Review: House of Cards

I've just finished season 1 of House of Cards. I feel a bit numb inside. These two facts are related.

House of Cards, if you haven't heard about it (shame on you), is a political drama about a House Majority Whip that is not given what he was promised. Passed over for the Secretary of State position, Frank Underwood, a ruthless, calculating, and demanding politician, begins to exact his revenge on those who wronged him.

From the first five minutes of episode 1, I was hooked. Within those five minutes, you are introduced to everything you need to know about Frank. A dog is struck by a car and Frank, getting ready for a black tie event, comes out of his home to comfort the dog. Or so it seems. Frank then directly addresses the audience, staring straight into the camera and issues a few lines on what he calls the two sorts of pain. The first sort makes you strong. The second is only suffering. He despises this type of pain. Then he kills the dog.

These breakaway speeches occur throughout the series, lending narratorial insight into events and Frank's thought process behind a certain action. Plus, every line is expertly crafted to emulate with ruthlessness and is incredibly quotable. The cutaways are profound and leave viewers questioning the integrity and honor of Frank as a politician. The portrayal of Frank as such a controlling legislator who is drawn between his own ambitions and those of his constituents (a company named SanCorp) is much different than the conventional textbook definition of a legislator.

House of Cards is jarring. The phenomenal casting and acting for the show continues to surprise. Frank is joined by his wife, Claire, owner of the non-profit Clean Water Initiative, Zoe Barnes,a reporter looking for a break, Peter Russo, a US Representative battling alcoholism and drug addiction, and a multitude of other similarly ambitious or morally tainted characters. The interplay between characters, and mostly their manipulation by Frank, is creative and at times left me wondering what was about to happen.

Frank Underwood is just another character in the growing list of modern anti-heroes we all want to hate but come away sympathizing. When Frank is passed over for the Secretary of State position, I sympathizes with him; yet, he didn't want my sympathy. He immediately began scheming. He blatantly explains the weaknesses of sympathy. Frank is a man consumed and motivated only by power. Nothing else matters. Cleverly, throughout the first season, until the last two episodes, what exactly Frank is scheming for never becomes apparent. Instead wings of this house of cards topple, one by one, until nothing stands in the way of Frank and what he wants.

I easily finished this series in a week and cannot wait for the second season. This is the best show I have seen in a very long time. House of Cards has blown open a (fictional?) view of Washington that we can only hope is not true. House of Cards is riveting, jarring and at times uncomfortable. House of Cards will challenge you to figure out the mystery of Frank's ambitions. House of Cards will tempt you, asking if you can truly trust the narrator.

If you do only one thing today: watch House of Cards.

In Defense of Knowledge: The People

I find the use of democratic power by "We, the People" a sobering, yet amazing phenomenon to view.

For example, I happened to wander into Madison, WI during the protests against Governor Walker two years ago now and saw the fervor in everyone's eyes. There were college students who spent their nights sleeping on the floor of the capital building practicing their rights to protest peacefully against something they believed was wrong. I watched the news and read the articles about a movement to recall Governor Walker swept the state and then blew up in the media. Wisconsin became the epicenter of  nationwide look at the Republican party and urged for intense transparency into the emerging hyper-conservatives that have grown in popularity and number.

Split down party lines, the response to these events was ferocious. All over the state, it turned into campaign season all over again. Plenty of attack ads, myriad of bumper stickers, lawn signs, billboards, NGO involvement and so much more. Those who had voted for his opponent in the original governor race were out with double the stickers and double the signs, while most of his supporters went out and supported him by not adding to the mess. Personally, I think many of them realized something that many had not. Almost all of the people who voted for him to begin with wanted his policies to go through, so they would ultimately vote for him again. No amount of attack ads or pro-union signage would change their mind. Ultimately, those people were right; Governor Walker continues to be governor of Wisconsin despite a recall attempt and disagreement from 49.9% of his constituents.

Jump forward to December of 2012 when a sudden rash of media attention brought to light the growing "epidemic" of gun violence in the United States. Walking outside that same Wisconsin capital where thousands had gathered around chanting and protesting with signs and marches were about 500 men and women carrying "Don't Tread on me" flags and openly carrying hunting rifles and pistols. Nationwide men and women organized to protest and protect their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms while the other half of the nation solemnly stood in a circle holding candles in a vigil for the victims of Sandy Hook and the multiple other locations of violence.

