Tag Archives: Postaday

PAD 2/13/13 – Shoulda Woulda Coulda

Posted on by
Reply

“Tell us about something you know you should do . . . but don’t.”

Generally I don’t think I’ve allowed such a conflict to build up in my life. Things that one should do, at least for me, usually find their way to being done eventually. This is the entryway to guilt and regret and those two feelings, along with fear in general and hate specifically are admittedly worthless and stupid. If you identify things you should do, then you admit to not living your authentic life and then you have to think about why you don’t do those things. Most of what people think they should do is based on the expectations they have from other people. That it’s another’s will that is imposed on you to make you feel like somehow you are missing out or you are bad for behaving a certain way, doing or not doing a certain thing. I’ve wandered through that dark valley in the past and it didn’t do anything for me but leave me very sad and very upset with myself for allowing myself to be led so easily. I find the notion of should to be really bound up with external measures of my behavior and as such, I really reject those. Anyone who knows me knows that I can and often do say unexpected things and I sometimes say things that are blunt and brutally honest because they have to be said. Life isn’t worth living if you don’t have passion for it and if you spend your time fretting over questions of should, then you are spending too much of your time considering those external measures of your behavior and you are not living an authentic life. You are living a mime life based on the whims and guesswork of people who only like to watch you dance to their strings. They don’t care for you, not really, so should is stupid.

Do what you will and be happy in it. Hell is other people.

PAD 1/17/2013 Cucumbers in Crisis

Posted on by
1

“Honestly evaluate the way you respond to crisis situations. Are you happy with the way you react?”

My reaction to crisis is inverted. Small, seemingly insignificant things cause me great upset where large sweeping catastrophes bring out my calm. It’s really quite the opposite as one would expect. There is a difference between a crisis and some sort of problem that I can’t solve because I can’t see the entire problem or I suspect that someone else may be to blame. In that situation my reactions are really the things I would like to change. When I’m exposed to things that irritate me everything starts to itch. The little itches on my skin become much more upsetting and I end up fidgeting and scratching a lot. Mostly though that’s got more to do with pressure than it does crisis situations. When there is something I can’t control and it’s bearing down on me, like a tornado or fire for example my reactions are not those of panic and running around without a plan but calm collected logic. I’m good in crisis situations as long as I can manage the pressure. If there is external pressure, perhaps things would turn out differently but I can only go on what I have experienced so far and I don’t leap to panic, at least not yet.

PAD 1/23/13 – Castaway Ham Sandwiches

Posted on by
Reply

“Read the story of Richard Parker and Tom Dudley. Is what Dudley did defensible? What would you have done?”

What happens when you are adrift at sea and start to go hungry? Everything you see becomes a ham sandwich – even your friends. These two men could have been brothers and not just friends and it wouldn’t have changed anything. When human beings are starving there are parts of yourself you never thought that existed that over time and with enough raw hunger come out to play. You’ll think things and do things that you would swear up and down you would never even dream about in real life, when you aren’t that hungry.

So is it a punishable offense? It’s the same question that the Donner party had to answer, or the Chilean Soccer team. So many situations where people were stranded, starving, and ended up turning on each other for food. Sure, there is wrong there, but it’s a clichéd maxim that humanity is really just a ham sandwich away from anarchy and a few more from outright cannibalism. Can you punish men for behaving in this fashion? One could argue that if you are hungry enough, your instinct to survive will overcome everything else and you will survive no matter what you have to do.

Stories like this inspire me to only accept risky situations like these men did if and only if I am wearing a bulky jacket full of jerky and hidden bottles of water. Yes, it probably wouldn’t have saved poor Richard Parker, even if he did have a jacket full of jerky, but it would be something. The real idea is to never get yourself worked into those particular situations, safe living, good living. Not eating your friends sort of living.

So I would say that Dudley is not guilty of a crime and the defense would be temporary insanity brought on by extreme hunger.

