The Search for Chiron

Water

2006-08-26T15:22:00.000-04:00

As a child I thought about what it would be like to live as a water molecule: to openly share myself, my electrons, with other water molecules, like-minded or not. We’d dance an unceasing tango, ever sharing ourselves in the flow of our motion. Our neighbors, our partners, would continually massage and vibrate along us, and sometimes we’d shift states entirely and experience life stuck close and personal as solids or we might chaotically gyrate as gases throughout the air. Through these processes we’d traverse the planet, if not the universe. Hydrogen, from what scientists tell me, does populate so-called empty space.

In creating this thought, I suppose I hungered for a so-called natural law to dictate my social relations. With such a rule I could rest assured that I would meet many people and experience a depth of commingled life with them. We each follow from the same general elements: H20 fused together, order derived from chaos as the dance of shared bonds and intermixing of transient Hydrogen atoms play out.

It struck me early on that every person is connected and that each person deserves respect and attention. That we each exist and together we invoke our world, as do the elements our scientists discover, partially so they can then place symbols on charts to help us understand. Quality judgments need not arise when one considers discrete elements. Each exists as it does, intermingles with others as they do, and together they supposedly form our world.

At some point these combinations grow in complexity and eventually some become aware of the self, which can create the view that each individual entity, composed of myriad elements, is a center. These entities might easily perceive the world as spiraling forth in meaning and scope from some inner core, each separate from another. With time these entities might see each other as the same or similar. With time they might do the opposite. At some point in time I became one of these latter entities.

I believe as a child I realized how potentially isolated we all are from each other and feared having to live in a world derived from this perspective. I took in a multitude of lessons drafted by society that defined who I was and who I should be. I believed these two items, who I was and who I should be, were the same. Who I was is who I should be, seeing that it is who I was. I did not see the mold, a culture, placed around me that I could grow into. Even beyond that, there was little hope that I could see the laboratory that housed the mold. In this Petri dish of sorts I developed my thoughts.

I recall the day my friend became my black friend due to outside influence. I am aware of when I learned money proves your worth. A spot on the television told me how much of an individual I was and how unique I was. I found it hard to accept this supposed truth seeing how a voice backed by images told me, as it told others, how unique I was. I saw a seed of the first value judgment in this idea. The more aware of how unique I was meant I would also realize how different others were. I found this truth isolating, especially as this was when I truly began to conform to society.

Perhaps I designed the water molecule fantasy to reinterpret society; to protect myself from what I sensed was wrong about it. In the fantasy I saw us as all basically the same, equivalents. We freely intermingled. We shared each other. We could do nearly anything. We could go nearly anywhere. We spent most of the time with the molecules closest to us, but these molecules shifted with time. We shared ourselves freely, seeing that we all recognized our similarities. We did not solely interact with water, playing and mingling with substances of all types. In some sense we competed with each other and with the other substances, but this competition did not embody our life, it simply manifested as another aspect of it. The most noticeable aspect remained that we transmuted, we shared, we connected, and that everything could become anything and in this we found no need to battle. Perhaps us water molecules practiced the Tao in a limited sense.

Fantasies like the water molecule idea aren’t enough to transform the world. With age I learned a new version of the water metaphor, one that escaped the land of fantasy and actually transformed my body. I discovered a method. Seeing that my body is a shell composed of water, over fifty percent, sometimes much more, I can imbibe alcohol and replace the water in my cells and spur on temporary growth seeing that C2H6O occupies much more space than H20: a mass of ~46.07 g/mol versus ~18.02 g/mol. I consume alcohol and lose touch with the boundaries that I once understood. I stand taller and rack my head against the entranceway. Instead of gently touching people I thrust my palm out and shove. While in this state, the more something matters to me the less rational thought dictates my actions, as my body grows my brain remains constant in size, eventually becoming pea-sized in proportion to my increasing mass. Once this mass gets going, inertia dictates the so-called natural laws.

I can find benefits in this method, but with time I realized that, for me, the prior water molecule fantasy holds. For the growth induced by alcohol to aid me I must first find a network close in trust, comfort, and similarity to that of the water molecule world. And whenever I find the closest instance of that epitome the benefits gained, when I replace my water with alcohol, recede. It scares me to dismiss Dionysus, the Greek god of freedom. With his fermented grapes we allow him inside of us and we escape the shackles that typically bind us. With alcohol comes freedom.

Dionysus arrived late to the pantheon and as a result not everyone embraced him. Those who dismissed him sometimes suffered immensely. One example from myth involves Pentheus who did not recognize Dionysus as a new god and as a result, through a series of maneuvers, Dionysus beheaded Pentheus. I agree with the lesson gained by this myth, although my take on it might be different then its author’s intent. The concept of freedom is derived by thought. It arrived later then many other “natural laws”. The people who express concepts of freedom often disallow true freedom. We were probably free before we knew of freedom. In order to understand freedom we drink in excess and feel like gods, as per Dionysus.

For me, the water molecule metaphor invokes freedom. It shows a society where individual atoms matter, where they form existence, not the structures they might embody. Eventually all these structures shift, but the essence of the water molecules remains. Certain experiences, conversations, and drugs like alcohol enable me to sometimes jar myself loose from various frames of mind and to consider new comprehensions. They help me realize what I am not when I so want to be something I believe I want myself to be. In this sense they promote freedom. In my experience such freedom is ephemeral and I must really try in order to enact lasting change while this temporary window of opportunity remains open.

I believe there is a better way to accomplish this. The way involves confidence and playfulness and a willingness to accept what is and to cherish what is not.

Vegan Power... Where are you?

2006-08-24T21:18:00.000-04:00

I need to visit some vegan restaurants. I started at a nice pace by hitting Veganopolis when I first arrived but my effort level promptly dwindled to zilch. Dwindle probably produces the wrong connotation seeing that Veganopolis was the only vegan place I visited.

At this point I’m severely lacking vegan connections and it’s never quite the same going to vegetarian restaurants with omnivores. There’s almost always a sense that they’d rather go elsewhere or that they believe that a missing ingredient, meat, eludes every meal. There’s a demarked line separating the vegetarian from the omnivore fare, and a quality judgment often separates the two for each side, thus producing the inevitable “this is good for not having meat” or “I could barely tell there was no meat” comment. And then even those that I love most dearly will say something like, “don’t worry I had a large beef burger for lunch,” as if they’re worried about a deficiency of some sort. While I know the words come as a joke, I still find that such comments can turn the meal into something other than what it is, namely two or more friends gathering to converse and dine.

There’s also a missing joy in cooking or baking for omnivores. The same problems that occur with dining manifest when I cook. It can feel pointless to cook a vegan meal for a meat eater, seeing that the meat eater probably would rather consume meat: hence the title of meat eater. Furthermore, the food alone won’t convert anyone and I’ve found that discussing my food-related beliefs only influences those already on the edge and that it doesn’t tend to push them into my circle of thought. In the end it’s a personal decision that comes best and probably lasts longest when the omnivore approaches the vegetarian to request information or advice.
I want to find some vegan comrades or some people who understand the stance but have yet to commit to it. I hope to dine with these people at vegetarian restaurants once I find them. Maybe once I join the animal rights related organizations and meet the various members I will achieve this goal. And from there we’ll raid laboratories, throw paint of fur wearers, and snip the balls off of male pets. Gosh, I can’t wait.

Postscript: I know some people who are “lazy vegans”. These people’s non-vegan-ness comes from the system's failure, not their failure to understand the issues. They are too apathetic to make any real changes, but would go along with veganism if vegans manage to transform society. If there were easier vegan options then these people would eat as vegans. Whereas many omnivores don't care if there are easy vegan options and probably don't want any if there were. Basically what I’m saying is that I often find these “lazy vegans” to be people I enjoy vegan dining experiences with more so than with omnivores. And don’t get me wrong, dining on food devoid of animal byproducts is great whether with carnivores or herbivores.

The Idiot

2006-08-15T04:06:00.000-04:00

I’ve been reading The Idiot by Dostoevsky. One topic that arises concerns everyday people, especially those who possess some intelligence but are unable to produce original thoughts. This appears to be a great fear of Dostoevsky’s and it’s also one of mine. Obviously Dostoevsky didn't suffer from this malady...

I believe that I possess a decent amount of intelligence but maybe not enough to do anything worthwhile with it, and – more importantly -- I lack the drive to try. The characters in the novel that fall prey to this situation are inglorious characters. They mostly exhibit negative traits and become the pawns of those who can effect meaningful change. If they try to respond to the world around them, the world that they can barely effect, then it’s often in shameful and near meaningless ways.

So often in my life I recite the words and thoughts of others. I take them in like a sponge but I do not know if I synthesize them in new and useful ways. Even this idea I now write harks back to the concerns of others. I feel like in my youth I came up with some sound ideas but even those lack originality when compared with the body of work presented by those that came before me. Perhaps I came up with these thoughts on my own, but I did not take them to a new level previously undiscovered (or at least unshared).

