Reading Like a Writer

Ok, I admit to slacking recently where my blog is concerned, but I have excuses, I promise!! 

Ha, actually, my only excuse is the sudden influx is great books on writing that have come my way. Having finally worked my way through "Becoming a  Writer" by Dorothea Brande, it seemed as if a world of possibilities opened up for me. So many insurmountable obstacles suddenly had footholds appearing all over them. It was rather spectacular. Finally, I am able to take advantage of all of the technical books on writing that were previously overwhelming to me. 

This new breakthrough has brought a rather unexpected dilemma to the forefront of my thoughts. Suddenly, I do not feel nearly as driven to go to grad school. Upon doing much research, both on schools and on books, I have discovered that most of the professors that schools consider their big "draw" have published books on writing. These books, upon closer inspection, are their famous writing classes, written down and published for all! Sure, I wouldn't be getting the personal emphasis with which they deliver their lectures, but neither would I be shackled with time constraints, or, for that matter, paying upwards of $50,000. 

The whole situation is rather reminiscent of "Goodwill Hunting." Is school, in fact, only in existence because we as people lack to drive to learn on our own? 

And learning on my own is something I have been spending a lot of time working on lately. These last few months since our move to Portland, I have been shifting my mentality from NOT learning at school (Lets face it, we're all there to get by with the highest grades possible with minimal effort. Most college graduates don't actually learn much, even inside their field because, honestly, it's too much trouble to test for EVERYTHING, so we just get by.) to ACTUALLY learning at home. It's been quite an experience. 

So now I become conflicted. Graduate school would deliver the much- coveted piece of paper that would allow me to teach later in life, should my writing career not pan out, and also it would offer educated peer evaluations of my works in progress at regular intervals... but it's so expensive! And do I really want to just go in order to have options should I fail? That seems a rather negative outlook. 

There I stand. Luckily, I have quite awhile to make my decisions-- and I'll probably just end up letting others make them for me. When next year rolls around, if I have something I think is good enough to submit to those terrifying admissions panels, I'll send it. And if I get in, I'll go. Almost all the schools offer full scholarships and stipends to their creative writing grad students, anyways. And why not? What school couldn't afford to when they only admit 6 students per year? Ah, the luxury of the establishment. 

On Arsenic and Spoons

I was thinking just now, about the role of royal food-tasters. You know, waaaay back when royalty had people at the table to taste their food, and if they didn't die it wasn't poisoned? (I wonder how many roasts grew cold while they waited around...) 

Well, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be easier if the saboteur in question simply dipped the King's cutlery in the poison of choice? I mean, granted you didn't choose a chemical that would turn the silver green, or set the table smoking, wouldn't this mode of assassinry be ideal? You could set the table hours in advance, with most life-threatening chemicals, and they would still be active when the Royalty unsuspectingly set spoon to soup. After all, it's not like the food-tasting servant would have the audacity to use His Majesty's silverware. Wouldn't that be infringement upon the royal lips or something? In a day where a kiss from the King upon your baby's forehead was forever a blessing, I think licking the royal salad fork would be considered quite the offense. Off with his head! 

It's rather perfect, really. I wonder if it was ever tried? 

In Which I Puzzle Through the Tenets of Great Literature

Back when I was still in high school, an art history teacher addressed the question: "What makes this art?" Apparently, Jackson Pollock and his groupies have made such a large mark, that the art community seems to feel it is necessary to further define 'art' so that it still remains far from the grasp of the common man. After all, quite literally anyone can make a pollock-esque painting (I mean, splattering paint on a canvas? Really?), but they wouldn't want you to think so. 

Anyhow, I was thinking yesterday about what makes a book good-- or, a work of art, so to speak. Naturally, this is a rather broad question, since a good book teaching mathematics would naturally achieve excellence with quite different tenets then, say, a rather spectacular coloring book. So, let me rephrase: what qualities do great works of fiction share? 

In attempt to answer this, I first made a quick mental list of all the works of fiction that I have personally read, and consider to be great (that I could think of):

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky

The History of Love by Nicole Kraus

A Small Rain by Madeleine L'Engle

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

A Farewell to Arms by Hemmingway

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolfe

The Picture of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde

Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

The Lover by Marguerite Duras

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon

Cassandra by Crista Wolf

Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde by Robert Lewis Stevenson

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift

The Remains of the Day by Ishiguro

...and many, many others. So, what did these all have in common?

They moved me. Each and every one of these books, when I turned the last page, left a very particular feeling behind within me. I felt a different, better, and wiser person than I was when I started them. And they inspired me (much as I hate the word 'inspired' it's so tacky), they are all so very beautiful that they made me want to create something of beauty as well. 

The idea of beauty is what brought me to their next quality. Each of these books was beautiful. And not only that, but they all discussed beauty. It was as if, in each book's fundamental quest to find and describe some sort of truth of the human experience, each had managed to trap a bit of true beauty, like a firefly in a jar, and hold it up for it's audience's amazement. 

In "The Picture of Dorian Gray," Lord Henry, one of Wilde's pet characters, makes many observations on the nature of art and beauty, and many of these observations are handily noted in the book's preface. Here are a few of my favorites:

"The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are cultivated. For these there is hope.

They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. 

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless."

So then, according to Oscar Wilde, a great book would be well-written, quite beautiful (and therefore completely useless), and conceal the writer while revealing the audience. That is quite a tall order, but somehow all of the aforementioned books managed it. But how?

All of the characters were quite honest, all their faults were displayed. It made them more relatable, and therefore provided a clearer mirror for the audience to stand in front of. In Anna Karenina, for example, it is quite common for the reader to have something against every single character. But then again, rare is the person who doesn't have a single quality they don't like about themselves, and aren't we always the most vicious attackers of the faults of others when they are also our own? 

They were more about the people than they were about the plot. There were rarely scintillating plot twists, gun fights, or fireworks, they could all be described rather as a complete series of deep, chronological observations. 

The book as a whole knew far more than the characters. I think this is the most valuable quality of them all. If the characters are identifyable, the plot should be believable. After all, the characters we agree with would be reacting in exactly the same way to each situation as we would. Therefore, when, somehow, the book also manages to display some sort of great and beautiful picture, it makes the reader feel as if their lives, too, contain great and beautiful meaning. And perhaps that is the key, to write something that will, in the end, make the reader feel more beautiful, and more human. 

Sadly, interesting as this all is, it seems to complicate rather than illuminate the fundamentals of writing. But that's alright. It will never fail to interest me. 

Comments on Prop 8

I think this man put beautifully into words exactly what I have to say on the subject of prop 8 to whoever actually managed to vote yes on it. 

Election

America, I am proud of us.

California, I am ashamed of us

Some stolen rebuttals to the arguments of the "yes on Prop 8" crowd. Are you really telling me that the majority of us bought into this shit?