However, it is important to note that the candlelit vigils in remembrance of those lost are occurring on a daily basis. Gun crime claim (based upon CDC information from 2005-10: the most recent statistics) on average 33 Americans per day. Nationwide there are 33 candlelit vigils being held in honor of people killed by a gun every night. Every night hundreds of people are gathering in remembrance. Every year (when new senators, representatives, governors, mayors, council members, aldermen, presidents, etc. are elected) several thousand gun owners clamber shoulder to shoulder to fly their flag and hold their guns.

The end result is that no matter how many people do or do not die from this issue, not to mention the countless other life takers, people will continue to gather to either side of this issue. Notice: I said either side of the issue. That's what we are all lead to believe, that there are only two strict sides to this argument, 1. gun restraints that will ultimately take all guns from gun owners, and 2. continually less strict gun regulations that will kill every innocent American. It is important to, as I recently heard, "think sideways." A citizen must (for it is their prerogative to be an informed voter) understand that no issue in government, or life, is as simple as yes or no. A rational decision is not made solely by saying yes or no. The debate is not abortion or no abortion, or guns or no guns. We must understand that a government official is fighting just as hard to keep their job as you are; to that end, no law of extremes would ever be passed. As I like to think, the phrase "politically correct" comes from the politicians themselves.

If there is only one thing you leave this post with let it be this: think sideways and never constrain your thought to binaries: there are always more than two answers.

In Defense of Knowledge: The Press

I can think of no better way to depict the collapse of modern day news with the ever increasing use of sensational and popular focused journalism than to share a recent video I find fascinating. It's the famous John Stewart appearance on Crossfire in 2004 where he details that the show (and by trade most mainstream news media) is "hurting America". The joking quickly turns to an intense conversation on the media's role in the America public's mind. Any comment I could possibly make about the media's portrayal and continued radical sensationalism towards sensitive subjects (or any subject in general) can be explained and has already been said by Jon Stewart here. Continuing my fanning of Jon Stewart atop the politically charged news mountain, while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly in May of 2011 about a (trivial) matter concerning artist Common appearing at the White House during National Police Week, Stewart opens up discussion about banning assault weapons as being the true means of celebrating and doing something to reduce gun crime and save the lives of police officers. The point here being that sensational news is willing to grasp onto minor nitpicky details to get headlines like "President Obama spends time with Cop Killer Sympathizer" instead of talking about the real issues: reducing gun crime and death numbers. Unfortunately the particular audience that O'Reilly is aiming towards, politically speaking his constituents, are looking for such sensational news, so no outcry results.

It is of course also necessary to not focus solely on the Newton, Connecticut victims, but give attention to those that have died before and after the terrible event. A crowdsource activity (found here)between Slate and twitter handle: @gundeaths has started to compile incomplete statistics on gun deaths that have occurred since the Newton tragedy. I mean to point out this article because of its futuristic appeal to the audiences of world. Twitter has started to take over social media, statistics of Twitter mentions surpassed Facebook mentions during the Superbowl the other night. It's incredible to think of the power behind a mere 140 characters, but once you do, you begin to reevaluate the reasons behind hour long news programs that aren't rapid fire run downs of the news, but repetitions of the same second-, third- or fourth-hand news regurgitated over and from all of the affiliates. Twitter is now the go-to site for digestion and dissemination of information across the world. Outcries of support were thrown onto the internet in the Middle East during the several protests that occurred throughout the past few years and it has slowly crept its way up behind Facebook, and now beyond. Larry King used to take questions on his show from Twitter. Modern day news shows have started to lean upon the social media revolution occurring everyday because they know that soon enough, they will be surpassed by the power of our own words. A national network of interconnected points of view is a powerful thing to share the stage with. Soon the finely suited newscasters will (and are as we speak) be replaced by plain clothed everyday Joes running around the world with a smart phone in hand. Newscasters and their slow moving vans are dependent upon traffic and weather, giant cameras are unwieldy and need time to set up. A man or woman walking down the street with Twitter, iMessage, or Facebook open on their iPhone will, within three seconds, have their camera open, snapping pictures or live tweeting some of the most major events, usually before news organizations know about it. This is the media revolution, this is the social media revolution, this is the evolution of news.