Earlier today I wondered if most of us grow up in a culture of mediocrity. In school I learned only so much. I rarely felt like teachers pushed me to think in new directions or to explore disparate vantage points. I grew up as a typical white kid, unaware of much of the outside world and completely sucked into the consumer culture that our country heavily endorses. I did not know much about other cultures, nor did I dig down into topics that I thought I understood. I reached out only as far as required and after finding easy success reached no farther. And no one really prodded me to do anymore. Some people feel compelled to take on new situations and absorb unique realms of knowledge, but I did not. I fell into a role and I kept the role. Over time I morphed into new roles, but I never stepped outside the roles enough to realize how similar each was or to wonder what other options might exist. I believe that most of the time public education fails to help people like me who perform well but don't go father: people who could achieve beyond the general level of expectation.

I don’t believe it’s too late to move forward, but I do fear that I am incapable of doing so. What if all of my efforts are for naught and I am one of the doomed who is smart enough to desire to effect change, but not quite together enough to actually effect change.

Portland.

2006-08-12T19:05:00.000-04:00

I moved out to Portland a little over a week ago. I’ve basically unearthed most of the necessary nearby locations. This means I know where I can walk my dog, buy groceries, jog, purchase locally farmed produce, acquire ingredients for home-brewed beers, and access roads to take me into and out of the city. I met a few people the other night and can see myself spending time with most of them, and I took time the other day to visit a popular hiking location that offers multiple views of two major waterfalls and many smaller falls upstream from the major attractions. I really like what I’ve seen of the city, both it’s outlying area and the downtown portions, although I only touched the surface of either part. My first night here I ate at a Turkish restaurant in the Hawthorne district, a trendy (think punk rockers meeting indie-style hippies) part of the city. I then, because I didn’t yet have a key to get inside, camped in a tent on the side yard of the house I now live in. Fortunately the police never “knocked” on my tent’s flap.

Earlier today I went to a picnic sponsored by the law school but I didn’t see anyone I have previously met and it seemed like most people were already settled into groups, or had a significant other that allowed them to feel comfortable, and seeing that I didn’t manage to successfully do either and because the event sponsors planned to start various events, like a three-legged race, I decided to leave not too long after I arrived. Such a defeat always burrows into my heart and excavates much of the insides similar to how we often rip into a pumpkin around late-October. And like the metaphorical jack-o-lantern, one can peer into me from bits cut out of the exterior and see the dwindling candle that represents my contentment and confidence. I just don’t handle large events well.

Give me a scene with a few people and I probably will do fine, but once the numbers increase I find it difficult to interact and often end up in a hyper-aware state, perhaps a mini panic attack where I find myself zoning in various details, but not letting my thoughts linger long enough on any detail to rationalize much before erratically switching to another set of details. All the while I feel lost in my brain, aware of everything that concerns me, except the wherewithal to introduce myself, relax, and communicate with others, let alone successfully take in external stimuli.

I’ll feel better in a bit, especially after I take a jog and clear my head out.

After I abandoned the picnic, I walked around the undergraduate campus and then went home, checked the homebrew that I started up last night, and proceeded to read The Idiot for about an hour. There are approximately 150 pages left to read and I hope to finish reading the novel by Monday or Tuesday night and then I can either start some nonfiction that somehow deals with law or involves a related subject. After the jog, I’ll cook some fajitas. It’s a hard life, as the cliché goes.

even vanilla ice could do it

2006-07-22T10:45:00.000-04:00

We’re all storytellers. Well, perhaps not the mentally deficient or unbalanced, but the great mass of humanity brims with voices who turn ideas and events into entertaining narratives. We each react to our interpretations, whether we laugh, cringe, or smile in response. We story tell, if only to ourselves, in order to satisfactorily internalize an external stimulus kernel. Some, due to natural talent or practice, can take the process farther and produce better results. And even these people sometimes fall into the common situation where it is easier to tell stories to certain types of listeners over other types. Part of storytelling comes from knowing where the listening party comes from and how this party view the world, with congruent mindsets come cohesive narratives. For it is not effective when one must expend more effort to frame the tale than to tell it. Analogous to the student who attempts to write an essay while attempting to understand the underlying concept, the attempt to understand overshadows the ability to relate. Perhaps those most prone to listen, especially those of similar mindset, also do their part to produce stellar renditions. Which is why we all mostly succeed in self-entertainment, for who is more receptive and more similar to the teller than teller him or herself? When alone I fluently express involved stories with complexity, but when around others I often rush to the end for a dizzying range of reasons: insecurity that the other cares not for my tale, a guilt that my tale takes up too much time, the active mind ponders the other person’s stance and reactions more than that of the actual story, disinterest in the receptive party, ennui with the performance of the said anecdote, and other variations of these story-quashing perturbations.

Quick Lunch

2006-07-13T13:55:00.000-04:00

I made a barbecue seitan sandwich with some onion mixed in, and cooked up some frozen veggies to accompany the protein powerhouse.

Yum

2006-07-12T09:29:00.000-04:00

Two nights ago I cooked a peanut sauce stir-fry meal, using rice milk instead of coconut milk. The sauce permeated the broccoli, carrots, tofu, crushed peanuts, almonds, and red pepper that I lightly sautéed in olive oil. I’m glad I remembered to photograph the meal. It seems that I think to visually capture about one out of every five time-consumptive meals. I’m glad I remembered to document this one.

good people

2006-07-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

The other day while driving, Jenny and I saw a man ahead of us, in the road, stooped down and retrieving money that he had lost. At first I did not know what he was doing. I imagined him to be mad and felt angry for a moment. Not because I wondered why this man was crouched in the middle of the lane, but rather that I felt scared because I did not want to hit him and at the same time I feared that if I slammed on my brakes then someone would hit me from behind and that if I veered to the left then I’d ram into someone trying to pass. Fortunately we drifted by the person without problem. And that is when I first realized what he was collecting, and when I first saw his motorcycle parked to the side of the road.

I planned to continue on, leaving the moment affixed in my memory like a cherished block of amber containing a mosquito of centuries past, but Jenny declared we needed to stop and help the man. I thought her insane. I believed it would only cause more problems, more people in the road, more vehicles haphazardly pulled along the roadside, and I thought the man capable of regaining his own currency. I tried to drive on, but Jenny protested, asking how could I not help a man in need, as if to not aid a fellow creature was a damnable sin. Her comments reminded me of the time she asked me to drive a woman and her two children around Burke Lake Park because they looked so tired, hungry, and lost. I knew she was right in this instance, like she was at the park, so I found a section of road with a generous portion of curb and parked my car there.

We then hopped out and walked along the roadside, back to the man. On my way back I discovered three twenties and three singles. Jenny unearthed a check for thirty odd dollars. Other people similarly abandoned their driving to help. Ahead of me two citizens handed the man some bills, a lady followed behind me and did the same.

Despite being distracted the unfortunate motorcyclist thanked us all and continued his search. Not seeing any more loose bills I decided to head back to the car. I wonder how much he lost. I wonder how much he didn’t because of people like Jenny. I wonder why it doesn’t strike me to be someone like her during times like this one.

I am glad that good people can inspire others to do good acts.

Pork, the other cruelty

2006-06-29T22:07:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I listened to an NPR show called World of Possibilities. The current episode is called Savoring Swine: The Economics and Politics of Pork. Without much thought you can guess what it's about. Michael Pollan and Temple Grandin, among others, are interviewed throughout the 55 minute program.

I don't believe veganism or vegetarianism comes up during the program. This doesn't surprise me, mainly because I don't think either of those diets fit into the topic, which is sustainable pig farming. Regardless, I found the show interesting and want to share it.

Here's the site:
http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=259

Here's a breakdown of the segments:
http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/action/info174.html

They also have a podcast you can easily access through itunes.

Karma, or how I win at poker

2006-06-29T21:51:00.000-04:00

This is probably crazy talk, but I believe in Karma, or at least a personalized, limited form of it. Believe is probably too strong a word. I don’t possess or plan to possess a formalized concept of Karma, nor do I really buy into the idea. At the same time I occasionally think about Karma, such thoughts creeps into my thoughts the way I might bypass my atheist perspective and feign speaking to God while lying in a hospital bed waiting for the results of a possibly life-altering test. Although I think of Karma during moments of low impact, like after a lucky poker hand. I leave the God talk for irrational moments, like when worry plagues my mind.

I do not mean to suggest that Karma flows through the universe. I don’t propose that it’s a force. Nor do I think we generate, cultivate, or use it. Instead I conceptualize it as a benefit of living what I consider to be a good way of living. This good way suits my mentality, and I do not believe others should or could ape my ways. For me, I try to remain open minded and to constantly learn to view events from multiple perspectives. I want to notice as much as I can. This could mean many things, whether I hold doors open for others, remain civil with those I dislike, or something even less pertinent like not bashing a media outlet because I recognize that people who lean left often believe the media leans right, while those who lean right often feel the media leans more to the left. Obviously in the media’s case there exists something beyond a simple, easily explained bias.

I believe we need to behave in sustainable, respectful ways. I don’t eat meat. I stopped living off of animal by-products as much as I can. I do my best not to lie or cheat. I want to help people. I prefer socialism to pure capitalism. Things like this matter to me, but at the same time I explore these beliefs and try to revise them. Perhaps I’ll change my mind and switch a viewpoint. I want to remain open to such possibilities, as to the likelihood that I will not alter my opinion on some issues.

If I’m satisfied with how I live my life then I will probably make better decisions. Guilt, unease, and misunderstood anger helped prompt many of my past mistakes. When I live well then good things will come. Perhaps I open the door to these positive events, maybe some unknown energy brings them about, but regardless I believe they happen, and I’m glad that they do.