Argument:
1.​​)​​Being​ gay is not natur​al.​​.​​.​​.​
​
Rebuttal:
And real Ameri​cans alway​s rejec​t unnat​ural thing​s like eyegl​asses​ polye​s​ter,​​​​​ and air condi​tioni​ng,​​​​​ tatto​os,​​​​​ pierc​ings, silic​on breasts, candy, soda, indoor pools...
​
2.​​)​​Gay marri​age will encou​rage peopl​e to be gay.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​       

 In the same way that hangi​ng aroun​d tall peopl​e will make you tall.​
​
3) Legal​izing​ gay marri​age will open the door to all kinds​ of crazy​ behav​ior.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​              

Peopl​e may even wish to marry​ their​ pets becau​se a dog has legal​ stand​ing and can sign a marri​age contr​act.​​​​ Lamps​ are next.​ Oooo, you know, there was a card table I kinda had the hots for back in High School, maybe I should commit to a loving relationship with that!
​
4) Strai​​ght marri​age has been aroun​d a long time and hasn'​​​​t chang​ed at all;​​.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, It's just like in 1812, when "blacks" and "whites" couldn't marry, women had no rights to their own property, divorce is illegal, and marrying between castes was frowned upon... exactly like that.
​
5) Strai​​ght marri​age will be less meani​ngful​ if gay marri​age were allow​ed;​​​​​.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
And we can'​​​​t let the sanct​ity of Britn​ey Spear​s'​​​​ 55-​​​​​hour just-​​​​​for-​​​​​fun marri​age be destr​oyed.​.. Really? Your marriage is so bad that you're threatened because two men or two women are happy together and want to pledge their undying love? That kinda seems like your problem, not theirs.
​
6) Strai​​ght marri​ages are valid​ becau​se they produ​ce child​ren.​​.​​.​​.​
​
So there​​fore,​​​​​ gay coupl​es,​​​​​ infer​tile coupl​es,​​​​​ and old peopl​e shoul​dn'​​​​t be allow​ed to marry​ becau​se our popul​ation​ isn'​​​​t out of contr​ol,​​​​​ our orpha​nages​ aren'​​​​t full yet, and the world​ needs​ more child​ren.​ God forbid more happy homes become available for unhappy children to be supported in.
​
7) Obvio​​usly gay paren​ts will raise​ gay child​ren,​​​​​.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
Sinc​e,​​​ of cours​e,​​​ strai​ght paren​ts only raise​ strai​ght child​ren.​
​
8) Gay marri​​age is not suppo​rted by relig​ion.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
You know what else was supported by religion? Slavery. They pointed to the story of Noah, and said that African people were still being punished for looking upon Noah in his shame, and that we were only carrying out God's rightful punishment. Are you telling me you still believe in that? Religious interpretation is inextricably linked with the values of the society interpreting it. 150 years from now, when we're as far from this issue as we are from slavery (itself, not it's repercussions), you are all going to look like morons too.
​
9) Child​ren can never​ succe​ed witho​ut a male and a femal​e role model​ at home.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
Which​ is exact​ly why we as a socie​ty expre​ssly forbi​d singl​e paren​ts to raise​ child​ren.​
​
10) Gay marri​age will chang​e the found​ation​ of socie​ty;​​​​​ we could​ never​ adapt​ to new socia​l norms​.​​.​​.​​.​​.​
​
Just​ like we haven​​'​​​​t adapt​ed to cars,​​​​​ the servi​ce-​​​​​secto​r econo​my,​​​​​ or longe​r life spans​.​... get over it. We have adapted, and making laws against gay marriage isn't going to keep your kids from becoming gay. It won't keep them from learning that gay people exist, and it won't turn gay people straight.

Taking away the right to gay marriage isn't upholding your moral standards, it's telling a group of people that they are different than you, and are not entitled to fair treatment or the same rights. Discrimination isn't Christian, love is. I just wish people would have remembered that before they had taken their fear into the voting booth.

Twenty Somethings and The Great Depression

This may turn out to be rather a depressing blog entry, but it is something that has been on my mind as of late. 

        

For me, as for most of my contemporaries, the decade of life known as 'the twenties' has been, so far anyways, a time of examining potential. A time for going to school, trying things out, and getting to the deep 'how-tos' of 'what do you want to be when you grow up?' In other words, most of us are NOT currently working out dream jobs. 

       

 This is where The Great Depression comes in. Now, when I read The Grapes of Wrath (which I'll just state right now I hated), I was focused more upon the plot than about the experiences of one particular age group. But, thinking back on it, what did happen to all of those people who moved through their twenties during the 1930's? All those people who were just graduating from college when the stock market crashed (go right ahead and insert obvious echoes of self-interest here),what happened to them? 

There was a huge shortage of jobs... and as far as the jobs that did exist, who would hand out these precious awards to young people with no experience? That would just be bad business when there were so many more qualified adults around. So did these people ever get the chance to follow through on their dreams? 

Probably not. With the mass starvation of that decade, I'm sure advancing as a successful bonds-salesman (or whatever) would take a back-seat to eating. Most definitely, most of these people just took jobs doing whatever it was they could get to do, and gave up on the dreams that would have been so graspable only a decade before. 

So what does that mean for us? The generation going through college, amassing gigantic student loans, and wondering if the same thing is going to happen to these loans as it did to loans in the 1930's. There is mass unemployment now, as before, who is going to hire us at a high enough salary to pay off the loans that come due 6mo following graduation? Us, rather than the 5,000-something people who got fired on our own black Friday and are now leaving New York in droves. 

Is this what the media is terming the "fear" and "panic" that underlie this election? According to wikipedia, there still aren't any overwhelming schools of thought concerning either the cause or the best way to have fixed The Great Depression of eighty years ago. Some people thought the government didn't do enough, some thought the 1.2 billion they paid into banks wasn't enough. Roosevelt's chairman of the Federal Reserve during this time, Marriner S. Eccles, thought that the best plan would have been to take their own bailout money ( $6 billion) and distribute it to the public through higher wages or lower prices, and that that would have staved off the depression itself. 

I know it is rather petty to worry about the dimming future of a particular sect of a generation when there are so many larger things at stake, but, as nothing horrifically major has happened yet, I think I'm allowed. Trust me, I'll shut up and help out when the time comes. Till then... would anyone mind hiring me, please? 

Will Ferrell is Also Awesome

Yet Another Winner

Why, History?

In browsing the internets for subject matter for this article, I came across some etymolygy that made me smile. 

Wikipedia tells us that the word "history" comes from the Greek historia, which means "an account of one's inquiries." In essence, then, the basis for history is distinctly dependent upon man's curious nature. If no one ever asked "why?" there would not exist this drive for transcription. In our historical accounts we answer questions, whether they be the questions we ask ourselves, or the questions we assume the generations of the future will need answers for. 

What, then, does it mean when we re-write history? Common knowledge would state that history is always written by the winner. Does no one ever ask about the losers? Or, since the winner of a philosophical debate is likely to have influenced the greatest margin of future thinkers, does the generation ahead simply look back upon the debates of the past for affirmation? In other words, do we only look back to make sure we're the heroes? 

This seems especially the case within American history. We wrote the stories of the violence and terrorism we enacted throughout The Revolution to reflect the outcome-- if we were currently subjects under Her Majesty's reign, I doubt we would have the same ideas regarding the correctness of violent riots and the destruction of hard-harvested leaf goods. 

We have also attempted to re-write the events of the communist era, though admittedly to a lesser effect. It's difficult to justifiably re-write McCarthy's mass witch trials, the similarity between his prosecution of Hollywood and the actions in the 1600s in Salem is mirrored so well it's sad. 

