Skip to main content

bodies at rest

i sometimes think that insomniac brains function on an entirely different plane than the rest of humanity. given the plethora of studies available on the subject, it seems reasonable to assume that we're all just so sleep deprived that we've actually started to break down and that signals are firing in ways that they never should be, but i prefer to think that we're just wired differently to begin with. as a result, people who tend to sleep at night have trouble realising the way that we're going to react to things, something i was reminded of last night.

as we were going to bed, dom happened to mention, during the course of a conversation about things that should never, ever return, that the band chalk circle was making a comeback, playing a show in montreal at some point in the near future. by way of background, let me explain that there was this thing called the eighties. it was responsible for a lot in the music world, including some cutting edge underground material, but also including the sorts of atrocities that should be banned under the geneva convention and a lot of music bland enough that you wondered why the artists bothered to do it in the first place. in canada, we had a lot of the latter, because our broadcast regulations require that a third of music aired on radio and on music television [which used to play actual music] be canadian. that meant that broadcasters were basically willing to play recordings of people singing in the shower as long as it helped them meet their canadian content obligations and therefore a lot of otherwise forgettable artists ended up becoming minor stars. chalk circle fall into that category.

since they were a sort of forgettable lot, when dom mentioned them, i remembered the name, but i couldn't really remember anything they'd actually done. he attempted to jog my memory by humming one of their hits, but, as we all know, that only ever makes things worse, because then i was left with a sort of musical fragment in my brain that i couldn't connect to anything i'd ever heard.

this is where the differences in brain function come in.

you see dom, being someone who can sleep fairly easily, figured the conversation ended there and dozed off. i'm assuming that the whole thing was far from his mind two hours later when the ed byrne comedy special i was watching ended and my dangerously unoccupied mind started sifting through its leftovers. regular, well-rested minds don't go through this so much unless there is something in particular that is preoccupying them. they don't understand the process by which some "silly" thing can suddenly take on a monstrous level of importance and how that can combine with the desperate boredom that sets in when you've been awake for too many hours and need to be entertained.

which is why dom didn't see the sophisticated humour value in being awoken by having my iphone thrust at him blaring the video for the song he'd been trying to hum. personally, i thought it was hilariously ironic and, yes, quite entertaining. instead, he just grumbled something about "needing" sleep and how i shouldn't be waking him for "no reason" because apparently the people at his work expect him to function in the morning or something.

i was going to point out to him that at least some of the blame for him being awake belonged to our siamese, who had taken lights and music as a sign that it was ok to jump up and demand affection from his dad, but that always seems to invite these arguments about "rationality" and "discernment", things i supposedly possess, but are evidently in conflict with waking someone up in the middle of the night to show them the video for a song they don't like when they were the one who mentioned it in the first place. personally, i think that hecubus gets off easy because he's covered in satiny fur, has adorably crossed blue eyes and makes a soothing rattling noise when rubbed [none of which, by the way, work for me]. this so-called rationality is just an excuse.

and so, without ever leaving the bed, dom and i went our separate ways, him back to the land of nod and me back to my churning thoughts, only now, i could at least focus on something other than a song. now, i could think about the blog post i was going to write about how no one understands me because i'm an insomniac.


Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…