PAD 1/14/2013 – Headlines

Posted on by
Reply

“Head to your favorite online news source. Pick an article with a headline that grabs you. Now, write a short story based on the article. “

This article grabbed my attention and would not let it go. The story is about a dolphin that ended up in the Gowanus Canal in New York City. There really isn’t any story to write about this, nothing that will leave anyone feeling good about humanity. Look at what we have wrought. Wildlife wandered into a canal so awful, so toxic, so disgusting that it died of exposure to us. I would argue that the canal represents New York City quite well, anyone who has read my blog, especially my LiveJournal when I was there knows my opinion on New York City is poor at best. That the waters of the Gowanus Canal can kill just cinches it. Everyone thinks that New York City is the biggest and best city in the world, but I have never liked it. Too many people, too filthy, too disgusting, too dangerous. Some think that this tale of the Gowanus Canal is just one small little part and that the city has more to offer, that you can just whitewash over this awfulness by looking elsewhere – perhaps the arts maybe. The city is dangerous to more than just wildlife!

So what to write about New York City. The waters are toxic, the streets are lethal, and this is all before we add in all the sick twisted terrible humans which just add to this murk of awfulness. So, here’s a little story.

Years ago the people of upstate New York laughed amongst themselves that if everyone northwest of the Hudson River would just agree and all flush their toilets with uncanny synchrony that we could finally blow New York City into the Atlantic. After reading news story after news story about all the corruption, not just in the people, but deeply embedded in the very land itself it became clear that this upstaters fantasy really might need to come true. So everyone from Watertown to Syracuse and all the way over to Buffalo all agreed that they would pick the perfect day, a sunny day filled with hope and wonder and they would all march into their bathrooms and at the very stroke of midnight everyone in New York State would flush their toilets all at the same time and blow the cancer of New York City into the sea. Much like Atlantis, except riddled with toxins and horrors beyond understanding, the mad city of New York sank beneath the waves, never to be seen or heard from again.

If you love New York City, I invite you to saunter along barefoot all the way to Gowanus Canal and have yourself a bath. Good luck with that.

PAD 2/1/13 – Flangiprop

Posted on by
Reply

“Invent a definition for the word “flangiprop,” then use the word in a post. “

Flangiprop – A half-broken rudder that is connected in only one place and so is thrashing about, endangering the propeller and causing general mayhem while underway.

“Because nobody listened to the techs, the event was only half-baked and eventually had to be cancelled due to the danger of a out-of-control flangiprop.”

“The sailboat skipper paid no attention to the wrenching sounds coming from the stern of his boat and when he started his outboard motor the flangiprop became wedged between the keel and the propeller causing the engine in the boat to seize. The cam shaft was wrenched free and pierced the hull, leading to the boat foundering on the sandbar.”

“Mitt Romney’s “Binders Full Of Women” was his political flangiprop.”

PAD 1/31/13 – Burnt

Posted on by
Reply

“Remember yesterday, when your home was on fire and you got to save five items? That means you left a lot of stuff behind. What are the things you wish you could have taken, but had to leave behind?”

What would fire consume? Everything. That’s what insurance is for. There are things I would miss. Things that weren’t saved because there is just too much of it, it’s too difficult to rescue or move in time. What kind of things would I miss? My wardrobe, Scott’s comic books, our extensive entertainment library with both DVD’s and books. So much would be lost, but that’s one of the reasons why there is safety equipment at home and fire extinguishers, but even then, disaster could strike.

There is something about living simply which bears here I think. The wisdom that if you have a lot of things in your life that in certain ways, you don’t own the stuff, but rather the stuff owns you. Reducing the amount of stuff you own is likely a wiser move, but it runs so much against American culture, that you own or rent a residence and then fill it full of treasure and then keep it. Adding to it and never reducing it. I’ve read so many articles online about radical simplification and there is something in it. I cannot deny the wisdom in living simply and rejecting the consumer culture that abounds here in America. Always having more stuff and adding more stuff to that just doesn’t make much rational sense.

