South Dakota finally did it. They stepped fresh over the Roe v. Wade line and banned abortions, with the one exception of allowing abortion to save the mother's life. South Dakota has now been stuffed into the same warm place of my heart where I've always held Fred Phelps. It's the "thanks for being honest" section, reserved for people who cut straight through the bullshit of politics and the silly, silly notion that middle-of-the-road = reasonable, and just take the side they want to take. They say and do what everyone else wants to say and do but won't because they're afraid of being seen as extreme. And they are extreme! But extreme can be good. Sure, moderate can be good sometimes, too, but moderate isn't always good, and you being confused doesn't mean both sides have something important to contribute.
Now, in these cases, I think Phelps and SD are dead wrong. I think a human life (that's H. sapien, not a "person's" life) means pretty much nothing without consciousness. The only other value it has besides a continuity of consciousness is the value other people subscribe to it. This is why it's crueler to tear up a 4-year-old's teddy bear than it is to break her stereo. She (sort of) thinks her teddy's a person, and you're breaking that human connection. That, I believe, is the only wrong in, say, taking Terry Schiavo off the tube: Her parents feel extra loss. So that's my view of "what makes a person." SD thinks that a zygote is a person. All right, kids. Whatev, as they say. I feel a little insulted: You think this cell, or this bobbing cluster of cells has the same value as I do? As my friends and family do? But we're all awesome! We chat and think and read and write and sing. We do amazing things from our minds, and we are so fully present while we're doing them. We each have an "I." How cool is that? But these Dakotans think I have the same value as the blastula.
Given that, however, they're doing the totally right thing. If I honestly thought the blastula had the same value as a fully developed human, abortion would be horrific! No, you can't kill someone just because you were raped, even if it was by your father. Very, very bad times for you, and gee that's a sad thing, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to kill someone, especially someone who's completely innocent. The only acception, of course, would be if you could only choose one life to save. Then, it's not so strange to choose the mother. The baby's life is less stable anyway...you have a better chance of saving the one already around. It's a sensible ban, South Dakota, given your totally absurd premise.
That said, I realize a lot of pro-lifers are really more anti-choicers. They don't like sex or impurity and want sinners to live with the consequences of their actions. I actually didn't fully believe they thought that until I saw a video today where a State Senator says he'd make an exception for a pure, religious virgin who planned on staying a virgin and was savagely raped. You just dug yourself into a hole, man. Please don't get out.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
What They Don't Want You To Know
That always works as a good title, don't you think? Even if you know it's a sucker-trap, you're still going to read anything entitled "what they don't want you to know." This post: High School Edition. Here are things I've found out recently that they don't want you to know.
1. Teachers are sometimes attracted to their students. Now, this isn't usually the case, I'm sure, but one of my many friends who's started student teaching (or teaching) this year says a bunch of her fellow student teachers come to class and talk about nothing except which students are hot and are "totally into" them. Great, boys. As a recovering chronic teacher-crusher (when's my next CTCA meeting?), I feel qualified to say that the safety of the teacher not liking you back is crucial. It's not that I consciously wanted the teacher not to like me back, it just wasn't an issue. I didn't have to worry about the obscene complications that would result were that the case. And that was good. The power dynamic is so strong you can taste it (but don't), so teachers who think your students are attractive, don't even think about acting on it. Don't tempt yourself. Be professional. Find someone your own age. And if that's too much to ask, you're in the wrong line of work.
2. STD/STI transmission rates are low low low. Take a look at this slide. The chances you'll catch HIV from a single act of vaginal intercourse is significantly less than 1%. Here it is again. I don't see either of these explicitly say whether the sex studied is protected or unprotected...it looks unprotected. Because if the risk of transmission during receptive anal intercourse with a condom is 7%, I know a fair people who would probably be infected by now and aren't. Yeah, don't bottom without protection. Really, don't do anything without protection, and don't let anyone bottom for you without protection: If you infect someone that way you're a moral travesty. But I never would have thought that having unprotected sex with someone who's HIV+ would put you at a less than 10% risk for catching the virus. Apparently the risk is much, much lower.
3. College may or may not be wild and totally awesome. I'm still bitter at everyone who told me college would be the best four years of my life. I'm still even more bitter at the people who think I'm now in some sort of "we know what the wild side is because we went to college" club. High schoolers be forwarned: college is school with no parents around. In some ways it's different from high school, in some ways it's different from whatever you'll do after it, but it's not some sort of unique communal experience. Don't expect to much. You'll spend more time doing work than anything else...and it won't all be, like, feminist theory. My friends and I estimate somewhere between 15% and 25% of you will graduate virgins (estimates based on our group). You may never see anyone smoke pot during the four years you're there. If you want to go crazy, you'll have to make yourself go crazy. Good luck.
I only really had two things to tell you, but then I needed to round it out to three, so I stuck in my perpetual whinging. But if anyone thinks of anything else they don't want you to know, please post it in the comments.
1. Teachers are sometimes attracted to their students. Now, this isn't usually the case, I'm sure, but one of my many friends who's started student teaching (or teaching) this year says a bunch of her fellow student teachers come to class and talk about nothing except which students are hot and are "totally into" them. Great, boys. As a recovering chronic teacher-crusher (when's my next CTCA meeting?), I feel qualified to say that the safety of the teacher not liking you back is crucial. It's not that I consciously wanted the teacher not to like me back, it just wasn't an issue. I didn't have to worry about the obscene complications that would result were that the case. And that was good. The power dynamic is so strong you can taste it (but don't), so teachers who think your students are attractive, don't even think about acting on it. Don't tempt yourself. Be professional. Find someone your own age. And if that's too much to ask, you're in the wrong line of work.