Beyond Words

2006-06-29T21:33:00.000-04:00

People often resort to the conceptual cliché that a situation is beyond words when they cannot express it. This commonly manifests with the “my love for you is beyond words” banality. I always used to think this alluded to some near-heavenly ideal, like the experience equaled that of entering heaven or some other over-the-top event that transcends the typical moment. Now I think otherwise.

When I really feel passion for a person, activity, or idea it isn’t that I commune with something above our ability to use words, but rather something below. Such moments strike a primal aspect of existence, a part of us that exists without language, namely our so-called animal nature. We use language to build upon our ability to navigate reality. Speech and writing enable us to invent technology, share information, and reach potential we could not reach without out ability to share complex thoughts. At the same time words are what we use to interpret reality as perceived through our bodies. With time and effort we learn to better express how we believe our biological systems function, whether our attempts apply to emotions, thoughts, physical parts, or how the three intertwine.

When words fail us it is sometimes because we do not know how to use them to express a biological stimulus or response, similar to how we often find it difficult to describe the color blue, the taste of a mushroom (and then to further describe the tastes of the labels we unearth for the mushroom), an abnormal fright of frogs, the way we glow when Laura or Vince notices us as we pass and shows a smile that beckons more than it greets, and other internal responses to things that please, intimidate, or worry us. During such moments we do not commune with God, but rather the part of ourselves that we often forget, the part of us that exists without language, the part that most animals primarily dwell in. When we feel love we feel how an animal feels love, whether the animal is a pig, cow, dog, or mouse, and similarly when we fear for our lives, this same non-verbal terror afflicts animals.

For this alone I could refuse to consume flesh.

every capitalist says the same thing

2006-06-27T01:36:00.000-04:00

Tonight someone said that Socialism makes everyone the same. I’ve heard this before, and I’ve never fully understood it. It seems like a simple way to apply Socialist ideas. In fact, I believe one could blow up any school of thought and make it appear highly undesirable, perhaps in the same ways. If reduced to one narrow perspective then capitalism suffers a similar fate, everyone becomes wealth-collecting units primarily concerned with the all-mighty dollar, each seeking commodities out by repeating previously validated methods, while occasionally discovering a new twist to garner a slight advantage over other wealth-collecting entities. Socialism need not become Rand’s Anthem where individuals become the “we”.

As we, not in quotes, look across America I think we can see capitalism has done just fine making us similar: the ubiquitous flag, the recent desire for a legalized national language, animosity toward immigrants, wars to spread beliefs and systems into other cultures, Wal-Mart homogenizing commerce, McDonald’s homogenizing food, billions of animals packed into cages, the music people massively listen to, the poker game Americans play in response to the media, and the examples continue.

Socialism, like Capitalism, works to provide a solid education, decent jobs, shared health expenses, and the pursuit of happiness. The model doesn’t leave these crucial aspects of society up to some Deist invisible hand that often also proves ethereal. It encourages intelligence, thought, and perspective. The same qualities Capitalism purports to promote. Both foster an environment of thought. I argue Socialism better ensures the public will be capable of thinking.

I don’t see what’s so unique about the actual person who lambasted Socialism for its supposed cookie-cutter quality, nor do I see what’s so monotonous about a Socialist. I find the entire argument fallacious. It doesn’t address the question of whether the model can work, and whether it can work better or worse than another societal system.

green light go

2006-06-24T23:57:00.000-04:00

"I got that green light, babe, I got to keep moving on." I see Oregon stretched out before me. It's a state of contrasts, but throughout the varying shades I see green: the green fecundity of possibility, the green intensity that follows rain, the green light that beckons traveling souls forward. Maybe it's foolish to travel on when so much is good at home. I feel the itch. I feel a compulsion. I see opportunity. I see greenery. I got to move. I need to learn. The light is green, if I pause, if I hesitate, then it might turn red, and once it goes red there's not necessarily the possibility that it will cycle again. Life is not a song, nor is it a traffic light. What is one day green conceivably turns brown; no guarantees exist in this life, and so now that I see the green, I see myself moving on. For better or for worse, and I hope that those I love and those that love me can see this, and in my wake, in my disappearance they don't see a vacant spot reminiscent of self-immolation, but rather a new blade of grass or a seedling of a flower or tree taking root, and while I head to my new spot of land, whatever happens, what I cultivated at home continues to grow. So it goes, and with the new light of opportunity I must go.

found a new grandfather

2006-06-22T22:51:00.000-04:00

Yes, I now claim three grandfathers. I'm related to two by blood, and one by spirit. This is the grandfather that our society loves to cherish, and thus I adopt him without him being able to know of me, or refuse my meaningless claim.

I'm reading Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. I'm digging it. I don't know too much about Aldo. I guess some consider him a, if not the, "father" of the conservationist movement.

Here's something that snagged my mind for a few moments. I found the entire section July section
mesmerizing, but this paragraph sort of embodied what is unique about Aldo. It also strikes what I wish was not unique about him. If only more people thought about the land and its inhabitants in ways closer to what follows than how we usually do. I wish so-called progress meant we cared , as a society, about things outside of capital, technology, and power.

Prairie Birthday

During every week from April to September there are, on the average, ten wild plants coming into first bloom. In June as many as a dozen species may burst their buds on a single day. No man can heed all of these anniveraries; no man can ignore all of them. He who steps unseeing on May dandelions may be hault up short by August ragweed pollen; he who ignores the ruddy haze of April elms may skid his car on the fallen corollas of June catalpas. Tell me of what plant-birthday a man takes notice, and I shall tell you a good deal about his vocation, his hobbies, his hay ffever, and the general level of his ecological education.

Aldo also discusses the Silphium wild flower. He shares it strengths, its beauty, and its value -- something unnoticed by people who hunger to develop the land for roads, cattle, or farms. It can survive so many atrocities with its thick roots and tenancious ways, but there is little hope for the flower once humans come into the scene with their ability to exterminate, like a distorted Hercules ridding the Augean Stables of life, instead of filth.

so open-minded that their brains fell out

2006-06-14T19:31:00.000-04:00

I realize there are many flaws in this: Last night a friend expressed strong bewilderment why anyone would sponsor a liberal talk radio show. He asked why do they even try to do that anymore? I couldn't agree more. Think about it, listeners commonly tune into shows that
express strong opinions that harp on easily graspable issues, especially ones that lend to faith or sentiment over elaborated logic. Humor plays easily into the radio format, something so-called "shock jocks" often use. People like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly take issues like religion, terrorism, and morality and play into the white, Christian viewpoint. Going into these latter programs the listeners knows what to expect and is properly treated. With the "shock jocks" we wish to see how far the speaker will go, and to be surprised by his actions all the while.

If liberal radio tries to remain serious, like Rush and Bill, then it fails due to two primary reasons. If it's strong-minded (i.e. closed-minded) then it doesn't garner much interest seeing that liberal voices appear scattered over a wider spectrum than the typical conservative mind. Radical liberals can't reach as many touchstones with as many people as a radical conservative can. On the other hand, if a liberal talk show wants to remain balanced then it becomes a more
complex and consequentially most listeners won't listen and if they do they won't stick around. From what I can tell liberals love to explore possibilities, to such a level that they – to me -- appear more willing to undercut their arguments in the search for a better angle.

NPR often feels liberal slanted, but it brings in many conservative voices, and offers shows geared to the right. This is a symptom of the liberal mindset, namely open-minded circumspect reflection. For most truly liberal radio, I don't feel the average listener who tunes in for a short duration during a drive to work, home, or somewhere else within a short distance can feel involved or interested enough (they are driving, mind you) to stay focused enough to care.

Liberal radio doesn't often offer the quick, satisfying sound bites that conservative radio does, and thus, along with the previously mentioned points, it rarely performs well in the radio market.

Bush drivers

2006-06-14T19:30:00.000-04:00

While driving I avoid vehicles decorated with Bush stickers. I never know if the drivers will preemptively run me off the road. Or even worse, crash into me, in order to prevent me from crashing into them.

From what I'm seen, the Bush-sponsored preemptive strike often results in irreparable damage to all parties involved. Plus, what if the fervent Republican decides to employ the nuclear option?

see Gore's film

2006-06-11T22:31:00.001-04:00

I read an entry on a Myspace blog where the author mocks An Inconvenient Truth because it made less than Gigli in the first week. First of all, many more theaters played Gigli. Also, one film is a documentary whereas the other is a supposed blockbuster. In general documentaries don’t net much profit. Another thing to consider is how much Al Gore’s documentary took in when compared to how many theaters showed it. It actually did rather well per screen, better than nearly all the other movies currently showing. Lastly, it worries me that the people in our nation might be vacant enough to see Gigli over a movie like An Inconvenient Truth. The latter offers insight to a hot topic that, if true, (I put “if true” in for people that refuse to accept reality for a few moments) mandates our attention. Problems arrive on many fronts and a large portion of the American population refuse to recognize this threat. Even if it is bogus, which it is not, people should learn about it, especially considering how many scientists, those in peer-reviewed journals (you know, the ones not paid by Exxon), across the world consistently ask us to listen to their warnings. Our country was built on discourse. It is what makes a democracy strong. An Inconvenient Truth makes the topic accessible by presenting many simple fundamental aspects of the global warming phenomenon.

