Hrm... well this ain't working well...

So this weekend presented an interesting time to compare, contrast and reflect on two climbing strategies that I've played around with in regards to lead climbing.

Strategy 1: Detach the self from expectations of completing the climb with an onsight. Release the feeling of fear, trepidation and doubt and just move across the rock. If you fall, c'est la vie. If you onsight it, c'est la vie.

Strategy 2: Reach deep down within the self and don't fall no matter what. Don't give up an inch, and fight hard for moves, despite your body being tired, nervous etc.

So basically the two strategies can be listed as a passive style versus an aggressive style. Lately I've been having fun climbing "passively" at Jtree and I'm completely free from the fear that usually grips me on climbs. There's no stress, no expectation and it feels like so much fun. Who cares if I fall or not? Who cares if I finish the route or not?

Unfortuantely, the down side to it is that I don't have the motivation to try hard. It either comes easy or it doesn't - if I feel like I'm going to fall, I'll allow it to happen. Which presents a problem when trying things at my limit...

The second strategy is quite the opposite - it's just like the feeling of bouldering where I'm trying to find some way inside of me to break through my limits. My entire consciousness is focused on a single point, whether that point be another hold or another move. But this state of aggressive movement heightens my level of adrenaline and the entire ordeal feels so much like I'm working hard at something, with absolute disregard to whether I'm having fun or not. It feels like it heightens my own ego in the negative sense of the word i.e. "I pushed myself to go do this climb - what did *you* push yourself to do?" kind of feeling. yuck. Then there's the fact that this heightened level of adrenaline and awareness is associated with my involvement in Jon's accident which then elevates my fear factor exponentially...

I need to spend the next few trips experimenting with some happy middle between the two methods that I've found works well for me. Always an adventure...

Voting Day! (The Prequel)

Today is California's election for primaries. A proud day for Americans everywhere - it's a day for democracy to endure, to voice our opinions and make our desires known to the gov't. To those not so idealistic, it's a time to get a couple of hours paid leave from most work places to vote, and a "right to bitch" about the gov't if you voted.

The intelligent voter will go out and study the candidates, the issues and vote accordingly. Me - I'm only a half wit. I'm listed as "decline to state" - when I registered as such, the registrar told me that I wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries. I found out at around 9:30 this morning that that wasn't the case and that I can actually go to the polls. My thoughts on learning this:

"Yaaay!" + "Crap" = Frantic reading of candidates.

Fortunately, the exclusionary practices of the Republican party prohibits me from voting in their primaries. And since none of the other parties have put forth a candidate (to my knowledge), despite really really wanting a communist candidate to be campaigning for presidency, I only have to concern myself with the Democratic primaries. *whew* thank goodness I have no choice in the matter <--- sarcasm.

So here I am, trying to air out my thoughts on the matter. In my mind, only two candidates really standout - Picard or Sisko for president. Unfortunately, neither are running so I'm left with either Clinton or Obama. I've spent the last 3 hours frantically reading everything I can on their voting records, their statements and their official stances on the issues. And now I've come to my decision: I like them both equally. I think they both have their pros and cons as politicians. I'm leaning towards going to the polls today and voting on the propositions, but not on a candidate (I'm technically not a democrat anyway so it seems kinda heretical to do so...).

All this thought on the political process brings back memories of some intrinsic problems with democracy that we debated in high school: "what kind of democratically elected leader do we want? Someone who makes a decision on issues and stands by them, or one who can acknowledge the error of their ways and change their voting record on the whims of the masses?". Said in another way, do we want someone who will politically lead us towards what they believe is best with our votes representing the faith we have in their moral and intellectual fibre, or do we want someone who can accurately represent us on a day-by-day (or maybe more like month by month) schedule? To do this day, I still can't decide.

The former kind of leader can be efficient and quick without having to report back to the masses to when fast action is necessary. There are also times when perhaps the masses don't have all the information to make an informed decision, or just plain aren't ethically in the right (like issues about slavery or women's rights in the past). But these can quickly lead to dictatorships or abusive leaders of their position (*cough cough* Bush *cough cough*).

The latter kind of leader can be swayed to the correct form of action when they're wrong. They can be made to listen to the public who brought them to power so that they can accurately steer the nation towards what its people want. Unfortunately, there's a name for people like that: wafflers.

*sigh* I might just write in Jean Luc Picard's name into "other" if there's a line for it in the ballot tonight. Then again, Capt Picard would never take a desk job...

A cirques act

Cirque Du Soleil was is in San Diego right now and so Johnnie and I were able to score some cheap student tix to go see them - something I've wanted to do with her ever since I found out that she had never seen a single show in her life.

So how can I best talk about Cirque? As one of the best performances I've seen? Something that tests and reimagines the possible bounds of what the human body can do?

Should I discuss the trapeze acts with the trapeze gear? The chandelier spinning dancers? The dream like costumes and the hauntingly beautiful music? The perfectly timed acrobatics? The incredible feats of stength-to-weight ratioed performers that seem only possible if a master yoga guru or 5.15 climber?

No - all I'll say is "balloon assisted midget bounces".

(image = Aerial hoop performance at Cirque du Soleil's Varekai. Photo was found on Flickr.com and is licensed under Attribution by photographer Leonard Low.)