2. STD/STI transmission rates are low low low. Take a look at this slide. The chances you'll catch HIV from a single act of vaginal intercourse is significantly less than 1%. Here it is again. I don't see either of these explicitly say whether the sex studied is protected or unprotected...it looks unprotected. Because if the risk of transmission during receptive anal intercourse with a condom is 7%, I know a fair people who would probably be infected by now and aren't. Yeah, don't bottom without protection. Really, don't do anything without protection, and don't let anyone bottom for you without protection: If you infect someone that way you're a moral travesty. But I never would have thought that having unprotected sex with someone who's HIV+ would put you at a less than 10% risk for catching the virus. Apparently the risk is much, much lower.
3. College may or may not be wild and totally awesome. I'm still bitter at everyone who told me college would be the best four years of my life. I'm still even more bitter at the people who think I'm now in some sort of "we know what the wild side is because we went to college" club. High schoolers be forwarned: college is school with no parents around. In some ways it's different from high school, in some ways it's different from whatever you'll do after it, but it's not some sort of unique communal experience. Don't expect to much. You'll spend more time doing work than anything else...and it won't all be, like, feminist theory. My friends and I estimate somewhere between 15% and 25% of you will graduate virgins (estimates based on our group). You may never see anyone smoke pot during the four years you're there. If you want to go crazy, you'll have to make yourself go crazy. Good luck.
I only really had two things to tell you, but then I needed to round it out to three, so I stuck in my perpetual whinging. But if anyone thinks of anything else they don't want you to know, please post it in the comments.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sexual Relativity
AKA: Everyone thinks he or she is inexperienced. This continually strikes me as odd, especially because the most sexually experienced people I know tend to think they're the least experienced. This, admittedly, is probably because they're gay men, and gay men just have more partners on average than any other quadrant.
The random Durex sex facts site I find myself on says that the average man has 12.4 sex partners and the average woman 7.2. 27% have had sex exactly one person, while 21% have had sex with over 10 people. Quite the little distribution curve, there! And it must be because of that little distribution curve that lots of people feel inexperienced: The far hump is very visible. Someone like me can see the people with >10 sexual partners and say "wow, I'm really inexperienced," while someone like, um, a completely anonymous fairly experienced 30 year old gay man could have had, what, 70 sexual partners? And he could see the however many percent in front of him (5%? Maybe?) and see that there are a fair number of people who've had 500 sexual partners.
Ooh, it's totally wealth. Like how nobody feels rich. The curves are totally the same. Check out this thing:
Look at the wealth curve. You've got the lots of impoverished people (0-1 partners) and then a slowwwwly climbing middle class (2-10 partners) and then at the top, you start piling on these people with buttloads of partners. And you're always socially in a position where you can see how many people are wealthier than you/see how many people sleep with more people than you. Because class just works that way, as does, generally, sexual mores. Because of my location, politics, occupation, etc, I hang out with people who aren't all about the free love all the time but don't feel the need to wait until marriage before having sex. Hence my range. I see someone like the anonymous 30 year old gay man and think "Wow, that dude's had a LOT of sex," just like if you lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the person with the really big house would seem totally rich, even if they couldn't afford a one bedroom in a prime, prime area of Manhattan. But then maybe the person, being town high society, goes to a country club in Florida and sees people who drive Rollses and thinks "Damn, I'm not that wealthy," and the 30 year old gay man sees a few friends who have sex with a new person every week and thinks "Damn, I don't get any."
Everyone sees people above and below and tends to ignore those below. So one friend has kissed a few people and nothing more. He knows some people who are Shomer Negiya and won't touch the opposite sex for a handshake. They probably know people who don't even think about what it would be like to touch the opposite sex. The gradations get finer. But everyone knows those super wealthy/promiscuous people exist. And so few people can match them...you'll never meet those people. Don't bother.
I made my point two paragraphs ago. I'm just enjoying being in the city. Woot!
The random Durex sex facts site I find myself on says that the average man has 12.4 sex partners and the average woman 7.2. 27% have had sex exactly one person, while 21% have had sex with over 10 people. Quite the little distribution curve, there! And it must be because of that little distribution curve that lots of people feel inexperienced: The far hump is very visible. Someone like me can see the people with >10 sexual partners and say "wow, I'm really inexperienced," while someone like, um, a completely anonymous fairly experienced 30 year old gay man could have had, what, 70 sexual partners? And he could see the however many percent in front of him (5%? Maybe?) and see that there are a fair number of people who've had 500 sexual partners.
