Bush has been preaching Democracy for seven years. The god(dess) Democracy will take care of her own. If Obama is elected, Democracy has been vindicated. If McCain wins, it's another self-vindication for Democracy. If we bring the God of the Bible into it, the paeans of praise for a McCain win will betray a severe idolatry. People respond that way because they fear Obama and the Democrats. McCain in the White House will allow them to be complacent for another four years. They won't have to trust God, because their status quo will continue. And that is the severest form of idolatry. It is so insidious.
And then I realized that I plan to go to our church's Outlook Forum on Monday night. This is the group that is looking to do ministries strictly outside the church, for no direct benefit of the members, other than to move them beyond fear and complacency. Oh. That would be good. So this is my thought. No matter who wins the next day, we can make the core of both platforms irrelevant. The church needs to make abortion unnecessary by helping teen, low-income and professional moms who are unprepared for a birth either take care of their own child or by offering to adopt. The church needs to canvass poor neighborhoods offering to disburden people (thanks to Rob Bell for telling this story in Velvet Elvis). That undermines the Democratic social programs. They become unnecessary. Then we let the Holy Spirit get hold of wealthy/rich hearts so that they can give away enough money to the church to fund these initiatives and avoid the taxes that the Democrats will supposedly levy. The Republicans would no longer have anything to shout/whine about. An unprecedented era of peace would flow over America. (Whoa. Let's not get carried away.)
The problem with this is that it reveals the true greed, or perhaps insecurity, at the heart of the conservative. I think it also reveals the humanitarian, but very naive, heart of the liberal. The idea of the church taking back its responsibility from the government is not a new one. But I think the idea of undermining the polar parties by taking away their talking points is. I'm really excited about the idea of reducing taxes across the board, or at least initially giving tax credits to those who take part in reducing the government's burden. Plus, governments don't mentor people. People mentor people. Put it terms of discipleship, and you've got the church's mandate. Now if we could just overcome our fear and laziness.
The first was the realization that I find it really hard to talk to my hardline conservative acquaintances, mainly because I'm not defending a pole. I'm trying to defend a middle ground, and one friend told me I sounded like I was a [political] conservative at heart talking liberal. No, I refuse to go for that. But the realization that it's hard to defend a center rather than an edge is very helpful. My next step will be processing the fact that I probably don't need to be doing any defending of this so-called center.
My next realization was that John McCain is closer to the center than Barack Obama. The thing that will make it very hard for me to vote for McCain is that he seems more prone to foolish military interventions. I think Obama is smart enough, once he gets out of this political season, to do sensible things with the military in Iraq. We know a pull out will take a while. But all my military friends are saying that the Iraqis are pushing hard to make us unnecessary. It's working. Let's help them along and get out of there. So I hope Obama will give the military the resources they need to "get the job done." The only thing more irresponsible than President Bush dragging us in there and racking up a cool $Trillion tab would be to drop everything and run, leaving people ill-prepared to deal with the new vacuum. We would never be forgiven. (And yes, I did say they were people. They all are. Let's not forget that either.) I realize this will take many more billions of dollars, but we need to pay for the sins of our war-mongering leaders by helping to create some sort of peace.
Succeeding that thinking was my absolute desperation for November 5. We need to stop getting mailings talking about non-issues and spinning things. We need programming to get back to its normal vapid self. (I rarely watch TV, but I'm still sick of all the ads.) As I thought about Wednesday morning, I realized that if McCain wins, 90% of my workplace will have drained looks of relief on their faces and will be muttering "Praise the Lord!" all day (week, month). I began to parse that. What does God have to do with any of this. President Bush has been preaching Democracy for seven years. The god(dess) Democracy will take care of her own. If Obama is elected, Democracy has been vindicated. If McCain wins, it's another self-vindication for Democracy. If we bring the God of the Bible into it, the paeans of praise for a McCain win will betray a severe idolatry. People respond that way because they fear Obama and the Democrats. McCain in the White House will allow them to be complacent for another four years. They won't have to trust God, because their status quo will continue. And that is the severest form of idolatry. It is so insidious.
