The "Grand" Opening of Obama's Utah Headquarters

Driving home from work on Friday, I was incredibly excited to hear that the Grand Opening of the Obama headquarters would be held on Saturday afternoon. Feeling (naively it turned out) that Obama's 50-state initiative was real, and that he would be making just as hard a push in Utah as Pennsylvania, I promptly entered the occasion into my Blackberry, moving back all of the things I actually needed to do that day.

As I approached the headquarters Saturday afternoon, I became excited by the big crowds and news camera milling about. By the time I actually got into the headquarters, however, the veil started to lift, and the complete bedlam and plain lack of funding began to set in.

In regards to the state and age of the building, it is due either to the aforementioned lack of funding, or the extreme cleverness of the Obama campaign. My first thought as I toured the headquarters was, "This place seems like it hasn't been updated or renovated since the Kennedy administration.” Now, in 1960, Utah did favor Eisenhower by only 9.6%, so maybe this is a tactical move. However, I'm pretty sure the antediluvian feel was not exactly intentional. On top of this, the building was small and the event was, overall, poorly organized.

Unfortunately, this afternoon was more a harsh reminder of just how hollow the rhetoric of politicians can be, rather than the inspiring and catalytic event it could have been. While Obama's "50-state strategy" sounds great, I'm guessing the purpose is more to impress voters in swing states, than actually increase his chances in die-hard red states. After all, by having a 50-state strategy, a Pennsylvanian will project the effort in Pennsylvania 50 times over, since this is the only mental image the Pennsylvanian has of the campaign.

I suppose none of this is earth shattering, or mountain moving. Rather, it was an apt reminder of my favorite phrase from 4 years of high school Latin, "Facta non verba," deeds not words.

Man, Animal and Progress

I don't think I've ever written a post that is response to a comment. However, I would like to refute Yoni's comment on my previous post.

Firstly, nowhere to I imply that I am anti-progress. I completely agree with the idea that what separates man from animal is his desire for progress, to be able to see not only what is in front of him, but also what is not in front of him, or what could be there. In fact, I believe it all hinges on words such as "could" and "would," which imply man's ability to imagine a different world from the one empirically presenting itself to his senses. This, I believe, is what creates the possibilities to have ideologies (the world as it should be), and religions (Heaven, the World To Come, etc.). It is this ability that made the first monkey jump down from the trees. While the trees may have had an adequate amount of food, foraging the forest provides a chance of finding better food.

Further, Yoni states that it is man's tendency to never be satisfied that separates us from animals. I would argue exactly the opposite, however. Animals are, by nature, never satisfied. They spend their entire lives hunting for food, hunting for mates, and attempting to gain dominance over their clan. (An apt example of this is how I killed my first goldfish. It was time to feed the fish, so I poured a little bit of fish food. The fish ate all of that, so I poured in a bit more. The fish ate that, and on and on the cycle went. In the morning, the fish was floating at the top of the bowl. In other words, the fish did not possess the ability to stop acquiring.)

Man, on the other hand, has the ability to willfully stop himself from progressing. This can take many forms, the simplest of which is the "game." By definition, a game implies an activity which has no utility. Of course, one could argue that playing chess makes your mind sharper, and playing football makes you stronger. Nevertheless, these are merely the ancillary purposes of the game. If they were the primary purposes, then why not just study logic puzzles and life weights instead.

The other way in which we willfully cease progress is through the Sabbath, or any form of pre-ordained rest. The animalistic tendency would be to continue to produce more, with every waking moment. Man, on the other hand, has the ability to cease work completely on purpose, because he understands that there is more to life than maximum production.

This, perhaps, is the thrust of my previous post. It is not that it is unnatural or anti-evolutionary to not work. Rather, it is that man has the unique ability to both willfully produce and increase efficiency, yet at the same time willfully cease production, and enjoy things that do not have to do with production and efficiency.