Ooh, it's totally wealth. Like how nobody feels rich. The curves are totally the same. Check out this thing:
Look at the wealth curve. You've got the lots of impoverished people (0-1 partners) and then a slowwwwly climbing middle class (2-10 partners) and then at the top, you start piling on these people with buttloads of partners. And you're always socially in a position where you can see how many people are wealthier than you/see how many people sleep with more people than you. Because class just works that way, as does, generally, sexual mores. Because of my location, politics, occupation, etc, I hang out with people who aren't all about the free love all the time but don't feel the need to wait until marriage before having sex. Hence my range. I see someone like the anonymous 30 year old gay man and think "Wow, that dude's had a LOT of sex," just like if you lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the person with the really big house would seem totally rich, even if they couldn't afford a one bedroom in a prime, prime area of Manhattan. But then maybe the person, being town high society, goes to a country club in Florida and sees people who drive Rollses and thinks "Damn, I'm not that wealthy," and the 30 year old gay man sees a few friends who have sex with a new person every week and thinks "Damn, I don't get any."Everyone sees people above and below and tends to ignore those below. So one friend has kissed a few people and nothing more. He knows some people who are Shomer Negiya and won't touch the opposite sex for a handshake. They probably know people who don't even think about what it would be like to touch the opposite sex. The gradations get finer. But everyone knows those super wealthy/promiscuous people exist. And so few people can match them...you'll never meet those people. Don't bother.
I made my point two paragraphs ago. I'm just enjoying being in the city. Woot!
Friday, February 17, 2006
In the Kitchen
It has been too long. Yes, I've been horrible about updating, but I never say die. So here I am with another post. First and most importantly, our lease has begun! And I have a picture for you folks, but with the old tennant's furniture. Isn't our living room sexy?
I have a bed, desk and computer in our new room but no internet, which, let's be honest, is the most important thing. We'll need to deal with Time Warner this weekend and get ourselves some comedy central and wireless road runner. Sweet.
We had a few issues moving in. It turns out the old tennants weren't moving out because they were taking on a third roommate and needed a three-bed; they moved out because one of them was a violent drunk who would come home at night, fight with his boyfriend and break things (including Amy's door). At least that's what the super and landlord tell us. To get revenge on the powers that be for kicking him out, the guy left the place a bit of a wreck, complete with december-expired milk in the fridge. The only problem is the powers-that-be didn't bother to clean the place before we got there, so Amy, my mom and I were stuck sweeping and swiffering and throwing shit out. My door doesn't really close. Amy has holes in her wall. We'll deal. We also didn't get keys for about 8 hours because the old dude had given them to his lawyer to hold. And the toilet overflowed...it's fixed now.
I'm still thrilled with the place. It's beautiful and generally functional and a good space to work with. The neighborhood's fun, and I'm looking forward to exploring. Ninth Avenue has some of the best food in town at a wide range of prices, and the population of Hell's Kitchen seems to be an interesting mix of gay men, latinos, and the many adorable children who go to school within a couple of blocks from our place. I'm just thrilled to be in Manhattan...it's where I've wanted to be for years. Plus, I'll be home with the parents a bunch. I won't be ditching the old folks entirely...they're great folks, and I'll probably want a little break from the constant noise of Tenth Avenue every so often. I've got plenty more to say, but work is officially starting right about now, and I've got to hit the RSS feeds and see what's going on in the "global science conversation" that's the colorful white noise of my days.
I have a bed, desk and computer in our new room but no internet, which, let's be honest, is the most important thing. We'll need to deal with Time Warner this weekend and get ourselves some comedy central and wireless road runner. Sweet.
We had a few issues moving in. It turns out the old tennants weren't moving out because they were taking on a third roommate and needed a three-bed; they moved out because one of them was a violent drunk who would come home at night, fight with his boyfriend and break things (including Amy's door). At least that's what the super and landlord tell us. To get revenge on the powers that be for kicking him out, the guy left the place a bit of a wreck, complete with december-expired milk in the fridge. The only problem is the powers-that-be didn't bother to clean the place before we got there, so Amy, my mom and I were stuck sweeping and swiffering and throwing shit out. My door doesn't really close. Amy has holes in her wall. We'll deal. We also didn't get keys for about 8 hours because the old dude had given them to his lawyer to hold. And the toilet overflowed...it's fixed now.
I'm still thrilled with the place. It's beautiful and generally functional and a good space to work with. The neighborhood's fun, and I'm looking forward to exploring. Ninth Avenue has some of the best food in town at a wide range of prices, and the population of Hell's Kitchen seems to be an interesting mix of gay men, latinos, and the many adorable children who go to school within a couple of blocks from our place. I'm just thrilled to be in Manhattan...it's where I've wanted to be for years. Plus, I'll be home with the parents a bunch. I won't be ditching the old folks entirely...they're great folks, and I'll probably want a little break from the constant noise of Tenth Avenue every so often. I've got plenty more to say, but work is officially starting right about now, and I've got to hit the RSS feeds and see what's going on in the "global science conversation" that's the colorful white noise of my days.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Free Lonnie Latham!
Continuing in their grand tradition as one of my favorite organizations in America, the ACLU has filed an amicus brief asking an Oklahoma court to dismiss charges against Southern Baptist minister Lonnie Latham.
It's important to note, as a preface, that Lonnie Latham is a total douche. He's known for being homophobic, and he supported the Southern Baptist church's adoption of a policy encouraging Baptists to befriend homosexuals and convert them to heterosexuality. Great.
So it will come as a surprise to no one that Latham actually likes sex with men. At the beginning of the year, Latham was arrested in Oklahoma for soliciting oral sex from an undercover cop, under charges of offering to engage in an act of lewdness. He could face up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine if convicted of these charges. Of course the immediate reaction is a hearty "Should've known! Serves him right!" It's always fun to see fire-and-brimstone preachers get arrested for trying to pick up 13-year-old boys, or catching family-values-toting senators with prostitutes (preferably minorities).