What I really want to know is whether the Great Depression of the 1930's was, in fact, so depressing that we have not made nearly enough inquiries. We hear that time is circular, and history repeats itself, but its hard to believe it is this inevitable. Is history in fact only circular until its lessons have been learned and we can escape its noose? It is logical to think that, were enough inquiries made, if enough people asked 'why?' and studied the stock market collapse, we would not have made the mistakes of the last twenty years. So why didn't we? Are we due for another red scare in thirty years? 

I wonder that evolutionary progression is dependent upon human curiosity. We've seen it in teenagers before, in a small scale. When they remain content and unchallenged before a television screen, their brains take on a distinct monkey-like appearance, even down to the grunting for food sometimes exhibited by the males of the species. It's sometimes a wonder how the nerdiest of them all manage not to throw feces. 

So I guess the real question is whether the technological progressions of our age have diminished our curiosity. With the constant presence of the internet (if you have an iphone, the internet is literally in your pocket) comes the constant availability of quick answers, and therefore a lack of real necessity for long-term learning. In other words, you don't really need to remember all the statutes of the Bill of Rights anymore, because they can be looked up instantly with a tap on a touch screen... and you are likely to forget the information a mere moment later, because you can always find it again. 

I wonder if we are going to lose our ability to concentrate, and therefore lose our ability to one day answer life's biggest questions. Most revelations require a lot of time and obsessive thought over one particular subject, but when is the last time you did that? There is hardly a need for it anymore, because there is no real need to fill time with thought-- there's always the internet to amuse you. And a child that is constantly amused and content is a child that doesn't ask questions. Will it become a child without history? If it is a child without history, how will it ever escape the tight inevitable noose that time will wind around it's neck without the countless experiences of it's forefathers? I guess we'll see.

Religion and Your Drug of Choice

I was watching the History Channel again today, and I began wondering how deep our religious background played into our cultural drugs of choice. 

Let me take a couple steps back for you-- the History Channel special I was watching today was entitled "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way." I highly recommend it. On the list of History Channel programs that I have actually watched in my lifetime (a number which grows exponentially the more tired I grow of the dirtier and dirtier reality shows gracing my TV guide), this special ranks just behind "Rumrunners, Moonshiners, and Bootleggers," which was a compelling history of illegal alcohol manufacturing and trafficking in America. 

Marijuana and its history took up a startling chunk of the show. They began by explaining that cannabis (and poppies, but that's another story) has roots dating far back into ancient civilizations. In the Hindu religion, cannabis is viewed as a gift from the goddess Shiva. 

This startling link between a deity and a mind-altering substance got me thinking about the many and specific mentions of wine and drunkenness in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. There is the incident shortly after the Great Flood, in which Noah gets drunk and passes out in his tent, the long line of Nazirites (which included Samson and Samuel), and the incident where Jesus turns water into wine as one of his miracles. In fact, and brief (and very nerdy) google search will discover that the word "wine" is used over 200 times in the King James Bible. 

So what does this mean? Clearly religious background influences culture, and drugs are certainly cultural expression, but does it go any further than that? Alcohol certainly leads to far more violent behavior than cannabis, and there is a notable difference between, say... The Spanish Inquisition and Ghandi. 

Is the behavior of the western culture purely dictated by the harvests of 8,000 years ago? Grapes easily lead to wine, and grow well near Jerusalem. If the ancient Jews were just drunk all the time, the necessity of a violent and vengeful God to reflect and legitimize their own violent behavior is a simple evolution of thought. 

Whereas, until Manifest Destiny bore the first fruits of the British Expansion into India, that entire continent seemed rather low-key and peaceful. Granted, there was that horrible caste system they had to ascribe to, but hey; even pot-heads need some sort of social order to keep them busy. 

This entire discussion requires infinitely more research, and a great deal of compare and contrast, but it makes a compelling extension to Marx's famous remark that "religion is the opiate of the masses."

What $700 billion Could Buy

"Taxpayers should compare the bailout with the pricetags on a few other items deemed unaffordable by the Administration and Congress:

• Covering health care costs plus out-of-pocket medical expenses for all of America's uninsured: $100 billion

• Universal preschool: $35 billion

• Rebuilding New Orleans: $100 billion

• Free college education for everyone: $50 billion

• Total energy independence for the United States, with a shift to renewables within the next ten years: $500 billion"

With the bailout plan in the works, sometimes its tough not to think about all of the spectacular, important things we could be having if giant, wealthy banks hadn't ripped us off for so many years, fallen straight on their asses, and then begged for help... But don't worry. I'm sure the President has got it under control...

(taken from an article at http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc092408.html written and researched by Ruth Conniff on Septenber 24th.)

The Fairytale We All Deserved to Hear

(click on the poem's image to read it)

I know it's rather odd to equate so many things to episodes of Sex and the City, but this particular adult fairytale really reminded me of a scene from that show. Charlotte poses the theory that, deep down, what women really want is to be rescued, and it serves as the theme for that episode. 

Later, as Carrie is shown writing her column, she speaks to the camera, saying: "Is it true? DO women really just want to be rescued? Or would Sleeping Beauty eventually gotten up, scored a great job with a health care package, bought a home, and gotten a baby from her neighborhood sperm-bank?" 

Its quite a dilemma. In a way, don't all people want to be rescued? I mean, no one has the answers to life's great questions, and who in their right mind actually enjoys working so much harder than they have to? It just is not a mentality which should necessarily be assigned to women. I know many many men out there, waiting around for their sugar-mama. 

There's nothing inherantly wrong with the desire to be rescued from your measly human existence, I believe that the problem begins when the desire to be saved clouds your self-respect so much that you would listen to the frog hitting on you in the bar, go back to his castle, and agree to become his lifelong maid. That's the part of the story that truly could use some re-telling.

If Only It WERE a Disney Movie...

If you watched the Matt Damon clip below, you'll see why this spoof preview is amazing... and REALLY scary at the same time.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Matt Damon

I love this. It amuses me to no end.

For Those Not Yet Registered to Vote

Never before has an election seemed more inextricably linked to the everyday lives of the American citizens. Possibly because we have recently been handed direct proof of what happens when apathy gets the best of us, and we just sit back and allow others to make decisions for us. 

Last election only 64% of the population voted. And, to break that down even further, only 47% of those aged 18-24 turned out to vote. Ironically, that is also the age group of most of the people being killed now in the Iraq war. 

The current administration has spent eight years treating the public like children. Hiding information, and ignoring it as if we are unable to put forth thoughts of our own. If you don't vote, you prove them right. So get out there and register. I promise you it's worth the paperwork. 

On Experience

I have recently experienced several interesting difficulties hunting for a job, which, inevitably, have led me to think about the upcoming election. For instance, were you aware that positions available for Editorial Internships at local magazines actually require their applicants to have a background of at least two years writing for a publication? WTF? Why the hell would I be an intern if I could be writing for a magazine? Why yes, ma'am, I'll fetch you your coffee without being paid instead of sending in my writing for lots and lots of money. 

Instance second: three different restaurants here in the Portland area have stated that their dishwashing applicants need at least 5yrs experience in that capacity in order to apply... I don't even want to get into what they want from their wait-staff. 