This works a lot like greed in a certain way as well. People are driven by greed to always increase the amount of money they have, to earn more, corner the market, whatever it takes to maximize your fiscal health. I don’t think I could be any more left-leaning if I tried. I’ve said before and I still believe this that the irrational accumulation of stuff is just as silly as the irrational accumulation of wealth. It runs directly against capitalism which pushes us all towards making as much money and keeping it as possible, even beyond rational understanding. I think that you should earn what can make your life comfortable and anything beyond that is actually wrong. I’ve thought long and hard about this and I put the limit on personal wealth at $75,000 a year. Beyond $75,000 and the money does less and less for you. Eventually that money means nothing and it starts to injure you. Look at the filthy rich, they lead lives of plenty with endless funds and they are miserable human beings. They are sad, they abuse drugs or alcohol, they act irresponsibly and generally are poor little rich people, devoid of true happiness. Sometimes, when I’m feeling very liberal I do spend time considering the forceful redistribution of individual wealth, where everyone’s wealth is capped at $75,000 and those who don’t earn enough to reach that limit are given money so that they can reach it, on the backs of the rich who, lets face it, wouldn’t even notice the money being gone. This of course would upset anyone who is a capitalist and would brand me as a socialist – why stop there, why not just go all the way to communism? Yes, I write this out of mean spite. I don’t really think the world will ever be like this idea in my head, but after years of watching the poor, the children, and the disadvantaged suffer while the rich build their obnoxious residences and waste their money on worthless endeavors, it’s actually a great reaction. Consider it not in terms of capitalism but rather in terms of suffering. How much suffering could be alleviated by forcefully redistributing the wealth of the richest people amongst us? I think it’s a worthy to consider a world like this, because to me, this seems to be something that Jesus himself would likely smile at and approve of. It has always struck me as odd, how people can maintain the wealth disparity in our society with their self-professed belief in Christianity.

I look forward to your spirited responses to this idea. 🙂

PAD 1/30/13 – Burning Down The House

Posted on by
Reply

“Your home is on fire. Grab five items (assume all people and animals are safe). What did you grab?”

I would rescue these items from my house:

  • Important Documents Folder
  • Backpack of Data
  • Messenger Bag
  • Antiques
  • Family Photos

These are things that I cannot easily replace. Everything else would be a matter of homeowners insurance. While much of the things I would rescue, such as the Important Documents Folder may not be exactly irreplaceable it does hold some things that I have an emotional connection to, the real physical things that I have earned – like my High School Diploma and my Bachelors Diploma. I am sure I could get reproductions of both, but these are originals and they are important to me. Antiques may surprise people, that I have some which I do, and that they are on my list. Some things, even if they aren’t worth very much have an irrational value because they are physical threads leading backwards through time to people I never knew but revere because without them I would not exist. I list them as “antiques” because I do not want to cover what they are. They are important to me, and that’s good enough for me. I’ve taken the concepts of readiness that I did for my professional life at work and extended them to my home. There are some habits that I have like placing certain things in bags, like a backpack where all the hard drives are kept and my trusty Messenger Bag which stores the lightweight but vitally important objects in my life, like my Nook HD, my iPad, my Laptop, that sort of thing. Photos of family would be rescued as well. Again, almost everything can be reproduced but I am guilty of ascribing extended properties to physical objects in an irrational capacity. Photos are just chemical marks on paper, but these are of my loved ones, my family, and so they are more than the sum of their chemical marks, in many ways they carry a piece of that family member with the photograph. Looking at my family in photos brings their memories back and help me return a part of their existence to my life through the blessings of memory. Very much like how the Prophets discussed the flow of time to Benjamin Sisko on Deep Space Nine – “You exist here. Why?” and I like the idea of memory in this way, that the past, present, and future all exist at the same time. Our consciousness and bodies move forward in time, but parts of us exist in other times and we can access those by the act of remembering. That the sheer act of remembering in a way helps us to return to when our loved ones existed with us and so, they can again, in a fashion.

If people are safe, and my pets are safe, and these objects are safe then the rest can burn. I think that over time this list will get smaller as some of these objects are stored in places where disaster cannot strike like safety deposit boxes and the like. More and more of life, I think, will end up being digital and stored on the cloud – so much of the material that is digital becomes proofed against loss, against burning, against flooding, against everything.

PAD 2/7/13 – Right to Health

Posted on by
1

“Is access to medical care something that governments should provide, or is it better left to the private sector? Are their drawbacks to your choice?”