And then I realized that I plan to go to our church's Outlook Forum on Monday night. This is the group that is looking to do ministries strictly outside the church, for no direct benefit of the members, other than to move them beyond fear and complacency. Oh. That would be good. So this is my thought. No matter who wins the next day, we can make the core of both platforms irrelevant. The church needs to make abortion unnecessary by helping teen, low-income and professional moms who are unprepared for a birth either take care of their own child or by offering to adopt. The church needs to canvass poor neighborhoods offering to disburden people (thanks to Rob Bell for telling this story in Velvet Elvis). That undermines the Democratic social programs. They become unnecessary. Then we let the Holy Spirit get hold of wealthy/rich hearts so that they can give away enough money to the church to fund these initiatives and avoid the taxes that the Democrats will supposedly levy. The Republicans would no longer have anything to shout/whine about. An unprecedented era of peace would flow over America. (Whoa. Let's not get carried away.)
The problem with this is that it reveals the true greed, or perhaps insecurity, at the heart of the conservative. I think it also reveals the humanitarian, but very naive, heart of the liberal. The idea of the church taking back its responsibility from the government is not a new one. But I think the idea of undermining the polar parties by taking away their talking points is. I'm really excited about the idea of reducing taxes across the board, or at least initially giving tax credits to those who take part in reducing the government's burden. Plus, governments don't mentor people. People mentor people. Put it terms of discipleship, and you've got the church's mandate. Now if we could just overcome our fear and laziness.
Friday, October 31, 2008
It is the distant future . . .
There's outrage swirling in a very small portion of America, namely the portion that thinks James Dobson is still relevant but disagrees with him. His organization, Focus on the Family (which does a lot of wonderful things, and would be fine if they didn't talk about culture or politics or Bible translations), released a letter from a "2012 Christian" bemoaning life after Obama. As the fifth element of journalistic integrity, I have chosen not to read either the letter or even Jim Wallis's response to it before I respond. The very idea of a letter from the distant future gives me my own wonderful idea.
I'm going to write a letter as a 2008 Christian to all the chumps in 2000 (the year the robots sang the song "The Humans Are Dead"). Because I'm generous, I'll even address the letter to the chumps in 2004. (Chagrined confession: Generous epistolator=double chump.)
Dear Voter in, you pick, 2000 or 2004,
It's 2008, and we mercifully have an opportunity to try to salvage America. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of people here who want to continue destroying it. Does this greeting shock and appall you? Good. But let me explain.
There was a terrible attack on New York City in late summer 2001. Turns out some peevish Muslims hate us, and they changed the New York skyline forever. They killed 3,000 people in the process. I hate hate like that, and there probably wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to prevent it. I do know that President Clinton and the guy you're going to elect both ignored a quite a bit of intelligence that pointed toward the attack. But don't worry . . . your new President will respond appropriately. He'll invade Afghanistan to root out the terrorists who fostered this attack. The leaders won't have been captured by 2008, but whatever. The President will try to establish democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that will be somewhat questionable. It will be a pretty good effort, though.
The President will then follow faulty intelligence (this isn't irony juxtaposing this with the thing about the Muslims earlier; I'm serious) and invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons and harboring "terrorists." The awesome thing is, "terrorists" will come in and wreak havoc in Iraq after we invade and eventually capture Hussein and watch the "court" pop his head off (by hanging, not by a technical "beheading").
You might want to savor your civil liberties. There will be a significant trend to undermine established legal procedures for intel gathering in the interest of "national security." This includes eavesdropping on phone calls without warrants, monitoring internet traffic with impunity, and having access to library records.
Your new President will look into the souls of Vladimir Putin and Angela Merckel and discern that they are good people. I will hear a dude on the bus a few days ago saying that Putin will eat the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate alive if he's elected. Is that why your future President thinks Putin is a good man?
Your future President will pour something to the tune of a trillion dollars of your money into wars that, while they may make life better for some people, were entered into under faulty premises, particularly in virulent contravention of just war practices.
Under the President's watch, the national deficit will balloon to something like $7 trillion. (I'm just going from memory here. It's not like I'm the quintessence of journalistic integrity or anything. Sad thing is, I'm doing a lot better than most of the future media.) It might be worth noting that your President's party is symbolized by an elephant, just to give perspective on the whole spending thingy. What's that legend about elephants? Do they have really good memories or really bad memories? Either way, it's startling how little your future elephants will remember or pay attention to history. Also, if it happens that elephants legendarily have good memories, it doesn't matter if I can't remember that; I'm turning into more of a donkey every day.