People who wish to dismiss global warming often look for one facet that begs doubt and then they will magnify this small piece so that the larger picture not only diminishes, but vanishes. Why do people, usually intelligent and curious, block out rational thought when it involves certain topics? I fear that sometimes issues like global warming become dichotomized between the political parties, and then people fear to change one’s opinion on this subject because it could transfer to other aspects. It’s like pride gets involved. If global warming happens as predicted because we do not alter our relationship with the planet then civilization as we know it will fundamentally shift. Why not take time to ponder the possibility? Why must so many citizens of the planet shrug away the evidence without a thought?

I saw a blog that is irritated that the media does not coverage some new study that shows that this will be a light hurricane year. I hope so much that we pass through this season without many hurricanes and that none reach a high level of intensity. After I read this blog I searched for an article that mentions this study. I could not find any. I did discover notable hurricane watch groups that still declare their previous findings that suggest this year will be similar to last year. I wonder who funded the study that says otherwise, and why this blogger would believe this article that mentions one study over the multifarious ones that say otherwise.

Similarly, what irritates me about some negative reviews of Al Gore’s movie is that they dismiss his claims with certain evidence, evidence those other writers’ address and then counter. In turn, the negative review writers should defend their claims against the criticism, but only silence abounds. We need dialogue. We need to discuss important subjects. Instead, people see movies like Gigli, and conservative hacks get away with manipulative writing.

we kill without warning

2006-06-11T22:31:00.000-04:00

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg0ZDUwYzVkNTQwOTYxOTkwY2E0NzllYjFhMjg2M2M=

This piece lauds a few publications handling of the Zarqawi murder. At the same time the author critics the wording of other articles’ authors. The writers who solely wrote how great it is that this terrorist scumbag was murdered receive fanfare, while the blog entry harangues anyone that wrote with circumspect language. Questions, concerns, and opinions must arise whenever a nation launches missiles to assassinate a person, especially a leader of a notable movement. I want my media to arouse me, but at the same time I seek intellectual banter and perspective.

Our government supposedly held Zarqawi in custody before he became a major threat. The media vacillates in how they portray him, ranging from inept, diabolical, brutish, cunning, important, and dangerous. In his absence we should not simplify the story.

In Zarqawi’s death, I don’t see justice. I see retribution. I’m glad he is unable to hurt more people, but I believe we partially created the monster known as Zarqawi, and I don’t believe his demise will change the situation in Iraq. And losing ourselves by lauding his death might blind us from

Hey, they're just like us, right?

2006-06-03T22:59:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure if anyone posted about this yet. I took a quick look and did not see anything thus far... So here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5043328.stm

Just a few "gems" from the article:

"Ministers should not rule out the possibility of allowing apes to be used in experiments, the head of the UK's Medical Research Council has said."

"What we have seen in the last few years, against a background of ridiculous extremism, is more willingness to discuss openly when and where some animal research is necessary."

"The public have listened. They don't like the idea. Who does? But they have realised that it is essential."

I live near DC and about six months ago I decided that I should visit the zoo, seeing that it's free (so I was not supporting it) and, in a matter of speaking, it's good to know the "enemy's" methods. The primate area contained notices telling people how to view the apes. Apparently, among other things, you're not supposed to stare or point at them, which everyone does. The ape I saw sat with his or her back to the crowd and he or she looked miserable. It made me sick to watch. I tried to imagine Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5, just remove an ounce of reality from the scene, but doing so only exacerbated my revulsion. What the zoo does with the primates (and other denizens of this planet) is atrocious. It's sick. It's sad. And it's wrong.

And now more people want to expand their sick influence and openly test on apes. I really hope rational humans can encourage the United Kingdom to maintain its integrity and reject these insane and vile calls to expand the circle of animal cruelty.

What's next? Some madman decides to legislate "A Modest Proposal"?

the cookie in me

2006-06-03T17:16:00.000-04:00

I used a chocolate chip cookie recipe from Dreena's website. They taste so good. I added more oil than she suggests, and I probably went a little canola overboard... But sometimes that's how I roll.

Here they are:

I can't believe

2006-06-02T19:51:00.000-04:00

I can't believe that I Can't Believe it's not Butter contains butter. That's the shocker. If it didn't contain milk then I'd but happy with the product. I guess they really want to make sure all consumers have something they can't believe when deciding not to purchase their product. And that's something I can believe.

Don Delillo, whiskey, and a blinking midnight clock

2006-06-02T00:03:00.000-04:00

Many months back I wrote down a phrase that I liked, conveniently I also "invented" it. It goes something like this: "Most peoples' lives are no more than a series of clichés." I can't recall the exact words and I'm too lazy to look for the email where I saved them... So I'm in bed reading and I stumble across this paragraph from Don Delillo's book End Zone.

"Most lives are guided by clichés. They have a soothing effect on the mind and they express the kind of widely accepted sentiment that, when peeled back, is seen to be a denial of silence. Their menace is hidden with the darker crimes of thought and language. In the face of death, this menace vanishes altogether. Death is the best soil for cliché. The trite saying is never more comforting, more restful, as in times of mourning. Flowers are set about the room; we stand very close to walls, uttering the lush banalities."

Nothing exactly new about that paragraph, but damn he beat me to my banal thought about a banal topic. What a banal bummer.

Toothless by 50

2006-06-02T00:02:00.000-04:00

My mouth hurts! That man scrapped and scrapped so much that my gums look like a minor war zone. Bad news. Apparently I have either have severe gum erosion surrounding my front teeth, or my front teeth simply have shallow roots. Either way, I could loose my front teeth, which would not be a good thing. The man showed me my x-rays and my front incisors have more bone outside the gum than inside it, which is obviously not normal when compared with all my other teeth. The man told me to avoid using my front teeth when I eat and to floss and brush regularly. When he says brush he means I should pull my lips back so I can get my narrow toothbrush as high/low as I can get it. I also had a small cavity in one back tooth, and a front incisor might have one, he'll check when I come back to fill the known cavity. They also took a lot of x-rays; it was a little disconcerting how many they took. I might die of radiation poisoning in a day or two. I swear that one of the times the dental assistant aimed the thing at my brain. The dentist also wants to file down the incisors a little to help prevent them from clashing into each other, an action that further compounds the problem. I'm a little wary of this act, but might allow him to do it. I need to research it some. I just can't believe how much my gums burn. I'm afraid to drink water because it might hurt, which would be bad considering how badly they already hurt. More hurt added to hurt does not seem like a nice time.

incongruous name

2006-05-31T23:02:00.000-04:00

When I came home from work I heard and then saw the Good Humor truck. I don't know if it's just me, but I don't see anything good or humorous about hawking unhealthy milk goods to children. Don't get me wrong, I love my occasional unhealthy treat, but I think the entire premise is a little corrupt. A company sends a van filled with ice cream out to travel the streets, all while playing kids' songs to help lure them in. Once a kid hears the siren's call they will bother the parent for ice cream. The parent can relent and encourage their kid to buy and devour treats from street vendors, or the parent can play the role of a "jerk" and tell the child no as he or she watches other children, whose parents gave in, buy treats. And then there's the entire animal cruelty part of the ice cream making process... But, that's another story. One that definitely does not involve goodness or humor.

Fine... I just wish they had a good soy truck. I'll admit it.

Me? Vegan?

2006-05-28T23:45:00.000-04:00

I decided that I don't like the term Vegan. I might change my stance, but for now it's what I decided. I'm already a member of so many groups: white, male, American, alive, non-smoker, not a felon, employed, god-damn-sexy, etc. I suppose the number of groups that I belong to is infinite seeing that one could include everything I am along with everything I am not, both, if plotted, mutually represent a never-ending parabola, perhaps.

I feel like if I say I'm vegan than I have to please everyone else that considers him or herself vegan. If I do something that is not vegan then suddenly I too am not vegan, and I’m apparently hurting the “vegan cause”. I don't want to be vegan. I just don't want to eat animals or their products. I want animals to live their lives without the torture and slaughter our society imposes on them. It's that simple. If that means I'm vegan, then go ahead and classify me as such, but don’t be surprised if I don’t use that word to describe myself. I'd rather people know me as attempting to live a vegan lifestyle, or, even better, people can simply know that I do not morally support the unnecessary torture, mutilation, and murder of animals.

I do not see eating flesh as inherently wrong. I do see turning animals into factory commodities wrong. Using animals the way we do is simply bad in the way that slavery is bad. I don't have problems with animals eating other animals. And if a bear tries to eat me, and succeeds then more power to the bear, but don't get me wrong, I'll kill the bear if I could. It seems like a waste to defend myself and then leave it to rot if I win, but I'm not suggesting that I'd probably eat it afterwards, but maybe I would. I don't know. I doubt I would. But, if something else wanted to, then go for it.

I suppose what grosses me out most about cannibalism, outside of the cultural taboo forced upon me, is the act of killing and preparing the person. I don't know, maybe we should eat our dead. Let's just not murder anyone willingly, ok?

Many humans can follow an herbivore diet without problem. I believe such people should.