 This is the central question of socialism. What things, if any, are appropriate for society to bear versus private citizens or companies? I think that this question has several parts actually, how big is the topic being considered, does it have any ethical or moral implications, and is there any need for democratic oversight? When it comes to health care I argue that it’s a human topic, it’s vast and universal and it’s incredibly expensive. I think that  when it comes to healthcare, that society can best provide coverage more than private companies and that as a member of society I would be willing to underwrite the costs of covering every American so that none of us have to endure catastrophic loss because of a health issue. I also argue that companies are inherently amoral and unethical. Companies that are publicly traded have shareholders and the promise of good behavior is not for those receiving the healthcare but rather the welfare of the shareholders themselves. Even if a company is not publicly traded, greed still overwhelms the greater good and renders companies amoral and blind to ethics. Companies are not people, companies have no conscience, they have no compassion. They are a mindless thing, sometimes the best thing you can say is that a company that doesn’t rape, pillage, and plunder is about as moral and ethical as they can get. I think “rape pillage and plunder” is a natural expression for a company because when you add people together in masses beyond 150 members, their ability to understand the consequences of their behaviors drop precipitously to zero. It is also vital that there be some public (democratic) oversight of the entire structure and so in this last condition I think it’s best that government do the work as ultimately government can be taken to account for their activities through the judicial branch of government.

There is a sidelight to all of this, that America has a problem and that is we have celebrity career politicians. This, I believe, has to end. We have term limits for many parts of government and I think it’s vital to extend this to the legislative and judicial branches of government. I think that a congressperson should serve for a maximum of four years and then be barred from future service in that branch. They can pursue other branches if they wish, but that’s where it ends.

So that is my answer to this question. Best that healthcare be done by society and done universally. Single payer, nationalized, social.

PAD 1/15/2013 – Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

“It’s never a good idea to discuss religion or politics with people you don’t really know.” Agree or disagree?

 Without a doubt this is the one piece of advice that has taken me the longest time to learn and I had to learn it all by myself, which of course is the most difficult way but what you learn is honestly yours. I used to engage in arguments with my family over religion and politics and those arguments just upset me, or irritated me, and the central thing that really got to me was that nobody was really listening. They weren’t listening to me and I wasn’t listening to them. It was easy for me to not listen to them because in both situations they were preaching from their comfort zone and since they were family I knew for years and years the extents of those arguments. Nothing they said impressed me or had value to change my mind. Either the arguments were self-referential and circular, as in the religious arguments – not discussing how things might be but rather arguing over the shape and form of scripture that was already established. I was questioning everything from the beginning and the family member I was arguing with never questioned those parts but started all their arguments from what was written down and starting from there. Honestly I think we could never actually have a good conversation on religion because I had dismissed the pretext of their entire religious argument. With politics it’s quite the same, instead of scripture it was a political playbook which was constantly being spooled against me. Thinking really wasn’t a part of the argument as it was mostly scripted shorthand being flung at me and blanket protestations that anything but the way that my family member saw the world was the correct way.

Politics, Religion, Climate – these are the toxic pillars that people really shouldn’t discuss. That’s why faith, at least in America is a very private thing and I am fine with people practicing whatever faith they have as long as they keep it out of the public space. Months ago, during the Christmas season we went to the local mall and a church group was leading a Christmas sing-a-long in the public space of the mall. The violation of that space, a public pluralistic space which suddenly was filled with singing with lyrics that included “Fall on your knees” and references to Christ abounded. I don’t have any problems if those things are sung in church or private homes or even in public spaces when I see that I am walking into that situation. What I walked into was a passionate christian sing-a-long powered by a flashmob. I started to get jumpy and uncomfortable, it was awkward and embarrassing and irritating. Politics is only slightly less upsetting in public spaces, in this vein. Working in a public institution of higher learning you have to accept that sometimes you’ll run into political or religious crazies on campus with a bullhorn trying to convert or accuse students of impure living or wrong political thinking. Even where I work the space is different, it doesn’t upset me because you sort of “expect the unexpected” in a college or university setting. Even in that space it’s more of a sideshow entertainment than a space for actual discourse. I don’t think that discourse is possible, so these topics really should be a matter of personal self-contemplation and secret ballot. You should vote secretly and you should seek out spaces where your religious pursuits match those of those around you as close as possible. Anything else invites disaster.

To other people considering this very question I would tell you that you should just skip it. Don’t engage in the battle. People aren’t really interested in modifying their positions when it comes to religion or politics so it’s best to remain silent and nudge any incoming arguments that touch on these topics to other less upsetting subjects. In many ways, much like the Golden Retriever in Disney’s “UP” movie, sometimes the best response to a political or religious argument is “Squirrel!”

PAD 2/5/13 – Call Me, Maybe, Maybe Not.

Posted on by
1

“Describe your relationship with your phone. Is it your lifeline, a buzzing nuisance, or something in between?”