But then there's the second reaction to Latham's predicament: "Wait, what did he actually do that's illegal?" He didn't offer to pay the undercover cop. The undercover cop was an adult. The undercover cop had shown some vague interest in hooking up with Latham. He didn't just whip it out in the middle of the street. Where's the crime in asking someone back to your place if they're looking you in the eye and smiling? Even if the other person doesn't seem interested, why the hell is that illegal?
The ACLU thinks it shouldn't be, and they are supporting Latham, hoping to get the charges against him dropped, and I am 100% with them. "Lewdness" is the most absurd, poorly-defined law ever. Part of the definition in Oklahoma is "the giving or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, anal intercourse, or lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct with any person not his or her spouse." So...sex with anyone not your spouse is illegal in Oklahoma? That doesn't jive with Lawrence v. Texas at all. But wait, they say "indiscriminate." What does that mean? OK, being on one end of a public glory hole is indiscriminate. But choosing a one night stand...is that indiscriminate? I don't think so. I'm not a legal scholar, but this definition blows.
So, Oklahoma, please dismiss the charges, and don't arrest people for trying to get some. And to you, Mr. Latham, stop being a douche. If people aren't hurting anyone, just let them live their lives, as the state of Oklahoma will hopefully let you live yours.
It's important to note, as a preface, that Lonnie Latham is a total douche. He's known for being homophobic, and he supported the Southern Baptist church's adoption of a policy encouraging Baptists to befriend homosexuals and convert them to heterosexuality. Great.
So it will come as a surprise to no one that Latham actually likes sex with men. At the beginning of the year, Latham was arrested in Oklahoma for soliciting oral sex from an undercover cop, under charges of offering to engage in an act of lewdness. He could face up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine if convicted of these charges. Of course the immediate reaction is a hearty "Should've known! Serves him right!" It's always fun to see fire-and-brimstone preachers get arrested for trying to pick up 13-year-old boys, or catching family-values-toting senators with prostitutes (preferably minorities).
But then there's the second reaction to Latham's predicament: "Wait, what did he actually do that's illegal?" He didn't offer to pay the undercover cop. The undercover cop was an adult. The undercover cop had shown some vague interest in hooking up with Latham. He didn't just whip it out in the middle of the street. Where's the crime in asking someone back to your place if they're looking you in the eye and smiling? Even if the other person doesn't seem interested, why the hell is that illegal?
The ACLU thinks it shouldn't be, and they are supporting Latham, hoping to get the charges against him dropped, and I am 100% with them. "Lewdness" is the most absurd, poorly-defined law ever. Part of the definition in Oklahoma is "the giving or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, anal intercourse, or lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct with any person not his or her spouse." So...sex with anyone not your spouse is illegal in Oklahoma? That doesn't jive with Lawrence v. Texas at all. But wait, they say "indiscriminate." What does that mean? OK, being on one end of a public glory hole is indiscriminate. But choosing a one night stand...is that indiscriminate? I don't think so. I'm not a legal scholar, but this definition blows.
So, Oklahoma, please dismiss the charges, and don't arrest people for trying to get some. And to you, Mr. Latham, stop being a douche. If people aren't hurting anyone, just let them live their lives, as the state of Oklahoma will hopefully let you live yours.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Houston, We Have Apartment
We have an apartment, wooo! On February 15th, Amy and I will officially be Hell's Kitchen residents, and I couldn't be more excited. The neighborhood looks lovely, the place is BEAUTIFUL, and there are tons of perks, such as a working fireplace, roof access, and a key to the wonderful garden down the block. All this is thanks to our awesome broker, Alex. If you're looking for a place in Manhattan, let me know and I'll give you his number/email. He chauffeured us to every apartment we looked at with him, and he has an EMT parking permit, so he can park anywhere. He also prescreened apartments after the first two, so he could tell us whether they'd be worth our time or not, based on how we'd reacted to other places. Two thumbs up. Anyway, when I go later this week to measure completely I'll take some decent photos and possibly post them. Our apartment. So hot right now.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The Defense
Well, I made #4 on The BEAST's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005. I suppose we all did, but I feel I should at least answer the charges. Here they are:
The evidence: Nita Lowey, bitch.
Sentence: Yeah, I suppose I'll take it. But considering I'm not totally guilty on all the charges, and they really have no evidence, I think I'll instead take a deathbed realization that my live was only wasted opportunities and not stupid mistakes...I've made a few stupid mistakes, but I'm much more of a wasted opportunities sort of gal, wasting opportunities such as college. And I think I deserve befuddlement, not scorn, and, God no, not indifference. The cold, meaningless demise? Sounds about right. Although if, in honor of my death, we could keep the thermostat at 72 degrees for just a couple of days, that would be great. I'll let you know when I'm a few days from death and willing to use all my money to pay for the wasted oil that went into heating my final hours. But hopefully the price of oil will be down by then.
In other words, I'm creating a special circle of hell for incompetent and/or scheming realtors, along with blood-sucking insurance companies. A small, vaguely special place in heaven goes to the guy in the breakfast cart who knows my order and smiles when he gives me my coffee and to the young, upbeat cab driver who makes talking about the weather seem like something slightly more than smalltalk.
4. YouOK, let's start with my pleas to the charges, in order: guilty, guilty, guilty, not guilty unless you count caffeine as an antidepressent, only slightly guilty, guilty, guilty. I guess I didn't do to well.