Is this the effect the election is having on the country? The media has been going on and on and on for so long about Obama's lack of experience that now local businesses think that they, too, should turn down perfectly qualified candidates just to join in the fun? 

I understand the desire of business owners to hire the most qualified people for the job that they  possibly can, but there is a fine line between not wanting to train lazy teenage employees and requiring yourself straight into a corner. 

Sarah Palin Fun Fact of the Day

She watches comedy shows with the sound off... so while she did see the Saturday Night Live that I have posted below, she just thought that it was hilarious. All she knew was that Tina Fey looked like her, and she had no actual concept of what was actually being satirized in the sketch. Go figure.

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton

Tina Fey does a startlingly good Sarah Palin impression. I hope you enjoy this.

Wanna Smell Like a Country Music Star?

While watching television yesterday, it suddenly came to my attention that Tim McGraw was launching his own fragrance. Tim McGraw? Really? I mean, I'm used to the likes of Paris Hilton and Sarah Jessica Parker selling their signature smell to the world, but who wants to smell like a country music star? Am I missing something? 

Well, this sparked my interest. Suddenly, I decided to look around a bit and see what other people had decided to bottle themselves up. To my surprise, almost everyone is doing it these days! Like I said, Madonna I can handle, Beyonce, Jlo, even Prince. But Derek Jeter? David Beckham? Michael Jordan? These are some seriously sweaty men! Do we really want their disciples running around reeking of professional sports? But I suppose that isn't really the point, is it? 

The real point is that, apparently, you're not established in the world of fashion or celebrity until you have your name on a fancy bottle for everyone to see. What I really want to know is who is buying these things? Chanel no.5 I can understand, but even Hillary Duff makes no sense. Granted, at least Hillary Duff's fragrance would err closer on the side of innocence than on the side of "baby prostitute" (as some of the other scents have been dubbed). 

In a world where people complain about the price of gas, thousands of Americans are dying to smell like the Desperate Housewives. (I'm not kidding. Their fragrance its titled "forbidden fruit") Yay capitalism! 

Obama of Athens

The statements that I am about to make will seem pompous and overly-elitist, of this I am sure. However, my personal infatuation with the following ideas make this writing inevitable, compulsory even, and therefore I beg the forgiveness and indulgence of my audience. 

Earlier this evening, I was studying a book entitled "Clear and Simple as the Truth," a discussion of the elements of classical writing (as expressed in the Greek tradition, the French Revolution, and several documents from colonial America). This, quite clearly, is where my snobbery comes in-- but I digress. Within this book was an example from a writing of Thucydides, a Greek historian that recounts a war in the 5th century B.C. between Athens and Sparta. 

This excerpt is a speech supposedly delivered by Pericles at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War. Upon reading it, I couldn't help but to think of the similarities between this speech and the current state of political affairs. In his speech, Pericles seeks to unite Athens by uplifting their communal values and presenting a vision of themselves as an elite class, capable of hope and of making intelligent decisions. Unfortunately, there are always a class of people who would rather 'rush blindly into the sea, swords drawn, and battle ceaselessly with the waves' than slow down and consider the rational decisions that they fear. 

The speech is as follows:

"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than as something to boast about. As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the real shame is not taking practical measures to escape from it. Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well... We are capable at the same time of taking risks and of estimating them beforehand. Others are brave out of ignorance; and, when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come." 

The fear that Pericles so aptly mentions is the aspect I note most when I encounter anti-Democratic propaganda. I came across a myspace bulletin two days ago that took great pains to dissect irrelevant and insubstantial irregularities in Obama's speech in order to insinuate that he is a liar. The list, and I quote is a "list of things that Senator Obama has said that are not EXACTLY correct." It then proceeds to run through a series of inconsequential details to prove, I assume, that Obama is human after all. 

What I simply do not understand is why it is easier for many people to harp after the little things that support their position rather than to acknowledge any other points of view. Is it a fear of being wrong? A fear of personal affront? A fear that, should there be a change in office, they will be held personally responsible for the last miserable eight years? If things remain as they are, does it reaffirm their belief that they were right, the democrats were wrong, and another president turning a blind eye will make Iraq, the energy crises, and global warming just disappear?

Well-- continuing darkness doesn't bring the monster out of the closet, and throwing away the bills won't get rid of the debt. Both are fearful and childish acts, and neither could possibly be helpful in the long run. The real question is whether the opposition can be induced to see through their fear to the actual issues, or if 2.5 months simply isn't enough time to draw them out from under the bed. 

Obama for Athens. McCain for Sparta. How simple the decision seems when compared with what we know.

Would You Drink More Water If It Had Some BLING?

I know, I know, you've heard it all before. We all need to drink more water. 64oz/day; and that's if you don't exercise, sweat, or drink alcohol. But how many of you wouldn't drink more water if you were drinking it out of this? I mean, seriously, what's $38/bottle when we're talking about your health? Still not interested? Fine. Maybe this will change your mind:

TEN REASONS TO DRINK ENOUGH WATER

1. It will make you smarter. 

   ---seriously. When a person is dehydrated they lose cell functions in the brain as well as the rest of the body. 

2.You can avoid hangovers

---this is a little harder to achieve. In order to offset one serving of alcohol, you need to have one cup of water. That means, if you are planning to have 3 beers when you go out, you need to drink 11cups of water throughout the day. But I swear it's worth it.

3. You will stay thin.

---Thirst has this tricky way of masquerading firstly as hunger. I don't know why, but it's true. If you feel hungry, chances are you should really just drink a couple glasses of water. And, as an added bonus, if you do drink those extra cups of water before dinner, you will be less likely to eat as much. By the time you're thirsty you're already dehydrated, and probably snacked-out, too.

4. You won't bloat. 

---This one's a bit odd. Your body reacts to thirst the same way that it reacts to anorexia. When you don't eat enough, you go into starvation mode, and your body begins to store everything you take in as fat instead of burning it all into energy. So a 98lb model can eat 500cal/day and still gain weight-- it's weird. But your body reacts the same way to thirst, if you don't drink water for a long time, your body is likely to camel-out on you and try to store the water in an unsightly manner.

5. You will have more energy

---Since drinking water boosts cell function, it also stimulates a high-functioning metabolism. When your body has all of the resources that it needs, it can process food at a rate you won't even imagine. Also, you will likely cut back your sugar intake by avoiding sweetened teas, sodas, and juices, therefore thoroughly avoiding the sugar-low that appears an hour or so after ingesting that beverage.

6. You will have amazing skin

---You are made up of 50-75% water, so sometimes heavily moisturizing lotions just won't cut it. You need to moisturize from the inside out.

7. You will save money

---When you really think about it, most of us spend an unseemly amount of money per month trying to avoid our daily intake of water. You spent how much on tea and diet coke?! C'mon, now. 

8. You will reduce your risk of diabetes and heart disease.

---Type II diabetes is generally found in adults who have been ingesting large amounts of sugar of a period of years and years. Eventually, their bodies just can't produce enough insulin to metabolize all of the sodas, candies, and processed-sugar wonderbreads. Well, water can't do anything about the candy, but at least it should help you cut back on the soda. As for the heart disease, there have been studies done that would (inconclusively) indicate that drinking hard water reduces your risk of coronary failure. It's a long shot, but it couldn't hurt. 