In Defense of Knowledge

Since the devastating events of the Sandyhook shooting several weeks ago the government, NGOs and the people themselves have started speaking out and clamoring for change. The prominent democratic view currently is a series of strict gun control laws that will presumedly inhibit more massacres like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary, the mall shooting in Oregon, and the countless other massacres that occur on a daily basis. Nongovernmental Organizations like the NRA are doing what they do best, feeding spun information to the public (mostly their constituents), just as the democrats and republicans are battling in the House, Senate, and press. The press is, as always, spending an undue amount of time on these massacres, potentially instilling a sense of stardom associated with them (to be explained later). Finally, the people of this fair democracy are also sharing their opinions in a multitude of ways. Posts of pro- and anti-gun images and literature litter social media. Rallies are occurring throughout the states, men and women exercising their right to bare arms and free speech are marching on their state capital waving "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Then there is one of the newest developments: the government conspiracy video that has exploded on YouTube, reaching over ten million views.

Every time I see our democratic institution work on the political, private, and personal level, I am overjoyed. To see all of the actors of our government flexing their muscles and being proactive in what they can do and say is something rarely seen. Very few times does this nation ever experience a tragedy that is able to grip all spectrums of life, moving people who not normally are activists to participate in their government. Aside from my own beliefs, I am glad to see all cogs of political life in progress.

Unfortunately, a byproduct of all of this involvement in political institutions leads to the sullying of information networks with falsified information, conspiracy theory, and misdirections cause by these main political actors: the press, the government, NGOs and the people.

Complacency and Stagnation: The Demise of Man

All you must do to see the slow degradation of Man's mind is to listen, only for a moment, to someone near you. The slow slip of Man into stagnation shows up in the momentary groan you make when someone makes the all-too-familiar trite comment they've repeated for years. The ease of Humanity to find comfort in those commonalities and phrases show a lack of expansion of the mind, a lack of growth, and importantly, a lack of wanting to grow.

(un)Growth: The Loss of Risk/Reward

 Children ordering chicken nuggets at McDonalds, chicken tenders at Olive Garden, or chicken crisps at Red Lobster are perfect examples as well. Some may commend people for knowing what they like and sticking to it, but it raises the simple question: how do you know what you like is indeed the thing you will like most? The person who remains stagnant in their desire for a burger or a desire for french fries everywhere will never get to know the delicious flavors of Middle Eastern food, they'll never try expertly-crafted sushi and they'll never have the gumption to enjoy exotic fishes served in exotic ways. The astounding fact is, once again, that not only will people not enjoy these things that they may enjoy more, they revel in the fact that they aren't enjoying something new. People are completely complacent with where they are or what they want without ever choosing to expand that.

Think of this little experiment as a social metaphor. From the age of childhood we decide that we like something, therefore, we will continue to get that something because it makes us feel good. We learn that experimentation could result in us not liking something, a risk that has high reward but high consequences. Instead of risking it and having the chance to experience something amazing, Man takes the easy route and follows the same path he did before. By the time we reach adolescence we have compiled a comprehensive, yet small, list of things we like, the list of dislikes based solely on the fact that these things are not the things we like. (As an aside, the setup of a binary system where one side is only revealed to be the negation of your side is also an archaic means to view life: you=not me; they=not us; red=not blue; good=not bad). The insistence of Humanity to not recognize shades of gray in their decision making process shows a fundamental lack of what epistemology actually is. The idea that there is a single absolute knowledge of the world is fine, if you base your view of the world solely upon your interpretation and nothing more. Unfortunately, this is not realistic; your image (especially in the twenty-first century) must be compiled from myriad options and vantage points. Look at the division of news networks. There is a red news, a blue news, an off-blue news, and an off-red news. Stagnancy believes that you can view one and receive all you need to know. Knowledge (and therefore growth) states you must view them all. Knowledge dictates that you must view all points of view, growth dictates you must interpret and understand those views. In order to grow you must do something that many people fear and rebel against: you must think.

Loyalty: The Death of Innovation

Many minds exist solely for taking-in and subsequently ignoring information they receive. The minds that rely upon the easy way of "chicken nuggets" or referring to your childhood as "walking up hill both ways" are the culprits. Those who lack the originality (and therefore effort) to move beyond these commonplaces only serve to solidify the measures in place that reinforce the behavior of the commonplace. Current business practice relies upon the notion of gaining loyalty over the more important virtue of innovation. Your product only has to be good enough to be considered "reliable". It doesn't need to excel, it only needs to do its job well enough to be viewed as usable and good. So many counter-measures are in place (especially in this country) where innovation is sacrificed at the point of reliability. People stay with a specific car company out of the nostalgia of their first car (which seemed great in retrospect), so why should they go elsewhere and take the risk?

