So this weekend I picked up Ayn Rand’s Anthem from Barnes and Noble - and I’ve already finished it. Not much of an accomplishment being that it barely clicks in at 100 pages, but nonetheless, very much worth a read. Really brought me back to all those horribly thought-provoking mindlessly-circular arguments back when we read Huxley’s Brave New World in high school.
Well, let me explain myself. Thought provoking arguments aren’t a problem - it’s how mindlessly circular they become in high school. You’ve got a room full of idealic individualists yearning to recite virtually the same exact thing as the person to the right of them yet desperately attempting to make their point more convoluted and thought-provoking than the previous person - all in a vain attempt to make the person to the left of them seem like a facist pig.
In all honesty, these type of books aren’t ones for book clubs, discussion groups or, above all else, high school English classes. They are for introspection and self-realization and in all honesty, bringing them into a forum where one view trumps over another seems to go against the overall reasoning behind the writing itself - to embrace individualism!
Even so, here I am, writing my thoughts down about it. It’s always interesting reading books about a “big brother” type world now, 50-100 years after their publication and just standing in awe that back then they thought we would be so close to a Brave New World then that surely, by now, all would be lost. We stand now 23 years after 1984 and we still have people reciting that governments are one step (and only one step) from becoming the thought police. Somehow, as cautious as my viewpoint on such subjects may be, I waryingly assert that we’re no closer to a unified thought-controlled future than we were back when these apocalyptic were first published.
Needless to say, even though I say that, there’s no reason NOT to be worried. What worries me more than the thought police is this natural progression lately toward the word “we” rather than “I” - the individual seems to be shrouded in this massive “we” - nonetheless loosely defined as it may be, the individual seems to have no power - it is a group of individuals that say “we” are discriminated - “we” are without rights - power is in “we” and yet all these books suggest that after we lose all our rights, the only power will reside in the “I”?
All individual flavor of desire and passion is lost when we rely on the “we” and yet, we’re constantly reminded that without “we”, the “I’s” can’t do anything. Yet, scientific advances suffer because there isn’t enough “we” going around - finances always play a roll in scientific endevours and why invest in something that isn’t going to outright help the “I”? Yet, the financial world is built on millions of “I’s” unaware of each other - unaware of the implied “we”.
It’s a very convoluted issue - is Ayn Rand and the rest right - that Ego, the reincorporation of the superior “I” versus “we” in modern society - are these things that will set us free or will any sole reliance of either one of these words and not the other be our demise? Should we consider all courses of action from the usage of both rather than blindly assume its one or the other? Are mindless pursuits of the individual any better when you get the masses involved or are the masses ruining the progression of the few - assuming the few will share?
I suggest that “I” can ruin all of us nearly as much as “we” - contrast how so many suggest that Communism only works in theory with how our Democracy works. Is our democracy anywhere near the utopic “I” we strive for? If it were, would it work any better than Communism?
It is through the moderate use of both tactics that we find an amenable midground that gives us all the freedom “I” want and yet the power to change the world for the better, for all of “us”. That is to say, there are times to forget the “I” just as one must fall away from the “we” to make things better.
Yeah, ok that’s enough thinking for now. Comments are welcome.






I got a new lens for my Digital Rebel this week - a 50mm with a f/1.8 - I’ve been running around for months with just the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came with it and I never understood until I got this lens the true amount of hinderance the basic lens causes. This is a perfect example of a photo I could’ve never gotten with the previous lens - the new one allows a significantly more shallow depth of field at the same distance and boy, is it ever worth the $75 for it.