Charges: Silently enabling and contributing to the irreversible destruction of your planet. Absolving yourself of your responsibility to do anything about it that your immediate neighbors don't. Assuming that it's normal behavior to spend several hours each day totally inert and staring into a cathode ray tube. Substituting antidepressants for physical motion. Caring more about the personal relationships of people you will never meet than your own. Shrugging your shoulders at the knowledge that your government is populated by criminal liars intent on fooling you into impoverished, helpless submission. Cheering this process on.
Exhibit A: You don't even know who your congressman is.
Sentence: Deathbed realization that your entire life was an unending series of stupid mistakes and wasted opportunities, a priceless gift of potential extravagantly squandered, for which you deserve nothing but scorn or, at best, indifference, and a cold, meaningless demise.
The evidence: Nita Lowey, bitch.
Sentence: Yeah, I suppose I'll take it. But considering I'm not totally guilty on all the charges, and they really have no evidence, I think I'll instead take a deathbed realization that my live was only wasted opportunities and not stupid mistakes...I've made a few stupid mistakes, but I'm much more of a wasted opportunities sort of gal, wasting opportunities such as college. And I think I deserve befuddlement, not scorn, and, God no, not indifference. The cold, meaningless demise? Sounds about right. Although if, in honor of my death, we could keep the thermostat at 72 degrees for just a couple of days, that would be great. I'll let you know when I'm a few days from death and willing to use all my money to pay for the wasted oil that went into heating my final hours. But hopefully the price of oil will be down by then.
In other words, I'm creating a special circle of hell for incompetent and/or scheming realtors, along with blood-sucking insurance companies. A small, vaguely special place in heaven goes to the guy in the breakfast cart who knows my order and smiles when he gives me my coffee and to the young, upbeat cab driver who makes talking about the weather seem like something slightly more than smalltalk.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Touching Base
Wow; it's been too long. As you can probably guess, this means I've been a busy, busy girl for the past three weeks. I am now officially "Staff Writer for the Web" for Seed, which means very little change in what I actually do and very much welcome change in what they pay me. Because I am now officially a working woman, I've started the apartment search with Amy (Greenwood...a good friend of mine from high school who just got back from touring The World). We've been casually looking for about two weeks and just decided to pick up the pace by calling a real broker and getting her to find us the best places the day they come out. Last Thursday we saw the best place yet: a two bedroom on 56th between 9th and 10th with enormous bedrooms, a nice bathroom, and a small-as-all-hell-assuming-souls-are-planck-length living space. The last attribute is why we didn't take it. We planned on going on an apartment binge on Saturday, but apparently nobody shows on Saturday, so we were only able to see one apartment. It blew.
Dating Mike again is going extraordinarily well. I feel totally at ease with him—mentally, physically and emotionally. I guess that's the big perk of dating someone you've already had an intense, long-term relationship with: You don't have to get past the awkward getting-to-know-you stage. I hate that stage...with friends, coworkers, teachers, whatever. I like to be free and easy with people. It's also great that Mike doesn't socialize much and doesn't socialize at all with people I know. I'm so much more comfortable one-on-one than in group situations...or public situations. Spending hours chilling in his (awesome west village) apartment is simply perfect. The time-limit looms (September, when he goes to some random still-unknown city to teach private school), but it's a ways off, and I'm happy to enjoy the time while it's here.
More thoughts later...right now I'm exhausted.
Dating Mike again is going extraordinarily well. I feel totally at ease with him—mentally, physically and emotionally. I guess that's the big perk of dating someone you've already had an intense, long-term relationship with: You don't have to get past the awkward getting-to-know-you stage. I hate that stage...with friends, coworkers, teachers, whatever. I like to be free and easy with people. It's also great that Mike doesn't socialize much and doesn't socialize at all with people I know. I'm so much more comfortable one-on-one than in group situations...or public situations. Spending hours chilling in his (awesome west village) apartment is simply perfect. The time-limit looms (September, when he goes to some random still-unknown city to teach private school), but it's a ways off, and I'm happy to enjoy the time while it's here.
More thoughts later...right now I'm exhausted.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Vacation Winds Down
For the last time for a long time I've spent 10 days lazing about, sleeping late, and hanging out with friends in restaurants and coffee shops. It has been a lovely 10 days, and I will miss them dearly as I return to 7 am wakeups, 9 hour workdays and a bare-bones social life. It took me until Friday to really drop work from my mindset. With a combination of evil hormones and worker's residue, much of last week was spent in a restless state of anxiety I couldn't quite shake. And then it shook, and I revived myself as I was from June through September. It's such a lovely, easy way to be.
I might as well chat about the cryptic comments from a couple of weeks ago. I'm currently dating—but not in a relationship with—my ex. He doesn't want anything serious, which right now I'm all for, but I'm of course concerned that will change over time. At least the lack of seriousness and future dampens the "crawling back home (without ever going abroad)" feeling that was initially pretty strong. As it stands, seeing him is just a nice way to pass time, and I'm good with that. The other concern is that I really like hanging out with him and flirting with him and looking at him, and I trust him and feel close with him, but those things don't necessarily add up to wanting to date him. I'm not sure I do. Hopefully this will all become clearer with time. Hopefully nobody will get hurt. Hopefully the whole world will eventually find love and happiness. It's a lot to hope for.