For example, a person who has dealt with the same building contractor for decades and built up a wonderful friendship, needs to have a new office building constructed. One day a new up-and-coming contractor offers a new type of construction (which is stronger, longer-lasting and cheaper) to the prospective client. Instead of following the course of innovation, the client follows the course of reliability and loyalty even at the cost of his business. In ten years, the building with sub-par construction will fall, and the client will explain it away as an "act of god" or that "the building needed to go anyways", using complacency and pushing the responsibility away from the only party who deserves it: himself.

This type of decision making that sacrifices innovation at the sight of reliability and comfort is the plague upon this nation. In fact, to call such an act "decision making" is to falsely state that someone does something by consciously weighing all (or at least some) of their options before choosing. Instead, under the current philosophy of choice, the decision seems already made. Equal weight, time, or thought is never given to all sides. Thus, Humanity continues to slip back into a complacent and stagnant lifestyle that refuses to grow with the growth of knowledge.

The flame of inspiration and innovation is being put out in the rain, the intuition of Man is to stomp it out for fear of change when they ought to shelter it and strengthen it. Innovation is not something to fear, innovation is a process and a philosophy that should be followed and nursed, but not blindly followed.

Above all, the blind following of any philosophy, innovation or stagnancy, is the evilest of ways. Thought should rule over your lives, situations should be dissected to see their workings and consequences should be fully explored.

May the flame of innovation, inspiration and reason remain ignited and burn strong, for it is in the most dire danger, now more than ever.

How Mad Men is Right.

Image from www.amctv.com

"Who is Don Draper?" This enigmatic question begins the fourth season of Mad Men and for the first time, I found myself wondering the same question. Through four seasons of Mad Men I accepted Don. I accepted Don as the primary protagonist (and sometimes antagonist) who spent his days napping, drinking, philandering and urging, albeit harshly, his employees to do better work. Don is dishonest, a drunk and selfish. Very rarely will he realize his own faults and acknowledge them, even fewer times does he say "I'm sorry". In any other media, Don would be a classic villain, yet I trust him. I would trust my company with his creative prowess because of three simple facts: Don Draper is me, Don Draper is every man, and Don Draper is the truth.

Buried within every episode is some profound conversation or piece of advice that showcases Don's understanding of life. He really gets it. He is not some sort of idealized white knight that comes to save the damsel in distress, he is a man, simple as that. He has his own tragic faults, but he is brilliant at what he does. Beyond that though, there's random moments where he's not only a brilliant ad man, he is a surprisingly insightful philosopher.

"If you don't like what is being said, change the conversation."

The context of the quote isn't necessary for any of these that I've chosen, the context is life, the actors are you and I. But what does it mean? It's a comment on disarming a conversation; if you don't want to talk about it, don't. Move on, talk about something else. But beneath the surface there's something more profound than that. Inherent in the quote is a confrontational "Prove it." I want you to change the conversation, but prove you're worth it, prove that what you're saying is better or worth my time. If you don't like what I'm saying, if you don't like what is being said, change the conversation. Alter the conversation. Don't switch subjects, switch perspectives, change the emphasis and check your premises. I also think that what he truly means in this is: "if you don't like the world, change it." Though he is pragmatic (if not pessimistic), there is a glimmer of hope that what he is doing matters. Don is searching for his place in life, the place that he belongs and the place that he matters. "If you don't think you matter, go somewhere where you do."

There are times when I sit and watch an episode and feel just as some of Don's clients do: that I am too dumb to understand the genius of every line. I sit there and wonder what Don's pitch on life is going to be today, what nuggets of truth will he bestow on me. Sometimes I feel that he is my best friend, softly sprinkling wisdom, other times that he's my grandfather, pedantically pointing out my foolish lifestyle. I feel the harsh condescending tone of someone who knows more than I do, a world-weary traveler who has traveled everywhere, but his own heart. At times I wonder if Don even knows what he says or is doing, yet, as much of a mess he seems he always pulls through. One way or another he merely escapes some form of death or destruction, but never unscathed.

"You want some respect? Go out there and get it for yourself."

