You don’t know what to do with yourself.  One thing is just as good as another and people talk and they talk and it all sounds the same.  And it wasn’t always like this.  When she was with you words had meaning and events had a purpose.  It was like she was the key or the last puzzle piece that focused the entire picture and gave it vibrance so that you could distinguish one colour from another, one word from another, and one person from another.  But that time has passed.

Anyway, that’s my Wednesday post.

Today I’m working from home and trying desperately to get all my tasks done so tomorrow can be a more relaxed day.

For now, just know that I’m going to start by writing twice weekly, one entry on Saturday and one on Wednesday.

I hope you enjoy the upcoming reads. They’ll likely be a little more philosophical in nature than what is currently in the archives but that’s only because I’m feeling a little philosophical. As with all things, that probably won’t last forever.

It made me pause for a moment because I don’t quite understand it. When I thought about it a little it recalled to me all of the reading I’d done on the “straw man” stuff. (See: here, here, and here for instance). The idea that one has a “brand” implies that one has something to sell. Branding was only created to protect profits and or property, which in itself is an asset and that is really just stored profit. Think of the poor horse getting branded in the westerns or the even poorer slave getting marked as proof of purchase by a master.

I came to the conclusion that I think the idea of “online branding,” while certainly useful for some ends does not agree with me. Intent is my concern. What is the purpose of “online branding?” Why does one need to work at creating a brand for oneself? I’m of the opinion that you can let your actions/writings/online dealings speak for themselves and that will be your legacy. What intent motivates one to work on their “online branding?” It could just be a buzzword or noun to describe a series of actions/productions any of which could be encompassed by terms from anything like “online persona” to something as simple as “online profile” or even more simplistically “website.” After all a website is a type of brand. I attempt to protect the writings of this site because I don’t want them used against me, thus I “brand” them in a sense as mine.

But to return to “online branding,” it’s about intent. Is it just another buzzword? Or is it an attempt to fashion an individual in the online world that does not have the flaws and foibles (I hate that word) of our real person? If so, I think that’s being dishonest and something I cannot abide. No one wants others to see their failings (at least I don’t) but to actively work at it and then some by creating a perfect persona just seems shallow.

I haven’t a problem with protecting our profits. After all, everyone needs to eat. Hopefully one day we can all profit honestly and thus avoid “Conrad Blacks,” “Bernard Madoffs,” or “Enrons,” but if working at “online branding” is an attempt to mask the truth or create an alternate truth I don’t like it. I’m also not criticizing this friend of mine, he’s one of my best (which is a very small list). Everyone has their own reasons and those are probably far and away different than anything I’ve listed here. I learned long ago not to judge but I cannot wrap my head around the point of this kind of activity. Although, I also don’t understand facebook…

Whatever “online branding” is and whatever motivates it I don’t participate and I have to say I’m happy I don’t. It sounds complicated.

The sources, specifically Ari Throgilsson write that the conversion of Iceland from heathenism to Christianity took place in the law court. The Althing in Iceland, established c.930 was the centre of Icelandic social life and really the only hint of institutionalized government that existed in Iceland in that period.

The story goes that Gizurr Teitsson and Hjalti Skeggjason returned from Norway to Iceland with the intent of converting the island after making promises to king Olaf Tryggvason of Norway to do so. At the Althing the heathen and Christian camps (some men in Iceland were at the time Christian after the efforts of bishop Thangbrand) were on the verge of battling. Cooler heads prevailed however and the lawspeaker Thorgeirr was approached to make a judgment on which law the country should have: heathen or Christian.

The clever man retires to his hut, lays down for a day and a night covered over with a cloak before emerging to proclaim his judgment. He tells everyone that Iceland must exist under one law. The often quoted (in scholarly circles) “if we tear law asunder, we tear asunder peace” were words he spoke, to which all assented before he proclaimed Christianity was to be the one religion of the land.