I might as well chat about the cryptic comments from a couple of weeks ago. I'm currently dating—but not in a relationship with—my ex. He doesn't want anything serious, which right now I'm all for, but I'm of course concerned that will change over time. At least the lack of seriousness and future dampens the "crawling back home (without ever going abroad)" feeling that was initially pretty strong. As it stands, seeing him is just a nice way to pass time, and I'm good with that. The other concern is that I really like hanging out with him and flirting with him and looking at him, and I trust him and feel close with him, but those things don't necessarily add up to wanting to date him. I'm not sure I do. Hopefully this will all become clearer with time. Hopefully nobody will get hurt. Hopefully the whole world will eventually find love and happiness. It's a lot to hope for.
Reading Kids' Diaries
I think we should read kids' diaries. I'm also just a little bit pro-Bush's-spying-program, assuming he really is just scanning for terrorist plots and not preventing robberies or extra-marital affairs or meetings where people get together and burn Bush effigies or anything crazy like that. But that's not today's topic. I'm not talking about violating civil liberties for the sake of security here, I'm talking about violating civil liberties for ART.
If there is one consistent problem with all fiction (and even non-fiction) it is the unrelenting portrayal of children as adults perceive them, never the portrayal of children as they are. Now, I can't capture children as they really are—at age 22 I'm hardly in that position, and I never was able to keep a diary as a kid—but I do remember thinking, when I was a child, that every portrayal I saw was horribly charicatured and never represented the world I knew.
Exhibit A: Bullies. Stories about children are rife with bullies, children who live to make other children feel bad, and that's fine, because there are plenty of bullies in elementary school and middle school. They were, however, never of the Malfoy-Crabbe-Goyle variety. Never one obvious leader with cronies who had no other friends who would show up just to torture people. As I recall, it was the legitimately popular kids who were bullyish. The vast, vast majority of boys, especially around age 13, are obscenely insecure. It's not like college (or even high school), where the secure crowd rises to the top and wins everyone's love, and an insecure minority are stuck being assholes whom everyone kind of hates but may have some power due to sheer force. No no no. In middle school, the entire popular crowd is insecure and generally takes it out on anyone they can. And they're less explicit about their bullying. There's no obvious building themselves up...it's just about shooting the other person down. It's about exchanging looks with a group of five that say "Wow, this person just made a really bad choice. Why would anyone do THAT?" It's not about shoving people into lockers. It's about subtle mockery and exclusion. It probably wouldn't look that bad if an adult listened to the whole thing.
I'm a little too caught up in exhibit A to run through other exhibits, but they would partially concern the inner life of children. What do they think about? I famously thought about my kindergarten teachers molesting miniature versions of the von Trapp children. What do normal children think about? The exhibits would otherwise concern the interactions between children. What do they talk about? What kind of signals do they give? I have relatively little recollection. I don't think TV shows, books, plays and other art forms portray these accurately, even when they capture something fundamentally true about people. They fail to capture childhood as it is, not how we vaguely recall it to be or see it in other children. I only know because I was overwhelmingly frustrated as a child by the innacuracies. I just didn't do anything about it.
Which is where the civil liberties violation comes in. Isolate children from portrayals of themselves. Force them to keep diaries under the guise of secrecy. But then read the diaries. Read them all, and from them get an idea of the collective experience of individual children.
Of course this is impractical, but we should find some way of getting the information from them without letting them just confirm our suggestions, without them just spewing back the portrayals of them they've seen. Save art! Help human understanding! Exploit children!
If there is one consistent problem with all fiction (and even non-fiction) it is the unrelenting portrayal of children as adults perceive them, never the portrayal of children as they are. Now, I can't capture children as they really are—at age 22 I'm hardly in that position, and I never was able to keep a diary as a kid—but I do remember thinking, when I was a child, that every portrayal I saw was horribly charicatured and never represented the world I knew.
Exhibit A: Bullies. Stories about children are rife with bullies, children who live to make other children feel bad, and that's fine, because there are plenty of bullies in elementary school and middle school. They were, however, never of the Malfoy-Crabbe-Goyle variety. Never one obvious leader with cronies who had no other friends who would show up just to torture people. As I recall, it was the legitimately popular kids who were bullyish. The vast, vast majority of boys, especially around age 13, are obscenely insecure. It's not like college (or even high school), where the secure crowd rises to the top and wins everyone's love, and an insecure minority are stuck being assholes whom everyone kind of hates but may have some power due to sheer force. No no no. In middle school, the entire popular crowd is insecure and generally takes it out on anyone they can. And they're less explicit about their bullying. There's no obvious building themselves up...it's just about shooting the other person down. It's about exchanging looks with a group of five that say "Wow, this person just made a really bad choice. Why would anyone do THAT?" It's not about shoving people into lockers. It's about subtle mockery and exclusion. It probably wouldn't look that bad if an adult listened to the whole thing.
I'm a little too caught up in exhibit A to run through other exhibits, but they would partially concern the inner life of children. What do they think about? I famously thought about my kindergarten teachers molesting miniature versions of the von Trapp children. What do normal children think about? The exhibits would otherwise concern the interactions between children. What do they talk about? What kind of signals do they give? I have relatively little recollection. I don't think TV shows, books, plays and other art forms portray these accurately, even when they capture something fundamentally true about people. They fail to capture childhood as it is, not how we vaguely recall it to be or see it in other children. I only know because I was overwhelmingly frustrated as a child by the innacuracies. I just didn't do anything about it.
