Not that you would ever know it, because I don't often have time to post here, but I think written-out opinions, in a set context, are soon the only one I will stick by, and even then I have fear of being misunderstood.

I remember one time I was trying to draw a comparison between Bush and Reagan, and say that Reagan brought a sort of grand old-timey-ness to the office that one is even nostalgic for when faced with this desperate, sketchy, sweaty administration. The example I gave was Reagan's speech on the event of the Challenger exploding: `We will never forget them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.' My point was, 'Can you even imagine Bush saying something like that?!' But all my dad heard was 'Reagan Reagan Reagan' and the conversation didn't go anywhere because he was still too pissed off at Reagan to admit that there was at least an attempt at dignity in that decade.

Another argument I got into with my dad was about "Million Dollar Baby" (no shit), and whether shitty movies won Oscars all the time or not. Or something like that. Anyways, I'm not sure what we were arguing about, because my dad was trying to impart wisdom about the Oscars at the same time as I wanted to point out that he had liked this overblown film. So we were completely at cross purposes until my mom broke us apart.

Things you say in seminar, even longer blog posts (see below), anything relayed to another person, any message board post, virtually every single thing I think-- once you say anything, other people are only going to hear what they want, and then when your message finally gets back to you, it no longer at all resembles what you meant. This is why, if you've ever argued with me, it goes on FOREVER--- my belief is that we aren't really in an argument to begin with, that we've just misunderstood each other, and that if we really separate out our emotions from "what we are really saying," we might turn out to disagree, but at least we'll know, and we'll probably understand each other better. This is why I have a reputation for loving to argue; but to me, I just want to be sure there is even a need to. I think a good deal of the time, we are "just saying the same thing" as the person we are arguing with, and neither of us wanted to think so.

If one thinks of how one gets information, it is either in a chaotic way (conversation, the internet, cultural absorption) or in a uni-directional way (TV, "the news"). Think about politics. The "debate" in politics is conducted by pundits. It is staged for us. There is ZERO attempt made to provide the raw material of decision-making-- firstly, because no one actually wants this, and secondly, when there is a "backstory" given, it is usually some human interest story and not a dialectical/historical process. What this means is that the circularity of political discourse generates its own (detached) conventional wisdom, but then EVERYONE outside of this circuit is invited to join in (on November 2nd) on the basis of having accepted this conventional wisdom as THE discussion about politics. So, doing one's civic duty and voting are coded in specific ways by this discussion, so that not voting is demonized: remaining outside these endlessly-generated arrangements is demonized. As it should be, by the logic of the political circle. It is always *conversational*, and the essence of conversation is the agreed-upon premise, which allows us to talk to one another. Our words mean one thing, this is the definition Newsweek and both the Right and Left agree upon, now we can talk. That is why there is no philosophy of politics which anyone IN politics engages in. Which is why the Judicial, which has this kind of self-philosophizing, is so baffling to Congress. The judicial is NOT conversational.

Anyways, writing. When my book comes out, it will get summarized, people will reference it without having read it, and make assumptions based on the cover and who else has liked it, but in order to SAY anything about it, one will have to have read it. And while that opens up inevitable misreadings, I think this demand of going back to the source is so much less violent in the case of a book, than in, say, an argument. I guess that sounds obvious, but given the fact that the current administration a) functions entirely by miscommunication in news briefings and never "puts it all on the table," and b) the president does not read books; I think it merits a bit further thought.

And no, this doesn't mean that I'll be talking any less.