What’s fascinating is the legalistic nature of it all. Christianity came to Iceland through law, not marriage alliances or economic methods or conquest. Perhaps the most interesting facet of it all was that the lawspeaker Thorgeirr was himself a heathen. Various later sources claim he was paid off to make the judgment but then why wasn’t that included in Ari’s chronicle and it would seem to make his under-cloak contemplation for 24 hours a bit unnecessary. Whatever the case, it was the law that saw Iceland become Christian. Thorgeirr’s status and legal genius saw to it that the matter was resolved peacefully and so it was. The legal mentality was so strong in the Icelanders that they did not fight the decision, physically or otherwise. Once the lawspeaker spoke there wasn’t much that could be done. His words literally were law until the codes were written down in c.1117. (Wiki entry for Lawspeaker. Be careful using Wiki, it’s not the most reliable source.).

The conversion of Iceland is a remarkable story and one which is sometimes difficult to comprehend. How could law dictate something so deeply rooted as religion? Today that may be easy to do when most people do not have a religion of their own but Iceland had a well established heathen faith already entrenched with temples (and temple taxes), rites, and even priests yet it was swept away by a legal decree. To be sure it did not happen overnight and such notions don’t hold water. But the fact remains many men were baptized that day in Iceland and henceforth Iceland was Christian.

Well not all sports I guess.

Formula 1 racing is my one sports passion, much more so than any international tourney except perhaps the World Cup. In F1 it’s all about the technology and driver cajones. The tech and skills of the drivers and pit teams is such a well choreographed enactment that it takes one’s breath away. It’s a sport with very few margins for error. A second at 300km/hr is almost 85m, halving that is 40m, halve that again and you’ve got 20m, still a huge distance. Can you react in a quarter of a second with an engine screaming behind your head at 18,000rmp, because if you don’t you just hit the wall 20m away? The timings have to be perfect and if they’re not it’s over. Every driver wants the same thing.

Yeah, F1 season starts Friday and I’m pumped. First race is on Sunday.

The problem is not that people try so hard to live dual lives but that it is actually proposed as a solution to avoid potentially embarrassing situations. People create two lives and then cannot properly manage them and end up looking even worse when they cuss the boss off on one website then praise him on another only to realize they mixed the sites up.

An elegant solution to me seems to be to unite the personas. If you meet your boss at a bar when drunk don’t try to play it off as something you don’t do often, just accept it and move forward. After all, he’s there for a reason too isn’t he?

It’s kind of like the public bathroom paradox. We can all stand next to each other holding our dicks and pissing (guys) yet taking a crap is somehow different. Yes it stinks and no one wants to admit they produced that POS but we all do it and all NEED to do it so why the duality?

And so someone will say that public crapping duality arose in an age much less accepting and more strict about such things when we were all proper persons who learned our Latin and grammar. However, this is precisely the reason why we, in today’s enlightened age should not only dissuade such practice of duality but disallow it.

Have some integrity, honour, and self-respect for who you are and what you do.

Hope you enjoy the new blog.

This blog began as a way to practice my writing. Someone, a fellow history student told me to write daily and to write anything I could think of. So I did and this blog was the result. I never desired to have a public place from which to broadcast, I needed writing practice. But the experiment has now changed. This blog will not cease to be, I’m moving it back to it’s old address:

www.kgang.com/blog

It’s just that it will no longer be it’s own entity and I will update it even less frequently than I already do.

My writing needs a different kind of practice now. I feel I’ve gleaned everything I could from the blog style of writing. It’s time to move on to something else.

If anyone actually reads this, I want to say thanks for doing so. I hope you enjoyed it. Email me if you want to get in touch or have a long distance email discussion.

Cheers.

The waste comes in the form of some sort of renovation or cleaning of student apartments. The process seems simple enough. A large waste bin is placed below the window of a given apartment and two burly men go into the place and start throwing everything out into the bin below. By everything I mean everything that isn’t screwed or nailed down.

The waste is the fact that most of the items being discarded are in relatively good shape, some are in excellent shape. I’m not certain why they don’t send the things to thrift shops. One of my roommates (a questionable source for any discussion) claims it’s because the immigrants began to fight over the free stuff that was waiting for pick up and so the decision was put forth to simply trash it all. The logic of that escapes me somewhat as does the reasoning of why you’d throw it out instead of giving it to a thrift agency. You save costs on landfill, transport, and the more elusive to quantify benefit of having a furnished population. The Norwegian state does after all provide for it’s people quite well and money that is going into new furnishings could go elsewhere if perfectly good furniture wasn’t being tossed in the landfill but instead given to less well off citizens.

It’s going on and it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.