Don Draper is America. He is proactive, smart, quick-witted, and even quicker to anger. I remember watching Don matter-of-factly tell Peggy this and for some reason it just resonated with me. Don is encouraging her to make her own way and make her own name for herself. Don isn't some sort of over-mind authority out there to make you feel better about yourself, he's a self-made man who only cares about himself. In a way, I recognize that and wish I could emanate it. So many moments in life you're approached with choices that are easily tucked away by passing them off to someone else and so many times have I done that. The true meaning of Don's statement is simply don't do that; don't shirk responsibility for ease, carry it with you as a badge of honor. A bad choice is better than no choice at all, a negative respect is better than no respect at all. Whether you're known for your ruthlessness or your excellence, at least you're known - a thought that Don Draper would accept as well. The comment focuses on the fact that no one is here to hold your hand, you must go out and do what you want for yourself, no one ever got anywhere by free-loading on the backs of those more fortunate than themselves; if they ever did it was never something to be proud of.

That's another great take away from Don's character: pride. No matter what follies he makes, he never once deviates from who he believes himself to be or discounts his work. He is, to a fault, completely dedicated and proud of his work. He knows that he is exactly where he should be and that everything is okay. Which leads into the last quotation of his I picked out:

Image from www.amctv.com

"Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is okay. You are okay."

Isn't that what we all strive for? To live free of fear? To get all of the things we want? To know that no matter what we do, we're fine? For that short time I spend in front of the mirror every morning looking into my own eyes, I wonder if I'm doing everything right, if where I am is where I should be. Every time you go to the store and hold that movie, feel the fabric of a new shirt, smell a new perfume, every time you stand in that check out line wondering if the item you're holding is one you want, or one that you need, every time you tell yourself you're okay and you're doing it right. Your paycheck was smaller than the past one, but that candy bar holds a specific happiness, the delicious taste is one thing, but the freedom to purchase it, to say to the world "I am economically able to buy frivolous candy and not feel bad about it" is the feeling I feel. It's my way of saying, I'm okay. And isn't that the point?

Happiness is the smell of a new car. Happiness is that look of envy from those you pass by, and happiness is the pride you feel in knowing you did something for yourself. Every turn of that key, whether it's an Audi or a beat up Ford Pinto, gives you a reassurance that you made a choice, one that is good for you. Happiness is piece of mind and courage to accept your choices and their consequences. Advertising is based upon happiness, about showing people the way they should act to be happy, the things they should buy and the things they should do to reach that piece of mind that is happiness. But it's more than that. It's not just advertising. Life is about happiness.

Life is that constant manipulation of minds for objects. You have a Thing 1, but your friend has the Thing 1.1. Your Thing 1 no longer appeals to you, it's no good, you need a better one. You go out and buy the latest and greatest Thing 2. But why do you do it? Is it envy? Is it fear? Are you afraid you're falling behind, that you're going to be lost in the dust of innovation? Isn't that the point of advertising and objects: to innovate, make better, make cheaper, make more popular? The real hope is to cater to a specific market, the market of people who will not rest until they have the best, the people who pride themselves on their self-worth and know that they "are okay." That's all they want. Some find that solace in writing, some find it in musical composition, some find it in materialism, others find it in a spiritual lifestyle, but no matter what Humanity is destined to find the place that it feels okay, the reassurance that whatever it is you're doing is the right thing for you and the thing you should be doing.

"You are okay."

And world? You are doing okay. You're doing it right. The timeless quote of a fictional 1960s ad man has the same relevance on this day, November 3, 2012, three days before the presidential election, as it did for the fictional 1960s it applies to. As millions of people head to the polls on Tuesday, no matter your choice, know one thing: you're okay. No matter how dire it may seem, that billboard of a smiling woman showcasing product X for your purchase is smiling at you, smiling at your life. Every second you take a breath of that new car smell, whisper to yourself that you're okay. Every moment you lay in your bed at night, wondering if the monster in the closet or your tax man is coming to get you, open your eyes and read these words: "you are okay."

It's not hope I'm telling you, it's a mixture of sadness and sarcasm. Every moment of your life is a chance to thwart the encroaching pessimism that threatens to ruin that very fragile facade of "you are okay." The smallest pebble can shatter that foolish facade of okay. But what can you do about it? Do you adapt your life to fit your means, or do you live the life you wish you could for the happiness of consumerism? Where does happiness end and hoarding begin? And when was happiness ever about getting things?