Which is where the civil liberties violation comes in. Isolate children from portrayals of themselves. Force them to keep diaries under the guise of secrecy. But then read the diaries. Read them all, and from them get an idea of the collective experience of individual children.
Of course this is impractical, but we should find some way of getting the information from them without letting them just confirm our suggestions, without them just spewing back the portrayals of them they've seen. Save art! Help human understanding! Exploit children!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
A Childhood Memory...of Why People Suck
I just recalled an incident from when I was eight, which reminded me why I sometimes get really annoyed with people. It also reminded me that adults act like children, or children imitate adults, or people just maintain the same sort of irritating behavior throughout life and only seem more mature because they change their presentation. The memory:
I was in Mrs. Honig's Hebrew school class one evening in third grade. I was reading a passage (in English) and suddenly had the idea so pronounce the "c" in "scissors" when the word came up in the reading. To see if people were listening. To see how they'd react. Well, the decision was made in a split second, I pronounced the "c" and the reaction was incredible. The entire class JUMPED to correct me. Twenty-five eight-year-old Jewish kids, all trying to beat each other to be the first to tell me I was wrong. To look at each other with smug superiority.
I know I'm viewing this through the lens of the slightly socially awkward eight-year-old that I was, but I think that's a far fairer lens than seeing how an adult would have perceived the behavior of the children. They might have been glad the kids knew how to pronounce the word. They might have been glad the kids were listening. They might have been mildly perplexed that one of the better readers in the class had mispronounced a word everyone else knew, but they would have been glad that I had learned from my classmates. But adults seem not to observe the behaviors of kids as other kids do, and I think they therefore miss out on the subtleties of the exchange. Kids do have a pretty intricate social world, and they can be very cruel to each other. A child's comment that may seem innocent or just funny to adults may seem horribly demeaning to other kids. And I think those kids are the ones who get it. The adults don't. And the attitude I got from the other kids in third grade I've seen over and over again in every stage of life. People are incredibly eager to jump on each others mistakes, correct each other, win arguments for the sake of winning, not for learning or teaching or commonly arriving at truth.
If you don't find this story compelling, let me give you another:
I was seeing a high school show with my friend Monica in fourth grade. As we entered the high school she said to me, "Maggie, I think some of the more popular girls are here, so if I see them, can we pretend we didn't come together? I'm just becoming accepted by them, so, no offense but, you know..." And I said, "Oh sure, I understand." And I did.
Perhaps Monica didn't show great virtue, but her actions bothered me so much less than the attitude the third graders gave me in Hebrew School. Again, my perspective let me know where Monica was coming from and the attitude she directed at me. She didn't dislike me or disrespect me, life was just easier if the popular girls liked her, and being with me in front of them would make that a much more difficult goal to achieve. I thought I might do the same thing in her shoes. I actually give her points for saying that directly to me. I think that showed she respected me, that she was able to let me know exactly why she might not stand with me if they came over. She wasn't passive-aggressive. She was assertive. And I have to give it to her for that.
I was in Mrs. Honig's Hebrew school class one evening in third grade. I was reading a passage (in English) and suddenly had the idea so pronounce the "c" in "scissors" when the word came up in the reading. To see if people were listening. To see how they'd react. Well, the decision was made in a split second, I pronounced the "c" and the reaction was incredible. The entire class JUMPED to correct me. Twenty-five eight-year-old Jewish kids, all trying to beat each other to be the first to tell me I was wrong. To look at each other with smug superiority.
I know I'm viewing this through the lens of the slightly socially awkward eight-year-old that I was, but I think that's a far fairer lens than seeing how an adult would have perceived the behavior of the children. They might have been glad the kids knew how to pronounce the word. They might have been glad the kids were listening. They might have been mildly perplexed that one of the better readers in the class had mispronounced a word everyone else knew, but they would have been glad that I had learned from my classmates. But adults seem not to observe the behaviors of kids as other kids do, and I think they therefore miss out on the subtleties of the exchange. Kids do have a pretty intricate social world, and they can be very cruel to each other. A child's comment that may seem innocent or just funny to adults may seem horribly demeaning to other kids. And I think those kids are the ones who get it. The adults don't. And the attitude I got from the other kids in third grade I've seen over and over again in every stage of life. People are incredibly eager to jump on each others mistakes, correct each other, win arguments for the sake of winning, not for learning or teaching or commonly arriving at truth.
If you don't find this story compelling, let me give you another:
I was seeing a high school show with my friend Monica in fourth grade. As we entered the high school she said to me, "Maggie, I think some of the more popular girls are here, so if I see them, can we pretend we didn't come together? I'm just becoming accepted by them, so, no offense but, you know..." And I said, "Oh sure, I understand." And I did.
Perhaps Monica didn't show great virtue, but her actions bothered me so much less than the attitude the third graders gave me in Hebrew School. Again, my perspective let me know where Monica was coming from and the attitude she directed at me. She didn't dislike me or disrespect me, life was just easier if the popular girls liked her, and being with me in front of them would make that a much more difficult goal to achieve. I thought I might do the same thing in her shoes. I actually give her points for saying that directly to me. I think that showed she respected me, that she was able to let me know exactly why she might not stand with me if they came over. She wasn't passive-aggressive. She was assertive. And I have to give it to her for that.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger, Shrug of the Shoulders
Congratulations to Stephen Colbert for getting referenced in a post title. Bravo, Stephen. You have achieved the highest maggie-centric honor in journalism.