Yummy

2006-05-28T23:08:00.000-04:00

I cooked the curried tempeh-mango salad sammiches recipe from Vegan with a Vengeance. Let me say, Yummy. I didn't add scallions, and I used spinach instead of lettuce. I didn't have hot sauce so I sprinkled cayenne pepper into the dressing instead. I'd make this recipe again. It was incredibly easy to make. I think I spent about five minutes in the kitchen, and the recipe did not require me to buy too many ingredients.

I took this photo right after I mixed the tempeh and mango into the dressing:

This is the finished product:

Faux Meat

2006-05-26T16:31:00.000-04:00

I know some people discuss the negative impacts of faux meat, but, outside of recognizing it, I never thought about it until the other day. Yes, if vegetarians devour faux meat and compare it to “the real thing” then it can imply that vegetarian fare is lesser than an omnivores’ diet and that vegetarians hunger for the foods that omnivores eat.

Obviously this is not the case for most of us. I don’t wander around with melancholy spirits wishing that I could chew on some medium-rare cow flesh. Yes, I once enjoyed the taste, as I still enjoy the flavor of so many other options. To me, giving up meat wasn’t a big deal. I did not diminish my quality of living; instead I shifted to new standards, ones that come without the cost of cruelty while I please my palate just the same.

Providing faux meats also prompts people to compare flesh with faux flesh. And to flesh-eaters the faux meat, at “best”, will receive a stamp of approval that declares it equivalent in taste. I often hear, “it tastes just like meat,” as if this is the highest honor that one can bestow about the imitation product.

On one hand, people create faux meats to recreate tastes. On another hand people do so to help others transition, or to provide alternatives. Cooks gain when they market tofu, wheat gluten, and other foods. They draw in more patrons, not only people like me who hunger for good vegan restaurants, but also those who wouldn’t eat vegetarian without the faux meat aspect and people who are curious about the creative ways people can prepare vegetarian fare.

Fake bacon does not taste like bacon. Fake turkey does not taste like turkey. If we expect it to, then we set the food up for failure, and consequentially we will say these products taste bad. But, on their own merits they might taste fine, and if not then we won’t buy them, just as certain meats do not appeal to meat eaters for various reasons. Although if the product does taste like its supposed meat counterpart then it is not a bad or a good thing, it simply is a characteristic to consider. Sometimes people don’t want the taste of meat, in which case this product will not appeal to this subset.

I believe that faux meats provide great opportunities to show vegetarian meals to omnivores. They also represent a class of meals, fitting right in with Italian, Chinese, Korean, etc, although more versatile in that you can fuse faux meats with these more encompassing classes.

It is important to not set faux meats as meat replacements. Faux meats don’t replace meats. They are food options. What replaces meat is the desire not to eat it. When discussing faux meats one shouldn’t directly compare with meat, nor should one set it off as a meat substitute. I am not a carnivore by proxy, and to act like I am will discredit the movement.

do you really eat that?

2006-05-25T12:55:00.000-04:00

An online Washingtonian review for The Sunflower, a nearby veg*an restaurant, includes this statement, “Most of the menu items at this Japanese/Chinese-fusion spot are vegan, but some of the tofu dishes taste even better than meat versions elsewhere.” The word “but” implies that this is usually not the case and that this opinion will shock people because it is unlikely, perhaps even unbelievable.

Whenever I eat at my parents’ house, my mother prepares two meals, one of which is vegetarian. Apparently the vegetarian meal is either not enough for them in some way. This amuses me, since I’m supposed to be the one that is “harder to feed” and that if they can find something for me then it would follow that it would suit them just fine. In any event, I am always glad for whatever she provides me. I usually offer to bring something, but she normally tells me not to. The other week I went to my parents’ house for dinner. She planned to cook fajitas so I decided to bring along some wheat gluten. Neither parent looked thrilled about the gluten. My father told me, in what he perceives as good humor, that he felt sorry for me at one point. At the same time I looked at a plate of diced chicken flesh and told him, in the same vein of good humor, that I felt the same for him.

I know many people, myself included, that balk at the sight of a vein or blood in prepared chicken flesh. I used to work in a restaurant and was surprised to see how many people want their meat cooked all the way through. If I thought about meat for a little while I could come up with other related phobias. It seems like nearly everyone has some concern when it comes to consuming flesh.

These concerns also involve byproducts. When I drank dairy I was afraid of old milk. Once the date came close to the sell by date I hesitated when near my milk. I did not want to drink it for reasons related to taste and safety. I know people that only drink milk when freshly poured, and do so in one exhaustive gulp. A fear of dairy strikes many people. Some people find soft cheeses foul, others eschew goat cheeses. I’m not keen on drinking milk from any animal save a cow, but outside of the societal norm I can’t explain why.

Various people don’t like aspects of eating meat. But somehow these concerns of theirs don’t get in the way of eating flesh. They can rationalize past the gross aspects, perhaps because from day one we’re told how great it tastes. We even see animals proudly offer themselves, or other animals, to us. Pigs apparently love to advertise pulled pork sandwiches. Cows want us to eat chicken. Chickens want to tell us about their breasts and legs. Personified animals love to inform us about how tasty they are.

(It’s strange that we portray animals with human traits in our ads and then we refuse to say they are like us, or capable of emotions or thought, when we eat them.)

What I’m getting at is that our society acts more disgusted by vegetables than meat, but seems more concerned by the health risks and just as disturbed by the “nastiness” of meat, yet people often seem unaware of this dissonance.

McVegan Me

2006-05-19T13:34:00.000-04:00

Of course I wish humans across the planet would adopt a vegan diet. Not to the point that I'll act like a religious missionary or a certain war-mongering president, but I do imagine a cruelty-free world. I realized that if people did convert and we remain addicted to the capitalist model that some of the current benefits of veganism might erode. When I switched to veganism I did not so much give up foods as learn about more foods that I can ate. This happened when I adopted a vegetarian diet, but even more so with veganism. It's not what I gave up, but what I gained when I opened my eyes to new possibilities. The omnivore diet as presented by our society encourages us to eat the same basic meals over and over again, whether you cook in the home or visit a restaurant that creates variations of those same meals along with some more involved ones. If everyone switched to a vegan diet then new staples might form and then take over the current standard fare while forming a new set that people will not look far from. As things become popular they become more standard, whether this pertains to music, literature, food, or thought. Since veganism is on the cutting edge, it offers variety that the mainstream often lacks.

Somewhat related: What strikes me about meat is that for the most part I view it as an addition to a meal. You make spaghetti and then add grounded flesh. You prepare a sandwich and then slip a slab of flesh in. And so it goes. Unless you're dealing with foie grass, in which case I suppose the flesh deserves a starring role, considering all the torture that goes into preparing the liver.

Top of the chain gang

2006-05-18T15:23:00.000-04:00

No one tells us this. At least I don’t think people do, but regardless of it being said or not, we tend to believe that not only are humans at the top of the food chain, debatable depending on how we (we, being a notable word) define this, but we commonly also believe that humans stand at the top of evolutionary development. Obviously this is not the case. Other animals possess abilities that we dream to possess. Our meager evolutionary abilities appear diminutive whether we look to chickens that can see infrared light, sharks that can smell for miles, eagles with their keen vision, the rare frog species that can transform its stomach from digestive organ to a baby frog nursery, or a dog’s ability to pinpoint individual scents. We possess a form of intelligence that supersedes every life form that we test. But once again, we is the primary word, considering our tests measure our form of intelligence, not other types that benefit other animals in certain situations and that we lack and, if put into that creature’s body and scene with our minds, would cause us to quickly discover that our wit does not fit the evolutionary requirements for the given situation. I’m not a biologist, let alone a scientist, so I cannot – at this point -- propose a scenario that fits this belief, but I suspect the theoretical idea can hold as feasible without greater proof.

Did you hear? Leonardo killed Christ!

2006-05-17T07:39:00.000-04:00

"Langdon, aided by the police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), unveils a series of stunning secrets hidden in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci, all leading to a covert society dedicated to guarding an ancient secret that has remained hidden for 2000 years."

It's quite pathetic that "the church" has to hold special meetings to combat the supposedly insidious and affective power of this film. Is belief truly so tentative that the masses will more quickly believe that a covert society dedicated to guarding an ancient secret than that of the brain washing forced into our heads since day one? I mean, Jesus, if this can shake the faith then maybe the faith needs shaking, not more tenuous support. Not that I think the movie will shake anyone's faith, but apparently it already has shaken the church's faith in its followers.

Aware of the hyper

2006-05-16T09:47:00.000-04:00

When I was a kid I thought it was feminine to eat vegetables. Maybe not feminine, but it was definitely not what males did. Men ate meat, and therefore boys eat meat to be like men. Many social constructs, whether they pertain to gender, affluence, or god effect whether or not we eat meat and to what extent we do. This fear of acting feminine really struck during puberty and high school, when I would engorge myself with as much food as possible in order to portray what I man I was seeing that “real” men could eat astounding amounts of food at any meal. Even my doctor perpetuated this myth by joking with my mother about how I would amaze her with my ability to eat during puberty. Yes, a growing male eats more than he does at times of growth stability, but not necessarily to the degree I forced myself to eat. I felt the need to prove my level of puberty by eating too much. With friends we would visit fast food joints and order two meals and devour them all, to show – without verbalizing our goal – our manliness.
At the same time, throughout my childhood, I eschewed things that others linked with homosexuality. And if I liked something that seemed “gay”, then I kept my opinions secret. In order to prevent others from affiliating me with homosexuals meant I could not visibly care about fashion, nature, poetry, or vegetables, and at the same time I wanted to show what a good capitalist (although I didn’t understand the term or know this is what I was trying to be) I was by loving money, technology, and cities.
What a mind fuck the youth experience. It’s a wonder any of us grow up believing ourselves to be sane.