9. You will give your tastebuds a break

---which, incidentally, will help you to eat better. When your mouth is being constantly bombarded by sugary, exciting drinks, you are far more likely to reach for a sugary, exciting snack when you're hungry to complete the process. Drinking water feels healthier, and it will give your body the chance it needs to let you know that it would really prefer a handful of carrots, thank you very much.

10. You will catch fewer colds

---water helps your body flush out all sorts of nasties, if enough is on hand to do so. In addition, a body with enough water is running more smoothly, and is therefore far better equipped to deal with fighting off the little bugs that do latch on.

So that's that. I know you're heard it all before, but I assure you that drinking enough water really isn't as difficult as it sounds. Start carrying a bottle of water around with you all day, and you'll see what I mean. You'll be shocked at how much you'll drink if it's sitting right there. 

Just make sure not to drink too much. Water, like everything else, can be overdosed, so if you're carrying around a gallon jug all day, make sure to be aware that too much water can literally be fatal.

It's All About Multi-Tasking

In light of the ever so quickly escalating global warming crisis, several environmental industries have taken cues from nature herself and begun to create mini self-sustaining eco-systems in furthering their capitalist efforts. 

For instance, recent developments have made raising fish and vegetables in the same aqua-garden a match made in heaven. The fish live down below (obviously), fertilizing the hydroponic system, and the vegetables give back to them by pumping their oxygen by-products back into the area. How cool is that? 

Also recently helpful are a series of color-coded bacteria that scientists in Dublin have just deemed perfect for determining the source and extent of oil spills. Safer than the chemicals that have heretofore tracked these spills, the bacteria can easily be equipped with a protein that lights up around oil... how very convenient.

This Shocked Me

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/30/police_raids/index.html?source=newsletter

http://www.startribune.com/local/27703754.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsX

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/31/politics/horserace/entry4401722.shtml

It's a few articles detailing massive police raids in Minneapolis a couple days ago. They raided houses in riot gear, arresting people they suspected of planning a protest at the democratic national convention.

Although they did confiscate a few weapons, and a book that details homemade bombs, they detained only five of the many people because of them.


I understand the concerns of the government, as explained by the mayor in the third article, and I understand that they suspected that the protest would lead to "anarchist" violent behavior. What I do not understand is when pre-emptive strikes became acceptable within American society.

I'm scared.

William Blake: Before His Time

The greatest thing about William Blake, for me, is how remarkably accessible his work is to a modern audience. He had a creative disdain for the concept of organized religion, and yet he fanatically absorbed both the Bible and Greek Mythology. Blake supported human sexuality (and female rights to their own sexuality, an even rarer occurrence), racial equality, and equality between the sexes; all the evils of which were steadfastly rooted within his 1800's society. He only traveled more than a day's walk out of London once in his life, but his works traverse many planes. Though his work is considered Romantic, he preceded even that literary movement, and his ideas, nearly unrecognized in his own time, mesh perfectly with our own, nearly 200 years after his death.

Blake was highly reverent of the teaching of the Bible, though he felt free to make personal interpretations, and ascribe errors as he saw fit. Ultimately, Blake created his own religion of sorts, re-naming several gods and creating his own mythology. The diversion from Christianity which I find most intriguing, personally, is in reference to his ideas regarding the soul. He believed that the soul and the body were not two separate entities, but rather that the body was a portion of the soul, detected by the senses. This root philosophy directed most of the others, for since he did not believe the body to be innately sinful, he did not see any point in orthodox self-denial. He lived life to the fullest, reveled in pleasure, and felt safe in his feeling that the concept of sin as defined by the church was merely a trap for mens desires, and to abstain or repress those desires was to deny life. (I know you think he's a cheating jackass right about now, but shockingly, all accounts indicate that he lived a long, happily monogamous life with his one wife, Catherine. I guess his philosophy still doesn't involve pleasure at the expense of others.)

I am consistently making an independent study of his body of poetry and amazing engravings; Blake was one of the rare people that my professors always seemed to assume had already been covered and thus, ironically, he remained rather ignored throughout my education.

With this in mind, I bring you a collection of my personal favorite individual lines from his "Proverbs of Hell."

Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.

He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.

He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star.

Shame is Pride's cloke.

Prisons are built with the stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.

Every thing possible to be believ'd is an image of truth.

The eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted to learn of the crow.

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.

Expect poison from the standing water.

Listen to the fools reproach! it is a kingly title!

Exuberance is Beauty.

Improve[me]nt makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are the roads of Genius.


I will not insult my audience's intelligence with interpretations of the above lines.

To Energy Wasters

If you haven't read this yet, you should really get on it. As if global warming weren't a scary enough idea, apparently the Earth only has to get a little bit warmer before the Arctic Tundra starts to release all of the greenhouse gasses stored beneath the permafrost, and send the problem wheeling far out of humanity's control. 

So please, get over yourselves and start taking responsibility for the waste you create, so that your children still have land to live on. 

Thanks

SEX Gets No Love From Feminism

When I set out to research previously published material  on a feminist perspective to Sex and the City for an article, I thought I'd get a wealth of heated material.  I expected to find an eternal stalemate deathmatch between the traditional second-wave feminist faction and the "girlie" feminism, or the "post-feminism." I expected the wordy arguments of the second-wavers, I expected their declamation that SATC was just a syndicated designer shoe ad, and I expected the claim that heart of the show was misogyny because all of the women seem to be driven by longing for a man. What I didn't expect was only one article praising the show. 

One article. Seriously, guys? This brought visions of rejection letters swimming into my subconscious; if there are no other articles like this out there, what is the likelihood of mine being published? I mean, normally a niche idea is a good idea, but if I'm marketing it to proprietors of feminist literature, there doesn't seem to be any point in selling them a viewpoint that they despise. Is there? 

Misogyny. Product Placement. Dependance. Dysfunction. Surreal Imaging. Hegemonic Dissonances. I agree that all of these points can be made, but I personally believe that the show does a lot of good simply by giving a time slot to a set of strong women of independent means, who aren't afraid of what the world is going to say about them. 

Yes. These women are too pretty to be an accurate representation of the typical woman in power. Yes, they perpetuate a possibly abnormal obsession with expensive footwear. And yes, they all are lucky enough to have succeeded in careers that have most people swimming in envy. But they perpetuate actual emotions, and they solve problems in the workplace that many women can identify with. 

I point to an episode entitled "Belles of the Balls" wherein Samantha gets turned down for a job because, as a woman, she was too promiscuous. Her response? "If I were a man, you would have shaken my hand and gotten me a scotch. It is shocking that someone with such an innovative vision should be so short-sighted." 

Perhaps instead of bad-mouthing one of the only network television shows to address the issue of abortion head-on, we should instead investigate the cultural reasons whereby these characters dress and act the way they do. What cultural changes need to be made in order for a show to air about 4 normal looking women, who struggle in love and in the workplace, and don't really want kids? 

In the meantime, I'll take my syndicated Jimmy Choo commercial and like it, thank you very much.

On Creative Writing Programs

There have been a range of disagreements among authors over the years as to the usefulness of creative writing programs, with all their flaws. Mark Twain was famous for hating them, as he hated most everything, whereas some of the newer writers don't seem as opposed. 