What I'm saying is, you've been duped world. Don knew it, so should you. Don is in the business of lying, of putting a hood over the consumers' head and telling you what you should have, should do, should want. The happiness he speaks of is the lie we tell ourselves every morning when we wake up: "you are okay." You're not okay. Every person has that nagging thought that something is askew, so what do we do? Bury it. We mound up what we're told will make us happy until the unhappiness is buried beneath layers and layers of false happiness, the happiness we are fed on a daily basis.

The life you should lead shouldn't start with the acquiring of goods, or achieving social rank. A life of experience and relationships is one to be sought. Personal wealth isn't necessary unless you have someone to spend it on, someone you care about, someone who has earned their respect, someone who can start their own conversation. This is the part where I come full-circle, explain to you that the whole purpose of this post is to show the inter-connectivity of philosophical thought in Mad Men. Instead, I'll leave you with one more quote, one more thought that I won't detail, I won't explain, and I will leave you to your thoughts:

"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent."

For those of us who rather read than politic.

The busy street buzzed with activity, even at this late of an hour; not that he could hear it anyways because of the pounding noise blasting from his headphones. In a kaleidoscope of light the street lights before him fluttered from green to yellow to red. The cautionary orange hand remained solid, though it was safe to cross. He stepped from the curb onto the pavement, walking briskly across the street.

He hadn't been walking long, but his shoulders ached under the immense weight of books and his computer. His head pounded from the noise, yet he did not turn down his music, it gave him piece of mind: an attempt to overthrow the loneliness. The dull orange street lights lit his path forward; every where he was bathed in the unclean light. It loomed above, oppressing and belittling him. It startled him from time to time, the multiple shadows it threw seemed dangerous, his ashen doppelgängers waiting to overthrow and convert him to a shadow.

Further ahead he reached a small pathway running through the city. The bike path was rarely used, the exhaust of the city long ago claiming the lungs of cyclists and walkers alike. He paused for a moment at its mouth, its black emptiness spread far ahead fading into to the horizon. Shifting his gaze from the dull dashed line to just above the horizon, the ghostly orange light dissolved into the perfection of the government building. Surrounding the building were stark white spotlights, their beams stopped by the immense thunder clouds holding their fire. The spectral beams of light remained vigilant awaiting the moment the clouds would break when they could shoot their blinding light to the heavens.

Photo credit: Dori, Taken in Madison, Wisconsin

Once more he began to walk without purpose, the sight causing him to shake his head and carry on, his head down. He reached for his music device and absent-mindedly switched to a random song, luckily one of his favorites. The beat changed drastically, the slower melody gently caressed his eardrums. He entered into the cold orange light once more.

A few blocks later before he were to turn, he opened his mouth and breathed in a gulp of the chilly night air, the cold tingling down his throat. He wiped his running nose and rubbed his numb ears, hoping to kindle some sort of warmth in them. Then he rolled his neck, the weight of his pack still tugging on his shoulder and neck muscles. With his head inclined, the soothing tension momentarily released, he noticed something he had not seen in months.

In the patch of sky he saw there were no planes, no stars, and no beautiful sky from horizon to horizon. In its place stood an enormous bank of thunder clouds, the same clouds over the government house. Yet, something was different. These clouds were different. Their blackness was not pierced by the orange oppression, by the white destruction. No, they were untouched by the likes of man. They slowly rolled, one edge nearly undecipherable from the others, their blackness was so full and complete; it was pure.

A singular lance of lightning dashed across the sky horizontally. The earth shaking crack of thunder followed rapidly; the wind begin to slowly whip up and twirl loose leaves on the sidewalk. He looked down and realized he had been standing in awe for an unknown amount of time; he could not recollect how many times the light had changed at his crossroads, how many times he had disobeyed the command to walk. He lowered his gaze to his shoes as if urging them to move when he saw the struggling flap of a maple leaf, red and withered, attempting to join the fray of fluttering leaves. His shoe was resting on its stem, restricting its movements. He felt a sympathetic twinge for the leaf and lifted his foot, the leaf immediately launching into the sky with a renewed vitality he had never known.

All at once a jagged line of lightning shot across the sky, a tremendous boom rattled windows, and the welled up waters of a dry summer let loose in a torrent of rain, drenching him almost immediately. He methodically stopped his music, removed his headphones from his ears, put up his hood to cover his head and stood for a moment longer. He looked to his left, his destination merely blocks away, then he looked forward. His feet moved of their own volition. They carried out the will of the boy, whether he knew it or not. He walked towards the looming thunderhead, he walked to the chaos of pure darkness, he walked away from the oppressive orange: he walked forward.