There's a lot of water under the bridge. I don't remember if you've seen the Dow hit 10,000 yet or not. As shocking as that would have seemed to people just a few years ago, it happens. In fact, it'll get up to 14,000. But don't worry; all our future money is in the pooper now that the Dow has crashed to 8,500 or so. Yeah, the whole market system has crashed pretty well. And you have elephants who are scrambling to save the economy (read: rich people's backsides) by using government funds to buy stock in banks. Sound socialist? That's funny! There will be a campaign on right now, and the elephants are clamoring that the donkey candidate is going to bring socialism to America. They already did. A bunch of people are playing supposed laissez faire capitalism on a Monopoly board with my real money, and it's not working. It never will. So they resort to even more intervention in the markets, claiming that capitalism is the answer. Huh. Anyway, if there's any way to get rid of this two party system, take the opportunity. The party polarity really sucks here. Both sides are awful.
I'm gonna do a favor for you. I'm gonna tell you now that there will be a Republican running in 2008 who seems somewhat centrist. He's going to distance himself from your future two-term President because of all the awful stuff I've just told you and his abysmal approval rating. Yet all the same people who convinced me to vote for your future President twice are now clamoring for this guy. I don't know if I can trust them anymore. Christians bought into this future two-termer, because he prays and is a Republican who opposes abortion. Not a thing has been done about abortion other than create an economy that makes having a family pretty dicey. Go ahead and think through whether you should vote for him. Oh, by the way, depending on how you define a "valid" "ballot," he may will have never been elected in the first place.
Sincerely,
Your Radical Centrist Friend Who Is Voting Democrat for President for the First Time
************
For you FotC fans out there (not to be confused with FotF), it's time for the binary solo: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one, one!
I'm going to write a letter as a 2008 Christian to all the chumps in 2000 (the year the robots sang the song "The Humans Are Dead"). Because I'm generous, I'll even address the letter to the chumps in 2004. (Chagrined confession: Generous epistolator=double chump.)
Dear Voter in, you pick, 2000 or 2004,
It's 2008, and we mercifully have an opportunity to try to salvage America. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of people here who want to continue destroying it. Does this greeting shock and appall you? Good. But let me explain.
There was a terrible attack on New York City in late summer 2001. Turns out some peevish Muslims hate us, and they changed the New York skyline forever. They killed 3,000 people in the process. I hate hate like that, and there probably wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to prevent it. I do know that President Clinton and the guy you're going to elect both ignored a quite a bit of intelligence that pointed toward the attack. But don't worry . . . your new President will respond appropriately. He'll invade Afghanistan to root out the terrorists who fostered this attack. The leaders won't have been captured by 2008, but whatever. The President will try to establish democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that will be somewhat questionable. It will be a pretty good effort, though.
The President will then follow faulty intelligence (this isn't irony juxtaposing this with the thing about the Muslims earlier; I'm serious) and invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons and harboring "terrorists." The awesome thing is, "terrorists" will come in and wreak havoc in Iraq after we invade and eventually capture Hussein and watch the "court" pop his head off (by hanging, not by a technical "beheading").
You might want to savor your civil liberties. There will be a significant trend to undermine established legal procedures for intel gathering in the interest of "national security." This includes eavesdropping on phone calls without warrants, monitoring internet traffic with impunity, and having access to library records.
Your new President will look into the souls of Vladimir Putin and Angela Merckel and discern that they are good people. I will hear a dude on the bus a few days ago saying that Putin will eat the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate alive if he's elected. Is that why your future President thinks Putin is a good man?
Your future President will pour something to the tune of a trillion dollars of your money into wars that, while they may make life better for some people, were entered into under faulty premises, particularly in virulent contravention of just war practices.
Under the President's watch, the national deficit will balloon to something like $7 trillion. (I'm just going from memory here. It's not like I'm the quintessence of journalistic integrity or anything. Sad thing is, I'm doing a lot better than most of the future media.) It might be worth noting that your President's party is symbolized by an elephant, just to give perspective on the whole spending thingy. What's that legend about elephants? Do they have really good memories or really bad memories? Either way, it's startling how little your future elephants will remember or pay attention to history. Also, if it happens that elephants legendarily have good memories, it doesn't matter if I can't remember that; I'm turning into more of a donkey every day.