So what's the deal? Will all creative writing teachers truly squash your creativity into the tiny box of their own taste? Probably not. I'd like to think that especially the graduate programs have evolved past that. 

If they are safe for writers, than what is the source of trepidation? Does it spout from that unspoken fear that entering a program is a subconscious admittance that your own ideas aren't good enough? That you aren't talented enough, and that you only hope to be published based off of the memorization and application of taught form? Probably. Is it true? Humph. 

I suspect that the true answer to this question cannot be found without first completing a Master's Degree. It's sort of like trying to figure out if you are allergic to peanut butter by reading the jar. But is it worth the risk? Will it be worth it to expend the time and effort (not to mention the great expense) for an unknown reward? Or, *gasp*, possibly for great detriment? 

I don't know, but I suppose I am going to find out. At worst, I hear they force you to write a whole lot, and to read your material out loud in front of an audience. That should at the very least quell my fear of public humiliation. Anyways, a fear of education is silly.  As you cannot lock your children in basements to preserve their purity, you also cannot prohibit yourself from learning anything because you are afraid of the results the knowledge may bring. If I don't approve of the writing methods that they may of may not teach me, I have to trust that I am intelligent enough not to be magically and subconsciously bound by those methods. 

Sometimes I that publishing houses would include an author's education on the book jackets. While I think it's great that the author is happily married, and living with their 12 dogs and 8 parakeets on a farm in Nebraska, it would be quite helpful to note that they received a Master's degree from Princeton. 

When Even FOX is Snarky, You Know Somethin's Up

Throughout all of the debacles that the Bush Administration has put the American public through in the past 8 years, it seemed that America could always count on the FOX news network to put the most rigidly conservative spin on the day's breaking news updates. Well, it seems that some things are just too outrageous for even FOX to get behind. In this article, released earlier today, the writer takes a refreshingly sadistic approach to reporting the newest update on the Russia-Georgian situation. 

Although this outbreak sparked many questions within news talk shows regarding Obama and McCain's abilities to handle this "3am crisis," cameras seemed to shy sadly away from the fact that, when alerted to the situation, our current President simply remained in his seat in Beijing, enjoying his vacation at the world Olympic games. 

Since Bush's return earlier this week, he seems to have taken every opportunity to surpass his already winning record as a poster-boy for hypocrisy: 

In a chronological manner, the writer simply lays Bush's own speech before his audience, as a series of key quotes, inviting us to make what we will of them.

Item #1 The US and Poland agreed yesterday to set up an American missile defense base on Poland's soil. However, in his speech today, Bush continued to declaim that "the Cold War is over. The days of satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us." 

Item #2 Bush called out Russia for it's use of "bullying and intimidation," stating that they were "not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

...did I mention that this entire speech was given just outside the Oval Office? Bush was answering questions while en route to the plane that would take him to his ranch in Texas, where he will be enjoying a two-week vacation. This from the President who has already amassed almost 2 years of vacation out of the 7.5 years he has been in office. 

 By simply relaying the quotes as they lay, this reporter seems to have broken through FOX's conventional niceties to do the cruelest thing one could possibly do: let Bush speak for himself. 

10 ideas if your ipod fails at the gym

If you're a gym regular like me, then you know that when your ipod goes kaplut while you're working out, it's bad times. So today, when the inevitable happened to me, I attempted to concoct a list of things to do while you're running aimlessly. 

1. Watch TV

    Now, there are several problems with this proposition. I mean, firstly, it's not like there's ever anything good on when you're at home, why should this devilish device agree with your whims when you're at your most desperate for entertainment? 

I'm not saying I haven't frequently fallen victim to the 'stare at the screen 'cuz it's there' phenomena. It just never leads anywhere good. I have now watched about ten more E special features than I ever desired (which was, um, none), and have been repeatedly grossed out by the media's obsessive over-coverage of murders and child abductions. 

2. Stare at the wall

Really, this is only good for about 10 seconds.

3. Make Grocery Lists

This is a great use of your time, provided you can trust yourself not to immediately forget the list upon introduction of some better form of entertainment... I cannot. 

4. Watch your fellow gym-goers

    Please do not do this. It's creepy. Very, very creepy. And really, it's only interesting for the first 30 seconds. Then you remember that they, too, are running in place for no apparent reason. 

5. Plan your next halloween costume

    Really. You'll come up with something amazing if you think long enough. I decided on a group costume-- "Things that would survive a nuclear holocaust," costumes include Mr. Twinkie, a Cockroach, Diet Coke, and possibly Larry King.

6. Plot world Domination

...of course, this may not be as much fun for you as it is for me. Because, you know, I will be reclaiming the world as my own once you successfully unite the peasants on my behalf.

7. Try to name all the candy in the impulse section of your grocery store

     Naturally, the detriment of this idea is that, after you're done working out, you'll want to go to the store to see if you got them correct, and this can only lead to eating more Reeses'. 

8. Name the starting line-up of your home baseball team

If you can do this easily, I recommend naming the entire bullpen, and then moving onto    other teams. So far, I can do all of the Giants, and almost all of the A's, Red Sox, Yankees, and Mariners. It is totally not impossible.

9. Decide which olympic sport you would compete in if a fairy came down and offered you gold-medal talents in one area and one area only.

     If you could go back in time, here are some rather odd activities you used to be able to compete in at the olympics:

            -live pigeon shooting (valid only in 1900 in Paris)

            -pistol deuling (1906)

            -solo synchronized swimming (1992. And don't ask me to explain it. Crazy '90s)

    -club swinging (1904, 1932. The club had ribbons on it. Men did this. Yeah.)

            -Tug of War (1900-1920)

            -Motor Boating (1908. With an actual boat. You Pervert.)

            -Running Deer Single Shot (1904-1936)

10. Create a new recipe in your head.

       This is much healthier than the candy one, as it involves you wanting to go straight home and cook something, instead of eating chocolate. 

So there you have it. Hopefully some of these will keep you entertained while you're mourning your decision not to check your battery before leaving the house. Although, I would like to recommend that you keep your headphones in your ears while you are doing all of this. People without headphones look shady, and god forbid you should actually have to interact with another human being. 

Long River, High Sky

Let me preface this post by saying that LINES ballet is my all-time favorite ballet company. Alonzo King is a genius, and there is still, even with how out of shape I am, nothing I wouldn't do for the opportunity to be in that company. Every single one of those dancers are gorgeous. 

                                                                                                                                                        

Now, down to the real stuff. I meant to post a review of the last ballet I saw LINES perform back in late May, just after I saw them, but---yada yada yada. Anyway, I'm doing it now. The title of the piece 

was "Long River High Sky," and it was a collaboration between LINES ballet and the kung fu monks of Shaolin Temple USA. Now, if that isn't enough to get you interested, I don't know what is. 

Though there wasn't a specific "story" to the piece per se, there were many recurring themes throughout, woven together to create something as typically beautiful as only LINES can promise. A zen setting was ingrained within each person's movement-- it was as if the dancers alternated between this world and the next, and occasionally the monks would achieve some sort of serenity whereby they could interact with the dancers. 