I like little boys

2006-05-13T14:49:00.000-04:00

I don’t interact with children. I think parents might see me as creepy or even dangerous. Why is this twenty-something year old male stranger interacting with my child? When strange men are around parents quickly sense how small the gap is between innocence and corruption. My fear to interact with kids likely stems from my childhood. Not from when I was molested, something that never happened – so I believe, but rather from the countless fear stories society indoctrinates us with. Strangers want to touch, poison, kidnap, or kill kids. . It’s not easy being a kid when strangers lurk, because strangers can be bad people. I wonder if more American children suffer from people they do not know or people they do know. I suspect the latter. Yet we go on, keeping our youth away from the always lecherous unknown. And consequentially, I too am afraid of these strange children who might perceive me as I was taught to perceive what I now am, a male stranger.

Picking at picky eaters

2006-05-12T12:21:00.000-04:00

Picky eaters. I used to be one. My father was one. My brother is still one, and so are much of the people in my extended family, along with other people and their families. Picky eaters populate the American landscape. They maneuver through life replicating meal after meal, rarely discovering new tastes, and then when they do, it’s often to discount the flavor as undesirable. Maybe it’s just my veggie-head friends and me, but is it not easier to pick away the flesh than the veggies and fruits? Meat options in America, for the most part, are limited to the ways people can dissemble a chicken, fish, or cow. Vegetables, legumes, roots, nuts, and fruits vastly overwhelm the number of animal prospects. In fact, meats accompany vegetables, legumes, etc. A dish without veggies and their kind is strange, whereas going sans meat is not.

In any event, a little while back I went out with a bunch of people for lunch. I realized a picky eater was in my midst as I watched one lady across from me raise her brow, browse the menu, and then make a joke about how the brownie sundae looks like a great entrée. She ordered a Reuben and ended up complaining that the meat was too fatty, which the waiter explained was how a Cuban Reuben should be. From this experience I gathered that she probably prefers bland food that is lean. While vegan, or even vegetarian food, need not be bland, one can easily prepare it in such a way. Nor is fat much of an issue in the vegan diet.
Though, I suppose she and I shared one problem. I did not see any vegan options on the menu, but instead of browbeating myself until I discovered the least worst, I imagined what the menu could offer, from ingredients contained in various dishes, and when the waiter took my order, I crafted my own beast of a meal.
Picky eaters want things how they want things to be. Maybe I’m a picky eater, but I’m usually a damn satisfied (and satiated) one.

Addendum: What blows my mind is when I cook dinner with people and there has to be a non-vegetarian meal involved. It’s like some meat eaters absolutely must (yes, must implicitly includes the word absolutely, but I think the use of both words together adds to the effect, whereas when I explain this it damages the desired effect) consume flesh with every meal, as if the lack of meat ruins the meal’s merit.

Up your ass buddy

2006-05-11T15:57:00.000-04:00

Warning, I gripe in this entry, although I do offer a great idea for a documentary at the end.

Maybe I’m sensitive, but it really affects me when, while driving, people irrationally yell or honk at me. I’ll think about the incident throughout the day, and if I saw the perpetrator’s face then it sticks in my memory and sometimes even haunts my dreams. Negative on-the-road encounters occurred today and yesterday. This is my attempt to exorcise the mental demons that plague me as a result of these unruly drivers and their stubborn, closed-minded ways.
Yesterday found me in a parking garage. My exterior lights were on and I drove at a moderate pace, with my car tucked along the right side of the passageway. I came around a turn right when a large SUV come around the same turn toward me. The driver, an attractive, thirty-five years old (or thereabout) female, rapidly took the corner. She also had her vehicle in the middle of the pathway. We both dramatically slowed and made eye contact. I decided to proceed, since I was on the outside and drive a smaller vehicle. I thought I could quickly get out of her way and proceed without a problem. No. There was a problem. This lady decides to slowly shake her head while giving me a look of death. The type of look where she grits her teeth, loses some facial color (in order to portray rage), and opens her eyes reminiscent of any good spaghetti western. She made me feel like shit and she was the one driving like a douche bag.
Today: I was returning from the gym when I decided to visit the grocery store. This decision forced me to switch to the far left turning lane as fast as possible. This part went fine, for no one was near me. But, then I realized that I did not want to turn at the first light, but rather at the second light. In order to make it to the next light, I would have to pull back out one lane and proceed about twenty yards. Well, I couldn’t immediately pull out because cars were coming down the lane. I decided to remain back at the beginning of the turn lane, where I entered, rather than proceed closer to the light and lose some of my runway, thereby losing space to accelerate on. Meanwhile, someone, gender unknown, in a minivan had entered the lane I was in. Of course the minivan honked at me. Not once, not twice, but three times. Never mind that then turn light in front of me was red and that a vehicle already rested on the sensor at its extremity. So this minivan keeps inching closer to me, while honking, and I’m trying my best to pull out. Eventually I did, blew past the red turn light, and eased into my green turn light. The minivan lost no time, but did manage to look like a jerk. And I will admit that what I did was potentially annoying, but it was not worth getting upset about, and come on… sometimes people make minor mistakes on the road.

Because of these and other negative driving encounters with people, I decided that I want to make a documentary where I calmly approach the person, provided there is a way to park and meet them without seeming overly confrontational, dangerous, or creepy and ask them why they blew up at me. I figure in most cases the reason does not have anything to do with me, but rather something going on in the other person’s life. Not only will I cease wondering what I did wrong throughout the rest of day, but also I think some great footage will come out of the process.

Wasting Time

2006-05-11T15:28:00.000-04:00

MPP just emailed me about an opening. I applied with them about a year ago. They did not want me then, but now, if I feel so inclined, they want me to jump through the job search hoops. If I did not have law school lined up then maybe I would. I’m not too keen on this work thing and I imagine that after leaving MPP, provided I list it on my resume, I might find it hard to get hired elsewhere, perhaps not, but perhaps.

Receiving this email made me think about the currently illegal nature of marijuana. A new insight struck me. Marijuana is listed as a gateway drug, just like homosexual marriage is probably a gateway to civil unions with animals… Seriously though, I figure it is somewhat a gateway drug, but most likely many other things are equally culpable in this aspect. I have not thought this out fully, but doesn’t a large part of marijuana’s gateway drug power stem from its illicit nature? It messes you up, but not as much as egregious quantities of booze. I figure most anything that lifts ones spirits can encourage the hunger to try other reality numbing substances, but what makes marijuana even more so is that its in the same general category as other, far worse, illicit drugs, although linked as a mostly harmless incarnation. If legalized then people would not associate it in the same general class and it would be similar to alcohol in its gateway potential, not a move from illegal to illegal, but a harsher switch from the boundaries of the law to those of the outlaw.

The Pits

2006-05-11T13:43:00.000-04:00

This morning, at work, was the pits. BTW that's my temporary new
phrase, "the pits". I didn't step out the door into this phrase. No,
first I used the phrase, "that's the worst," and then I evolved it
into "the pits". In any event I had to open mail. And then later I
might have to process it. I won't explain what this means outside of
explaining that the first step involves opening, stamping the
contents, and then sorting the contents of about two hundred
envelopes.

As I opened, stamped, and sorted the mail, my brain went into a
vegetative state. I woke from it to find myself drooling. I wiped my
chin clean and then five minutes later repeated the resurrection into
conscious thought. Cold spittle triggered each rise from stupor, a new
form of baptism perhaps.

With each rebirth I wanted to walk out. I reasoned the benefits and
hindrances if I were to flee. I realized that once out of the building
my first free act would involve filling some prescriptions; seeing that my health
insurance is the number one reason I have this job over a gig as a
waiter. I don't know how people wok here without seriously
contemplating suicide. If this was the only job I could ever have and
would consequentially have to work it for forty odd years then let me
say, without a doubt, I'd hang myself by the day's close.

I would love to find a job that challenges me. I have no idea how
people deal with these pointless office clerk jobs. They are the pits.

Day Two

2006-05-10T20:46:00.000-04:00

I did pretty well today, even though one of my coworkers brought cookies around 3, just when I was starting to get hungry again. I ate my apple just to spite those cookies, sitting there staring at me all afternoon from the table adjacent to my desk. Take that, cookies!

Normally I have no self-control around cookies. None. Even one mention of them, and I'm planning which ones to pick out at the food mart across from my office/apartment/wherever I happen to be at the moment. I think the difference this time is that I publicly declared my week Junk-Food Free yesterday and what kind of person wusses out before the end of Day Two?

I did save the Ben and Jerry's coupon I got in the mail yesterday, to be redeemed sometime next week as my reward. Dave says it's a self-defeating exercise if I look it as an arduous task that needs rewarding upon completion. He thinks eating healthy should be fulfilling in itself. It's true and not true. I want to enjoy healthy food more so that I don't feel the need to have junk all the time. But I also want to see junk food less as a staple and more as, well, not exactly a reward, but maybe an indulgence.