There's a lot of water under the bridge. I don't remember if you've seen the Dow hit 10,000 yet or not. As shocking as that would have seemed to people just a few years ago, it happens. In fact, it'll get up to 14,000. But don't worry; all our future money is in the pooper now that the Dow has crashed to 8,500 or so. Yeah, the whole market system has crashed pretty well. And you have elephants who are scrambling to save the economy (read: rich people's backsides) by using government funds to buy stock in banks. Sound socialist? That's funny! There will be a campaign on right now, and the elephants are clamoring that the donkey candidate is going to bring socialism to America. They already did. A bunch of people are playing supposed laissez faire capitalism on a Monopoly board with my real money, and it's not working. It never will. So they resort to even more intervention in the markets, claiming that capitalism is the answer. Huh. Anyway, if there's any way to get rid of this two party system, take the opportunity. The party polarity really sucks here. Both sides are awful.
I'm gonna do a favor for you. I'm gonna tell you now that there will be a Republican running in 2008 who seems somewhat centrist. He's going to distance himself from your future two-term President because of all the awful stuff I've just told you and his abysmal approval rating. Yet all the same people who convinced me to vote for your future President twice are now clamoring for this guy. I don't know if I can trust them anymore. Christians bought into this future two-termer, because he prays and is a Republican who opposes abortion. Not a thing has been done about abortion other than create an economy that makes having a family pretty dicey. Go ahead and think through whether you should vote for him. Oh, by the way, depending on how you define a "valid" "ballot," he may will have never been elected in the first place.
Sincerely,
Your Radical Centrist Friend Who Is Voting Democrat for President for the First Time
************
For you FotC fans out there (not to be confused with FotF), it's time for the binary solo: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one, one!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Trickle-down economics
I've been thinking about said Reaganomics lately, since one of my conservative friends has been asking me about such things. Rather than doing substantive research about why it doesn't work (because I don't have time), I've been using my idle time on my bike to come up with lame, pithy sayings denigrating trickle-down economics. I take full responsibility for them.
"The only thing trickling down in trickle-down economics is urine down the leg of the conservative fat cats laughing so hard at how stupid America is that they can't control their spigots."
After a more biblical fashion (though piss is very KJV):
"Why would anything having to do with economic justice be good or sufficient if it trickled down when Amos says, 'Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!'?"
My apologies. I'm concerned that no matter what, extra money ends up in the hands of corporations. Competition may drive prices down at some points, and less tax may allow that a bit more. But there's plenty that a company can do to help us realize that we need their product, and that we are desperate to pay way more than it should be worth for it. Marketing cancels out the good effects of trickling.
I'm not sure why, but Starbucks sounds really good right now!
"The only thing trickling down in trickle-down economics is urine down the leg of the conservative fat cats laughing so hard at how stupid America is that they can't control their spigots."
After a more biblical fashion (though piss is very KJV):
"Why would anything having to do with economic justice be good or sufficient if it trickled down when Amos says, 'Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!'?"
My apologies. I'm concerned that no matter what, extra money ends up in the hands of corporations. Competition may drive prices down at some points, and less tax may allow that a bit more. But there's plenty that a company can do to help us realize that we need their product, and that we are desperate to pay way more than it should be worth for it. Marketing cancels out the good effects of trickling.
I'm not sure why, but Starbucks sounds really good right now!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pusillanomie
A liability of mine is that I play with words in my head all the time. Thus merged pusillanimous and anomie, a word which now means a purposelessness and lack of direction brought on by lack of courage. Or perhaps it could mean a lack of courage brought on by aimlessness.
This relates tangentially to a thought I had yesterday. What is it about our entertainment in the decade before a giant market collapse? In the twenties, the markets we hot, and people were cocky and hedonistic. This was the early heyday of slapstick comedy and vaudeville. These forms of comedy were brought on by roaring boredom. For sure, the poor were left mostly out, but I'm talking about the pleasure class here, the ones with plenty of money to burn.
The last five to ten years have shown the same type of boredom. Let's see my day consists of taking obscene risks in the market, eating way too much and taking it for granted, watching p0rn/having sex with a stranger, and then watching ordinary people do stupid things on TV. I think that's an accurate picture of life in the twenties and in the last ten years. To a large degree the forms of entertainment carry on after the collapse, but it's a form of forgetfulness therapy rather then boredom therapy. People now need something to assuage their acute pain rather than their dull pain.