In contrast to the ethereal parts of the piece were sections during which the monks and the dancers seemed to interact on this plane. The dancers played normal humans, and many people occupied the stage--walking, dancing, and clearly seeing one another, though only a couple of the performers would ever dance together. 

To the oblivious bystander (ie. me), this ballet seemed to be a perfect window into what I imagine is the life of a storybook Shaolin Monk. It was amazing. If you ever get a chance to see 

e of a storybook Shaolin Monk. It was amazing. If you ever get a chance to see LINES perform at the Yerba Buena Center of the Arts in San Francisco, GO!

Health Rants: The Beginning

This summer, Vogue has been all about health, and one of the articles I read really got me thinking. It was examining the idea that exercise may not be the best diet for some people if you really want to lose weight. In a nutshell, the author, a mid-aged woman, described her dieting practices, noting that although she exercises 5x/wk, she has actually remained the same size for the past 10yrs. Now, she said, if the goal of all of this exercise was to lose weight, then why has she persisted for so long in a pattern that hasn't seemed to prove beneficial? 

This is a subject that I have personally been exploring for the past few years, and I have come to a conclusion that I seem to think is just inevitable: most people just don't understand portion control. In America, we have learned that bigger is better, big house, big car, big mac... you get the picture. However, as time is progressing, the real estate market is crashing, the cars' pollution has made the environment unstable, and our general public has reached an obesity issue of epidemic proportions. So where does it end?

I have no idea what can be done about the American economy, I didn't even remotely study anything pertaining to that in school. And hopefully, with the upcoming election, the US will be able to elect the only candidate that seems interested in working positively with the rest of the world to solve the crisis of global warming. However, that still leaves the problem of obesity. Now-- I know just as well as anyone how easy it is to think that what appears on your plate when you order an "entree" at applebees is what you should be ingesting as a meal, but the reality is that your body just can't handle that many calories in a day! Lets say you order their asiago chicken; right there, you have eaten 800 calories, and that doesn't even count your drink, an appetizer, or anything that may come on the side. If you're careful, order the chicken with a diet soda, only eat half of your mashed potatoes, and none of the garlic toast, you might get lucky and leave the restaurant only 1,000 cal heavier. But let's say you're a normal, healthy sized person, and you weren't planning to work out that day: that only leaves you with 500 cal to spare for the rest of the day without you having to worry about gaining weight. Now, does that sound anything like what the teacher was droning on about during all those long hours back in your high school health class? Probably not. 

Back to the Vogue article; it turned out that the author had merely fallen a victim of what so many of us are prone to do, and had assumed that it was just fine to have that second cookie-- I mean, she was working it all off anyway, right? There are some great programs popping up out there to help people understand what a healthy diet entails; Weight Watchers, LA weight loss, but their problem lies right there in their title. These businesses are about helping people lose weight they wouldn't have gained to begin with if proper food education had been readily available. This has become one of my favorite websites over the past year, because it compiles useful information in a user-friendly fashion, perfect for the health-obsessed like me. You ever want to know exactly how many calories were in a peach? Or how many you were actually burning off with those walks on the beach? It'll tell you! It's fantastic. 

Anyway, this article is the beginning of many. I plan to put up delicious recipes as I find them, and eventually workout tips as well.  

V is for Veggies, Is Good Enough For Me!

I know, I know, I'm behind the times. But what can I say? I don't have children, and, like the rest of my generation, I tend to get my news almost solely from the internet and/or The Daily Show. Therefore, I didn't hear about this new Cookie Monster phenomena until I read a post about Cookie Monster making an appearance on The Colbert Report, so-- shame on me. 

There seems to be much protest from the masses surrounding this nostalgic icon's movement away from childhood obesity. Everywhere you look (once you know to search for it, that is), another person seems to be protesting that Cookie Monster is "selling out." In fact, the tagline on the very same picture I have posted above read: "What is this crap?!" Popular theory seems to hold that this icon, and his obsession, were a symbol of our childhoods, and now his hydrogenated ideals are going the way of Strawberry Shortcake, who has become a big girl, and  traded in gumdrops for actual strawberries. Wait... is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Stephen Colbert addressed this whiny refrain from the children of the 80's satirically, naturally. He shouted out loud that "fruit is un-American!" Obviously mocking as this statement may appear, it actually seems to be the popular web opinion! Food Sites, thankfully, seem to retain their sanity and stand above the norm, supporting Sesame Street's desire to halt childhood obesity. The above link will lead you to "Serious Eats," where you can actually watch Stephen Colbert interview Cookie Monster, if you so desire.

 The British also seem to be in agreement with Sesame Street's new policy, the BBC\'s article on the matter actually points out that "almost one in 3 children in the US is overweight, as opposed to one in 25 in the UK," something that people clinging to nostalgia seem to overlook. 

I say, nostalgia be damned in this case. Sure Cookie Monster was great, but isn't proper education better? Wasn't it Cookie Monster's driving personality that attracted us to him in the first place? Whatever he ate, he ate with vehemence and spirit, and who's to say that his googly-eyed devouring of pineapples and bananas won't be as delighting to children as projectile chocolate chips were to us? Wasn't it Cookie Monster's love and interest in his nourishment, and his sadness when it was gone what made him a role model to be adored? 

Cookie Monster's new refrain is that he still loves cookies as much as ever, but that cookies are a "sometimes food," to be enjoyed after you have eaten your healthy meal. What's not to love in that? 

The sugary, substance-driven shouts of the carefree 80's have been laid to rest, for the good of the future. However, I too have nostalgic weaknesses, so here is an awesome poem I found when I was looking all of this information up. Thank you, Andy Bryan. 

To Geek or Not to Geek?

This is apparently what happens if you do a google search for Star Trek and then sit back and look at all the pretty pictures. I loved this picture, but it really made me think-- what side of that waiting room would I be on now?

I was a total nerd in high school... Actually I still am, I just learned to hide it better. So where exactly do I fit in now? All the friends of my best friends from high school always appear to fear me, and the kids my boyfriend plays MTG with stutter and drop their cards when I appear, even if my appearance is due to the fact that I too am playing magic and having inevitably lost in the last round, I must now play them. 

So what happens now? Is there some sort of retrograde order that governs the social circles once we get older? If so, I really feel cheated. I used to be one of the geeky kids that got looked down on, and now I'm one of those social people that the nerds privately mock. Does this ever reach an equilibrium or do I just have to accept the fact that I'm being mocked and I have the distinct pleasure of realizing it? Kinda makes you feel jealous of those kids that were popular in HS, they never did seem to figure out what vicious fun we always had at their expense... you know how public school teachers always say 'no question is a stupid question?' Yeah, they're just being nice. In fact, many questions are stupid questions, especially the ones that require the instructor to repeat something that was quite literally just explained. 

But that is beside the point. I want to know what happens to the nerds that woke up one day, stuck their heads out of their chosen corners, and realized, "Hey! Vogue isn't so hard after all!" I maintain that, in all seriousness, it takes a special sort of nerdiness in and of itself to devote yourself so fully to the demands of fashion. The time you have to spend scouring magazines, and online stores, vintage shops, and designers' web lookbooks... or maybe that's just me. Hey, what can I say? I'll always be a nerd. 

At this point, I'm just glad I didn't wind up getting that dragon tattoo encircled with an elvish inscription I wanted when I graduated... Ooops, did I just say that out loud?