I just hope someone took the cookies that didn't get eaten home with them... I'm not sure I'll be able to keep myself from snarfing them down again tomorrow.

I am what I eat

2006-05-09T14:32:00.000-04:00

Junk.

So I’m thinking about trying not to have any junk food for a whole week. That doesn’t sound like long, I know. Thing is I have no will power and for me it will be a long time. I already want a Diet Coke and a cookie. It’s gotten to the point that I feel like I should have dessert after lunch and dinner, or at least a mid-afternoon snack and then something sweet after dinner. Maybe if I go without for a week, I can nix that expectation.

Wish me luck.

Maybe it's time to read O'Brien again

2006-05-07T23:35:00.000-04:00

I keep thinking about Brian’s death. This morning I woke up and a whirlpool of related thoughts caught me. I wonder whether his wife will date any time in the next several years. Will she feel the desire to meet men, or will raising their son encompass his pre-adult life? We describe her as a widow, but in practice she will likely resemble single mothers whose men abandoned them upon learning that an act of sex created a new life. In either case the man is gone, the woman raises the child, and a new man will join the scene. I figure the major difference is that choice, at least on a relationship level, does factor in the same way. The new lover replaces more than joins.

The parents currently declare their pride for their son and believe his country served him, as well as he served his country. They play this part, like the wife will play hers. Each member forced into an unwished for role. We all, in our culture, experience a wealth of stories that explain these moments and help us experience them. As sentient individuals we then extemporaneously respond, but primarily within the genres previously explored. I wonder how the parents will deal with the loss as time passes. I imagine that within a few years they will question the government’s decision to send people like their son to this war. I’m not sure if I want them to feel this way or not. It’s an easier narrative to accept if they never doubt and always view their son as the hero who volunteered for a second mission, completely necessary, in order to fight with his buddies, not abandoning them or his country.

I briefly worked with a younger brother of Brian’s childhood friends, who also joined the military. He kept me informed of his older brothers’ general movements. At one point he told me that one returned from duty, just in time for the other to ship out to Iraq. The returned brother killed Iraqis in combat. I do not believe this coworker offered words as unadorned as “killed Iraqis”. I forget what words spilled from his mouth, but whatever they were they carried vehemence and prejudice. Maybe he did not say, “He killed sand niggers, put many in their proper places,” but then again, maybe he did. Whatever he said, this is how I interpreted his words, whether he meant them this way or not. He definitely intended to relate what a good thing his brother did. I suppose those slain men leave behind people like Brian’s family and friends. Maybe a friend from their childhood muses on paper what will become of these people, and maybe this conjured friend even wonders what life is like for the man, and those attached to him, who killed in the name of freedom.

War is Suicide

2006-05-04T14:31:00.000-04:00

I just learned that a suicide bomber killed a childhood friend of mine who was stationed Iraq. This is the first time that someone I directly know, at least as far as I am aware, has died in this war. I have not spoken with Brian in many years. As the years passed we found ourselves in different places, with dissimilar interests. I knew that he joined the military, and assumed that at some point he would end up involved in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. From what I understand, what I gleaned from the email that informed me of his demise, he said that he was proud to serve for our country and accepted the risk such service presents. I hope he truly felt this way. Somehow this hope makes the reality a little less cumbersome. I, too, believe that people who risk their lives to defend their country are brave people, and that we, as a people, require such individuals. I wish I felt good about this war; it would make moments like this easier, although they will never be easy. Our nation betrayed Brian with this war. Our nation, and others involved, betrayed the world and its people with this war. The youth in Iraq who enlist on the “other side” are as beguiled and unfortunate as our own. Citizens of both sides will kill each other and die for ideas, but ideas can alter and adapt. They can take on forms that do not require machines of death to perpetuate them, whereas death will never alter or adapt. Death is when possibilities cease. Ideologies that promote the murder of people like Brian, or any individual that Brian, himself, might have killed, will not serve our world, or our country. I fear that his end will do more to cement us in our current path of war than find us moving toward peace.

While Brian and I differed on some views, nothing he ever did or could have done made him deserve such a fate. I did not realize that I missed him until he was gone. I cannot imagine how his family and loved ones must feel.

Robots can only assemble

2006-05-04T11:31:00.000-04:00

I went out the other night with some friends to Fat Tuesday, which is a moderate-sized bar near George Mason University. My former roommate used to play in a band that frequented this bar, but – due to many reasons unrelated to him -- I never went, nor did I ever see his band perform. This means that I felt somewhat disloyal when I stepped through the door. And, of course, as soon as I sat down I noticed, behind my head, the band’s sticker plastered on a window.

In front of me, across a large table that seated eight, sat three members, perhaps the sole representatives, of a band that I had just watched perform at a fundraiser. About seven or eight acts performed, either by playing music or reading stories. At worst, every act offered something worthwhile, at best a performance offered a topic, or more, to discuss. This trio played songs from their supposed rock opera, it’s stated purpose to not only describe society’s future – a time when robots dominate the scene, but also to – as the joke goes – solve the problems presented by post modernism. As I watched them play I decided that Radiohead and The Flaming Lips, among others, already tackled this matter, especially considering that one song’s lament -- namely that robots’ short arms cannot love, but only assemble and dissemble -- does not only fail to tackle new ground.

I did not wish to bring up my thoughts on their rock opera, but I did wish to learn more. Fortunately I overheard a few snippets that related to the project, snippets that provided an easy prompt to extend the dialogue. Apparently their story takes place in a future where humans adapted science and biology to a point where telekinesis, telepathy, and other supernormal abilities flourish, along with robots, possibly extraterrestrial in origin, that dominate society. Folk singers, of the future, narrate the songs and provide warnings contemporary to their kin, but prophetical to us. These singers might even take on a religious tone as humans can use religion in their fight to liberate themselves from the robot influence, seeing as how religion requires a soul, something robots lack. Although, I’m not sure that robots could not benefit from religion, because religion, at heart, is a mentality, a way to structure concepts, and robots, in nature, structure concepts and follow logical paths with a fervor that most bishops would love to possess. Regardless, let me share two other elements of their opera that I glimpsed.

Some robots would disconnect themselves from the power structure, thereby becoming slacker robots. These robots would form a limited counter culture of their own and weaken the robot stranglehold. I thought of Star Trek and the Borg, how some robots developed self-consciousness in that storyline. Another song told a tale, likely one that occurs earlier than the rest that tells a story from the days before robots conquer the planet, of robots that came to Earth to abduct humans but happened to grab Olympic runners. Not accounting for their great speed and strength of will, the Olympians escaped, but to what end I do not know. The main problem with this scenario is that first I must accept that humans possess supernormal abilities like telepathy and that robots, from space, dominate Earth, but furthermore that these beings cannot capture a few Olympians who happen to slightly crest the abilities of most other people? I suppose it is music, and that the goofy nature of music should obliterate most concerns, but still… I’m not won over.

I like the general idea. I believe a lot comes from it and I feel that having folk musicians of the future “write” the songs adds authenticity, flavor, and merit. The trio needs to flesh out their world and consider how science, religion, and paranormal abilities imbricate. If the three fully overlap in this future world then surely the robots can also tap into all three realms, and consequentially a much richer world emerges, one with more stories with harsher problems and more satisfying conclusions.

Veganism, Part 1

2006-05-04T00:06:00.000-04:00

This is an unordered, random post. Accept it, I have. One day I will write a better version.

It now seems obvious to me that anyone that chooses a vegetarian lifestyle for ethical reasons would quickly realize the need to step further away from mainstream consumer market. It seems that the general label for such a leap is veganism. Let's be honest, it's not the smallest of steps to transition to a vegan lifestyle, but I think it's workable and worth the many benefits.

The more I shop vegan, the more I detach myself from markets that I do not wish to take part in, such as fast food, chain restaurants, and other large conglomerates. All the while I improve my quality of living as I remove many processed foods from my diet, increase my intake of raw foods – especially vegetables and fruits, and eliminate animal cholesterol from my meals. What makes veganism more difficult than it needs to be is the fact that our predecessors have lived in and fostered a society for thousands of years in a way that exploits animals. The result of society's prolonged use of animals means that animal-derived products permeate our products and culture.
I now carefully study the ingredient lists of nearly all products. An astounding range of items either contain or are manufactured with animal byproducts, e.g. lotions, soaps, deodorant, white sugar, etc.

Since I became vegetarian a year or two ago, I've found people think I owe them some sort of explanation. When I decided to try out being vegan a couple of months ago, I've found this to be even more the case. People look at me with horror, derision, or incredibility. Regardless of which reaction, people likely wonder “is this guy really the naïve chump he makes himself out to be.” Or maybe that’s my own insecurity shining through?

The established social norms prompt people to feel this discomfort. For example, I do not plan to tell my parents that I’ve become vegan. It almost seems easier to express a homosexual desire over veganism, for homosexuality is a not a conscientious choice. When a person dedicates oneself to veganism one also takes on the need to explain oneself.
As previously mentioned, how society exploits animals has deep roots. Even if someone accepts that animals are poorly treated, it is a battle to explain that much of the affluent world no longer needs to view animals as commodities. With our wealth, science, and brains we can restructure and forge a stronger society that grows more diverse crops, discovers new methods to create products, makes more efficient use of resources (like water, sunlight, and land), and pollutes less. Our use of animals was critical back when we first formed civilizations, but now we can step from this initial stone and prod ahead, evolving into a new phase of sustenance, and I believe that doing so will help prompt a renaissance where we better value life, and from there maybe even better value each other.