I admit, I smile and chuckle at Wipeout or I Survived a Japanese Game Show. There's something inherently funny to me about that kind of slapstick. But the sheer preponderance of these shows (throw in Survivor and all other reality TV as well) belies a sickness in our culture. We can't need that much "funny."
This is where pusillanomie comes in. People haven't been courageous enough to take appropriate risks, such as engaging in relationships, finding their calling, and loving and serving others. Instead, they do the bored thing. They take giant risks with money and while away their time hoping for something better. Only nothing better is coming. They have to take a courageous and purposeful step to kick the anomic ennui.
This relates tangentially to a thought I had yesterday. What is it about our entertainment in the decade before a giant market collapse? In the twenties, the markets we hot, and people were cocky and hedonistic. This was the early heyday of slapstick comedy and vaudeville. These forms of comedy were brought on by roaring boredom. For sure, the poor were left mostly out, but I'm talking about the pleasure class here, the ones with plenty of money to burn.
The last five to ten years have shown the same type of boredom. Let's see my day consists of taking obscene risks in the market, eating way too much and taking it for granted, watching p0rn/having sex with a stranger, and then watching ordinary people do stupid things on TV. I think that's an accurate picture of life in the twenties and in the last ten years. To a large degree the forms of entertainment carry on after the collapse, but it's a form of forgetfulness therapy rather then boredom therapy. People now need something to assuage their acute pain rather than their dull pain.
I admit, I smile and chuckle at Wipeout or I Survived a Japanese Game Show. There's something inherently funny to me about that kind of slapstick. But the sheer preponderance of these shows (throw in Survivor and all other reality TV as well) belies a sickness in our culture. We can't need that much "funny."
This is where pusillanomie comes in. People haven't been courageous enough to take appropriate risks, such as engaging in relationships, finding their calling, and loving and serving others. Instead, they do the bored thing. They take giant risks with money and while away their time hoping for something better. Only nothing better is coming. They have to take a courageous and purposeful step to kick the anomic ennui.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Why don't your ride your bike, mister?
Today was a strenuous commuting day. I woke up a bit late. I was hustling to make the bus on time, and I got caught in a gutter area. There was a lot of sand collected from storm runoff, and for all I know, from sanding last winter. I started to swerve a lot, and I finally decided to attempt a stop by putting my foot down. That sent me for a pretty good tumble. My chain fell off, but my heart wasn't free. I had to put that puppy back on and keep moving. I knew I was a bit behind schedule, so I pushed pretty hard. A little more than a quarter mile from the stop, I saw the bus turning to wind its way around to the stop. I pushed even harder. I had to stand up to pedal as hard as I could up the hill. With about 50 yards to go, the bus pulled up to the stop. I finished the course by riding in the bus's lane, so that he wouldn't leave. Turns out he wouldn't have left for about two minutes. And I was beat.
I got to work and had a pretty good day. I left with a good amount of time to make it to the bus stop. However, my rear tire was flat. I had 13 minutes to make it about a mile. No time to change/repair the flat. So I started walking briskly. I kept watch on the time, and I realized a little less than half way there that I would need to run. So I ran pushing my bike and carrying my 20-some pound backpack. I stopped to walk a couple of times, but I knew where the bus was in relation to the stop (having seen it go by). So I had to push hard. Again, the bus pulled into the stop when I was about 50 yards away. Thankfully, the driver paused for me. I don't recall being quite so worn out. Today's treks to the bus stop were two of the four hardest I've ever had. And they happened on the same day. Ugh.
I got to work and had a pretty good day. I left with a good amount of time to make it to the bus stop. However, my rear tire was flat. I had 13 minutes to make it about a mile. No time to change/repair the flat. So I started walking briskly. I kept watch on the time, and I realized a little less than half way there that I would need to run. So I ran pushing my bike and carrying my 20-some pound backpack. I stopped to walk a couple of times, but I knew where the bus was in relation to the stop (having seen it go by). So I had to push hard. Again, the bus pulled into the stop when I was about 50 yards away. Thankfully, the driver paused for me. I don't recall being quite so worn out. Today's treks to the bus stop were two of the four hardest I've ever had. And they happened on the same day. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)