I’ve never understood why people exclaim that their mobile phone is some sort of yoke or control collar that was tied to them. You don’t have to attend to it, even if your company pays for the device. Then there are people who think of mobile phones as possible risks to their privacy. For those who are that paranoid I often get to laughing, “You really think that anything you are fretting about is a risk?” You can’t conduct business without leaving a huge paper trail behind you. Instead of fearing all of that, I say that people should revel in it, nay, wallow in it. What are you protecting?

For me my iPhone is an indispensable intellectual swiss army knife. I use it for many things, work, personal, pleasure, business, you name it. It’s my camera, the loom of my social network and the device where I play Letterpress. I am addicted to it, and I am perfectly fine with the notion of being addicted to a device. I’m addicted to alcohol so what the hell am I protecting? Some image of myself that never existed? What I can’t understand is why more people don’t see the value as I do.

My iPhone is still a phone, and that I suppose will always be true but the device has become much more than just a plain old telephone. Voice is full of noise, errors… problems. English demands so much and then the immediacy and interruptibility of vocal communications just add to the pile of unpleasantness. When you get a call it’s a moment transfixed and pinned to the ground. Someone is imposing their will upon yours, taking up your time, ignoring your flow and your tasks and imposing theirs on top as if the previous did not matter. This isn’t so much a problem with an iPhone as it is a gripe I’ve harbored for a very long time about the more general telephone technology that we all use. Telephones are a lot like walk-up service at work. Knocking on my door, ringing my phone, either of those demands that I entertain a very expensive intellectual interrupt so that I can put whatever it is that I’m working on into a wait-state so that I can switch mental contexts and engage in either a face to face conversation or a telephone conversation.

Just the presence of this technology alone is bothersome, but the language brings even more awkwardness. There is no chance to plan and consider what you are about to write, no opportunities, really, to proofread and revise before sending. The pressure of speech, body language, and freudian (jungian?) slips abound. English, and the culture that surrounds it like a cloud demands a proper greeting, a discussion with turns, and a proper closing. That’s how you are supposed to conduct yourself without seeming rude, insolent, or impertinent. All of this would be fine if it wasn’t for the fact that normal human beings are fleshy water-filled bags of error just waiting to pounce. Modern discourse doesn’t value listening so people tend to talk at each other instead of talking to each other. You can’t get a word in edgewise and because you value the other person you are talking to, you let them just trample on. This creates a self-reinforcing reward for future verbal tramplings. After a few conversations it’s not really pleasurable any longer, it’s a battle. Then there is the proper closings. You don’t want to seem cold or rude so you attempt to close the conversation with some sort of closure marker like “thank you” and sometimes these events don’t actually take and you end up sending multiple passes of closure invitations to the other side. You go from feeling bad about being curt and rude to feeling bad about appearing to be mentally defective.

I have said in the past, and I will say time and time again that text beats voice all the time. Especially for technologically-tied workers like myself. When I am at work, or engaged in any activity really, I often times find myself within a flow. It’s texting and iMessage and IM’ing and email where you can strike a new playing field. Text is planned and groomed, opening and closing control symbols are cliché and common as dirt, so they aren’t a problem, and the way these messages are propagated does not necessarily break flow. In many ways, these technologies are more polite forms of communication. “I need your attention, but it isn’t life-or-death and so, since I value your time, energy, and flow I will send a queue’able message that you may defer until you are ready to accept it.” and I have said time and time again that text communication is much more respectful and gentile than face to face communications or telephone communications.

What about family calls? Yes, this is a point at which all of my arguments fly right out the window. Nothing, not even flow is more important than your family, so for that there will always be a need for telephone technology in the world. I would argue that actually FaceTime technology, which is video-augmented telephone calls are superior to plain-old-telephone-calls because there is so much more there. You see the other person, something that usually takes airfare or a long car ride to accomplish. The level of information in a FaceTime conversation I would argue is far higher than in a basic telephone conversation – you can see body language, facial expressions, so much more than can be carried by voice alone.

At least for me, my family can FaceTime call me, or call me on the phone. Everyone else really should use some text infrastructure. The only part where any of this is flexible is who you consider family? Friends and family? I draw the line at coworkers and professional contacts. If you aren’t my friend outside of work, keep your phone calls – send me an email or a text.