Not only does it grease my hair

2006-05-02T19:35:00.000-04:00

This is partly in response to this post.

The oil companies can, and do, manipulate prices. Over the past few years the average profit has increased. The industry average was once around $0.08 a gallon. Now it often surges to $0.18 a gallon, if not more. The average profit per gallon rarely, if ever, dips below the supposed industry norm, whereas taxes remain at a fixed rate. This means that the government does not gain or lose when the price per gallon fluctuates, whereas the oil companies’ profits do. If you then add in the fact that the government has habitually subsidized the industry, the taxes look even less significant seeing that they are taken from the oil companies and then handed right back.

Moreover, oil companies can safeguard against low prices by slowly adapting to plummeting prices. They quickly respond to price increases in crude oil by raising prices and then slowly recede these spikes even if crude oil’s cost dramatically drops. Companies also incorporate operating costs like R&D, distribution, refinement, and brand name strengthening into the price. The profits, appropriately namely, are largely what they are: profits. Some of this money does go back into the company, but much of it becomes capital that is then used to further secure a hold on the market, and consequentially the public’s wallets. I find little sympathy for the industry and actually feel anger when it attempts to explain away profits with low profit proportion excuses. Obviously the proportion is not too bad, considering how many people buy the product, although I am not convinced that this supposedly low cost-to-profit proportion details the entire story, considering that the industry has never been more profitable. I think there are more ways to explain this, but such inquiries are for a different post, perhaps from a different poster.

Regardless of the actual profit margin, these companies make a ludicrous amount of profit, revenue minus expenses. They are in a position that most others are not in, namely providing energy. There is a limit as to how many people can effectively supply such a resource. It’s a sort of limited monopoly, likely a more accurate term exists, one that I do not know. This exclusive position does not give make them entitled to rob our pockets, if anything there is a public trust that should limit profits. The public puts them in a good position with the understanding that the company will then, in turn, treat the public well, not gouge them whenever the opportunity arises. Public utilities strengthen our nation. They provide means for us to travel, communicate, and relax. Ideally they are reliable entities that make a modest profit, reinvesting most of it in research to help create better technologies and distribution systems.

I’m still developing and refining my views, but I believe that gasoline should likely cost more, with taxes grabbing the additional cost. The current price of gasoline does not reflect the real-world price. It does not incorporate environmental or political costs. Our popular economic system fails to acknowledge such issues and consequentially, in the long run, we will likely pay a much greater price than we would if we bumped the price up, just a tad, now. This extra profit could then be spent researching new technologies that will liberate us from oil.

Ethanol, one technological line touted as a cure to our oil woes, will not eradicate our need for oil; rather it ensures that society will require oil long into the future. We currently require vast amounts of energy in order to farm, process, and distribute ethanol, and converting land to produce it as a stand-alone fuel will delete our natural resources, whether available land or currently established farmland, and increase the use of pollutants, like pesticides and fertilizers, both of which also require energy to manufacture, distribute, and use. Yet, we can partly adapt ethanol, or similar fuels to alleviate the current burden we feel from our oil market. The use of bio-diesel or ethanol can supplement the current market and provide cleaner, homegrown workarounds until better technology emerges.

I believe that ethanol and its kin are a positive short-term step, because they reduce our need for crude, but they are not a solution. Rather ethanol is akin to a junkie milking the blood to keep from running out. This is not an intelligent option considering that our use of fossil fuels spurs on global warming, pollutes our air – which promotes health problems like Asthma, and, in the case of oil, strengthens foreign powers that care little, outside of economic benefit, for our country. Options like electric-, wind-, solar-, and hydrogen-powered cars provide greater long-term, renewable opportunities that will not harm our national security or environment in the ways that oil does.

No matter what technology develops, oil will be around for quite a while and the uncertainty of a market 50 years from now -- a time period when we might no longer use oil, also a time period when most of the current oil executives will no longer be alive -- should not, and likely does not, influence current prices. Current prices do not reflect what could happen, unless they deal with likely events occurring during the next few years. If the case were otherwise then every single marketable item is in danger of losing its apparent need and manufacturers should greatly raise prices across the board to offset the probability of future loss. Although if we believe that current gas prices reflect oil’s possible decline, twenty plus years from now, then we could use similar logic to explain that horse harnesses, spurs, and other important equine-related goods should have skyrocketed in price back in the nineteenth century, since the craft makers needed to prepare themselves for the automobile’s rise and their imminent obsolescence. Furthermore, if we say that oil companies want to, perhaps even need to, make more money now because they are caught up in a dying commodity then we acknowledge that they are, in fact, greedy and that their actions are more for themselves than for society, and in that, can’t we logically reason that the current prices would then reflect poorly on their ethics.

The People's Voice

2006-04-28T00:38:00.000-04:00

A country that can respond to its peoples' upheavals is better than one that cannot. Such a moment occurred in France a little while ago and has consequentially left the American people’s focus. Nonetheless the youth protest in France still resonates in my mind. I do not know if the proposed change in hiring practices would have benefited the French people. Some might argue that the law would encourage employers to hire more young workers and that without it unemployment will continue to plague the French youth. Perhaps this stance is correct. Being mostly ignorant to French society I don’t know what the case actually is. I could also see the struck down law being detrimental as it encourages employers to hire more workers, but at lower wages – once one form of protection vanishes others tend to follow suit. Employers would also know that they can easily do away with the employees, and pick up replacements, before the probationary period ends.

But this is not why I decided to write this entry. Rather, I believe that a large function of government is to help the various factions of its society find safety, comfort, well-being, and purpose, and that in doing so everyone profits. The youth is a large section of the population and it’s a cross-section that will always exist. This group will feel neglected, nearly disenfranchised, and will harbor an ill will toward the government that will cut into their productivity, satisfaction, and might create further problems down the line when government officials propose other changes that are even more important to the integrity of the country.

When the French leaders alter their stance on an issue in order to keep the status quo, especially one that is not devastating to the country, while pleasing a large subset of the population, they win hearts and minds. This success will not necessarily encourage French citizens to unite and combat more proposed laws, rather it will curry favor and encourage the youth to take more notice of the country and its politics. When people feel their voice can make a difference they are more likely to take part in the system and with more educated voices influencing societal issues the government will become stronger, and the people will become happier and quite possibly more affluent.

The youth earned the country’s respect. They earned jobs similar to the rest of the country’s citizens. France has had a hard year or two. Protests have intermittingly rocked the Paris suburbs. This is a case where the people who feel oppressed discovered that the government officials will listen and that society is for the people, not the elitists.

My Voice

2006-04-22T15:18:00.000-04:00

I currently feel feckless. I do not believe I possess a voice, or the ability to influence decisions. Sometimes I believe that the concept of society is one great sham. That what we lose from taking part is more than we gain, although we have no choice in the matter. We must play a role in a country's system, outside of a handful of extreme options no other choice exists.

Most everything about society feels unnatural to me. The way we organize ourselves, the way we follow ideas to such lengths that we will kill, or be killed. The only reason I can see to form societies is to make life a better and safer place for people. Things that many people in America find important have no place in the wild, natural world. Our cars, computers, fashions, art, gossip, laws, and most everything else we find important or influential hold little sway in a world without civilization. The framework of society is little more than an idea that we build upon, thereby creating an ever deepening illusion of substance. Yet we seem to innately conspire to build, adapt, and evolve. I do not believe Capitalism has much to do with this. It is one way we explain how we manifest.

I do not believe Capitalism is any more intrinsic than nearly any other system we might devise. It just happens that it developed a while back and that we are born into it, thereby cementing our logic, beliefs, and integrity within its framework. It is not any more natural than any other societal philosophy. Elements of other systems appear throughout nature, but to identify any of these is a fallacy in thought. The laws of physics do not explain the systems that man composes. Any supposed law of Economics does not find its roots in the dances of trees or the scavenging of squirrels. We can assume links and build our manmade systems, but we will only display one way to interpret. We do not recreate nature in our tinkering. It is like trying to disavow the possibility of evolution’s credence by insisting that its theory must also apply to how stars, or even universes, form. A link could exist, but it need not.

I am closer to thirty than twenty and for most of my life I have floated without much care to where I might end up. I have accepted the water that I bob within and upon. I want to change this. I cannot change the immutable water. It is beyond me. But I can forge my own craft and navigate the vast ocean. Even when I say this, I play upon clichés that stretch across humanity’s archeological record. Nothing new exists in this metaphor, yet I struggle to make it new, nonetheless. That is a great merit in our bloated societies. Together we can do something that we, as a people, have not done before. We do this in the aim of making our lives, and the lives of those that follow us, better. At this point in my life many things matter to me. Issues that relate to health, art, nature, and society stand out the most.

I do not say politics, because I believe that the current state of politics is abysmal. I believe that unfettered capitalism has wrecked our country. This is not an inclusive society. The majority of people do not trust each other. We do not openly support each other. We are largely insecure. We worship the dollar more than the society. Money influences more than wisdom. Sustainable means the ability to continually generate revenue. And so it goes. Growth of the market belies growth of the people. I believe we must find a better way, we must alter this framework.