The Dichotomous Nature of Air pt.2

As this was never meant to be a serious blog (mostly because I doubt my ability to remain focused and severe) and using the previous post as an example of how skew my 'serious' thoughts are, I've determined to retreat to my original endeavour. So air shall be shown in all lights (or darks as it were), and I will refrain from the temptation of masking opinion with philosophical babble. Putting on airs is not for me, I find.

I will take this time though to discuss air a bit more...this post is technically supposed to be the second and final part to my explanation of air's dichotomy.

We find in all things an opposite. A monkey here, a not-monkey there (here a monkey there a monkey everywhere a monkey). And maybe that's the thing. If one can exist, so must the other and we must live with both. Air and not-Air. The confusing thing, the frustrating thing, is that one object or person may embody both opposites. Air is the hero, but Air is the villain. The most important thing I think, and I believe it makes up for inconsistency, is that by being both, Air sets itself up as the perfect scapegoat, because unlike most people or animals or plants it cannot defend itself. Basically, I can make all the Yo Mama jokes I want and Air won't be able to do a thing about it. Except possibly cause a mini-tornado or a real tornado or...mmh, maybe I'll refrain from the jokes for now.