Free Hat

They say the best things in life are free, but as someone who just spent the last 35min looking at all the things people are trying to give away via Craig's list, and I would have to respectfully disagree. I mean, I have nothing against a free mini fridge, but when the catch is that you must first clean out the green, oozing molded food, I'm thinkin it might not be worth it. 

There were mattresses galore, and a rubbermaid bin someone was claiming had been converted into a hot tub, though I never did manage to figure out how that had occurred. Free contact lenses-- the person listed their prescription. I guess that works, I mean it's not like they had been used...but bricks? Who wants free bricks? I mean, free dirt is one thing, and free firewood is nothing to be sneered at, but free bricks to be picked up in the castro? I don't even want to know. True to form, though, the most disturbing finds I came across were also the simplest-- the couches. You may think a couch is a couch is a couch, free or not, but these were specimens not to be reckoned with. Discolored, moldy, and tatty, these couches take the cake. 

So, if the invading aliens hire you as their interior decorator, by all means make your selections accordingly from craig's list. I have no doubt that you can find a multitude of furniture options that can effectively infect the evil race with the bubonic plague. In any other circumstance, please remember: viruses aren't toys.

Apocalypse

This recent ginormous, insane heat wave has gotten me thinking about the apocalypse... or perhaps it was the eerie red smoke clouds that have been lingering near my house as the county on either side of my house has taken to catching fire the last couple weeks. I don't know, I'm not a doctor. Either way, I decided to do some research. 

Traditionally, I have been a fan of preparation. As my mother's perpetually overflowing tote bag suggested throughout my childhood, if you brought absolutely everything with you, you could never have any excuse for making impulse purchases... which made for some incredibly unexciting vacations in my childhood, let me tell you. Who wants a warm waterbottle and a squished sandwich for lunch at the fair? Geez. Nonetheless, preparation is a nice skill to be familiar with. Doing your homework on time will keep you prepared for tests, buying the appropriate items while you're at the store will save you from the inevitable: "shit. These cookies need EGGS don't they..." and so therefore, reading apocalypse preparation guides will keep you prepared for the zombie attack, right? Right? 

Item #1: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from The Living Dead by Max Brooks.

This is perfect. If you are afraid of a zombie invasion in the vein of Shaun of the Dead, this is the only book for you.

Item #2: How to Survive a Robot Uprising: Tips on Defending Yourself Against the Coming Rebellion. By Daniel H Wilson.

I have yet to read this book, but I imagine it would be infinitely useful in the event that The Terminator should be the way the end comes to pass. 

However, it was not until I found this book that I became truly excited: How to Build a Robot Army: Tips on Defending Planet Earth Against Alien Invaders, Ninjas, and Zombies. By Daniel H. Wilson. 

Going on the offense? Sounds perfect!! Who needs to sit around and wait for zombies and robots to overrun the world when we can build a giant robot army to begin with?! Wait... Those are the robots that turn against us, aren't they? Drat. Now what? 

Hmm well, I suppose there is always giving some Utah-ian drunkard tons of electronic supplies and hoping he actually can create a warp drive... 

At any rate, in the meantime I'll be reading, hoping, and keeping stakes in my home, hoping against hope that this weather will let up. 

Insanity frightens cats, too.

Were you aware that mountain lions are afraid of gigantic people flapping their coats? Because I wasn't. So I learned something new today. We received a public service announcement from the Scotts Valley Police department warning us that a mountain lion had been spotted in our area. It recommended that, in the event of contact with a mountain lion, we pick up small children and place them on our shoulders to appear larger. Also, it said, if we were wearing jackets we should unzip them and flap them around, all while yelling and maintaining eye contact with the lion. 

Now, I think was is most interesting about this recommendation is that we are not encouraged to save the children. We are, in fact, using the children to help ourselves. Now, if the announcement had said something like 'pick up small children and run your ass off' it may have actually made a valid point. However, isn't picking up children to appear larger something like shoving your friend down on the ground and hoping that the lion will be so distracted by eating them that you can get away in time? 

Note to self: If there is a mountain lion near your house, invite over only your shortest friends, and make sure to learn the hokey-pokey.

The Farmer's Market

Perhaps I am bizarre, but there is just something so fantastic about being around all of that fresh food. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love grocery shopping in general, but going to the farmer's market seems to just stimulate the cooking gene in me. Whereas being in the grocery store tempts me with frozen pizza and ice cream, going to the farmer's market makes me want to cook. 

I used to go to the farmer's market every week, when I lived downtown. But then we decided to move to Scotts Valley to save money, and I got so busy with school that the farmer's market just became so far away. Now, with graduation behind me, and apartment hunting in Santa Cruz occupying my newfound free time, I get to safely indulge in my joyous marketing once more. 

There is one stall there that sells only homemade pasta. Ravioli, angel hair noodles, sauces, pesto, all of my favorite dinner foods right at my fingertips, and healthy as can be. How fantastic is that? Also, going to the farmer's market gives me the chance to make use of one of my bookstore impulse-buys from last summer: The San Francisco Ferry Plaza Farmer's Market Cookbook by Christopher Hirsheimer and Peggy Knickerbocker. It is organized according to season, and contains various recipes that involve each vegetable you are likely to find that season at the market. I adore cooking with fresh food, being somewhat health-obsessed myself, and so this book has given me all of the ideas I could possibly hope for. 

For instance, this peach bruschetta with blue cheese that I am just off to try. I have been home from the gym for almost an hour now, and it is definitely time for a snack. I'll let you know how it goes! 

The Title

I realize that the title of my blog isn't the most concise thing in the world. Hence, explanation:

I read a lot of Madeleine L'Engle's work as a kid, and Troubling a Star, was one of my favorites. This, of course, was before I went to college and really understood that the subtext regarding the fall of the sparrow that L'Engle uses throughout the book was based off the famous Hamlet quote: "...There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come-- the readiness is all." ( Hamlet Act 5 Scene 2, 217-224) 

Strange child that I was, I gave a lot of thought to the death of innocence. Not in a Blake-y sort of way, his obsession of children's innocence and the thought that it would never return. More, I thought of it in the way I saw it taking place all around me. Kids who were teased at school for wearing the "wrong" thing; were they the sparrow? How about when they took their quiet revenge, who was the victim when the downtrodden nerd had suddenly tricked the bully into sitting on a thumb-tack?

Really, the fall of the sparrow has Christian connotations, dating back to the Gospel of Matthew.  There are two, both in red:

"Look at the birds in the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26)

"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29-31) 

Now, what I am most concerned with thinking about is what happens after the sparrow falls. When the ball drops, when the fairy tale ends, what then? Clearly, 'bad things happen to good people' as the horrid cliché goes. But then the people, the sparrows, seem to fall right out of the frame. They keep living their lives though, the sparrows. We look out over the abyss and see them all, us all, the dried skeletons of many sparrows. Their parched remains the echo of injustices past, with only subtle reminders to the rest of us of how they got through it. 

We "fall," we stray from God, turn to art, like Dorian Gray, or to pleasure, or to the business of family life. So these are my twilight wonderings-- the sparrow is long gone, but the question remains:

 What's for dinner?

How's that for postmodern jibberish?