Tip of the Hat
To Judge John E. Jones III for his glorious decision in the Dover "Monkey" Trial. I would sum it up for you, but why should I give you the goods here when I've already done it here. Check out the article. I will give you one teaser quote from the judge:
Wag of the Finger
To President George W. Bush, not for spying, but for whom he's spying on. I have to say, when I first heard about the spying, I was nonplussed. If listening in on known Al-Qaeda operatives is going to help us prevent people from dying, I could see where "wartime exceptions" would be reasonable. I don't know if it's constitutional—I'm really poorly read—but it doesn't totally offend my sensibilities. However, this totally offends my sensibilities. Spying on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests? Really? Are those protests a "credible threat?" I vote no. They're generally angry but peaceful. I mean...a kiss-in is about as peaceful as you get.
I love when standards for these things sound like kids talking in a middle school English class...just throwing out creative ideas is good enough; the ideas don't have to be right. Which is really fine for middle school English...I'm all for rewarding free thinking. But it's not OK with logic like "well, clearly they don't like the military...and protests get people worked up, and sexuality gets people worked up, and they want to be allowed into the military, so maybe they're militant..and they'll kill us all!" Or whatever the logic there is.
Shrug of the Shoulders
To the Transit Workers Union, for being a huge pain in New York's ass for a cause that's probably totally reasonable. I haven't reviewed the specs much, and even if I did, I don't really know what's appropriate for them to be getting. So, fight the good fight, TWU; just don't fight the less-than-good fight. Because I was one of 4 people in the office until about 11:30 today, and I'd prefer if that didn't happen too much more. Thanks.
Tip of the Hat
To Judge John E. Jones III for his glorious decision in the Dover "Monkey" Trial. I would sum it up for you, but why should I give you the goods here when I've already done it here. Check out the article. I will give you one teaser quote from the judge:
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.You tell them, Judge Jones. Also see my article for a doozy of a quote from Richard Dawkins, who never fails to take the appearance of level-headedness right out of his own completely level-headed conclusions. And that's why we love him so.
Wag of the Finger
To President George W. Bush, not for spying, but for whom he's spying on. I have to say, when I first heard about the spying, I was nonplussed. If listening in on known Al-Qaeda operatives is going to help us prevent people from dying, I could see where "wartime exceptions" would be reasonable. I don't know if it's constitutional—I'm really poorly read—but it doesn't totally offend my sensibilities. However, this totally offends my sensibilities. Spying on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests? Really? Are those protests a "credible threat?" I vote no. They're generally angry but peaceful. I mean...a kiss-in is about as peaceful as you get.
I love when standards for these things sound like kids talking in a middle school English class...just throwing out creative ideas is good enough; the ideas don't have to be right. Which is really fine for middle school English...I'm all for rewarding free thinking. But it's not OK with logic like "well, clearly they don't like the military...and protests get people worked up, and sexuality gets people worked up, and they want to be allowed into the military, so maybe they're militant..and they'll kill us all!" Or whatever the logic there is.
Shrug of the Shoulders
To the Transit Workers Union, for being a huge pain in New York's ass for a cause that's probably totally reasonable. I haven't reviewed the specs much, and even if I did, I don't really know what's appropriate for them to be getting. So, fight the good fight, TWU; just don't fight the less-than-good fight. Because I was one of 4 people in the office until about 11:30 today, and I'd prefer if that didn't happen too much more. Thanks.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Oh, The Inner Turmoil!
There is much. There is a reasonable quantity of outer turmoil as well (see the rather productive back-and-forth I've been having with a blogger on the "Inexpensive Indulgence" post. also see the article I wrote and the two I interviewed for today, coming out later this week.) Currently, I don't want to argue any more, please anybody, or redefine myself. And right now I'm being provoked by a guy on AIM (friend of a friend who wants me to rant about a kid he knows), scoffed at by my mother because I want time alone, and forced to redefine myself. Of course redefinition is a lifelong process...although it would be lovely if it ended at some point with me not defining myself at all. But I have way too much time on my mind, if not on my hands, and I can't help but dwell and wallow and ponder and think myself into DOOM. Which is what I've been doing this week. Worst/best of all is that recent events are so me and my life...they're just not me and my life right now. Bah. Sulk. Collapse on the couch. Read Narnia.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Good People, Good Art
After Friday evening, the weekend progressed into uncomplicated goodness (nice move, weekend). Yesterday I drove up to Wesleyan—my longest solo drive to date...yes, I realize it's under 2 hours—to see Chayes in "The Faculty Room." The show was lots of fun...in that hard-to-take sort of way. I may have mentioned I love theater/movies/books where you're transported completely into another world...a world that looks a lot like ours and could coexist with ours, but the people there just have slightly different rules for life. This was one of those shows, although it got kicked up a notch by being aware of its weirdness, and then laying weirdness over the awareness. Good stuff. Afterwards, I had Thai food with 3 Jesses (Chayes, Cygler and Kahn), which was lots of fun, and I livened up with some food in me. Food makes such a difference. Go food. On a brief walk afterwards, I chatted with Chayes about the events in my life. Was good to chat.
Today was "Brokeback Mountain" with V, which was, of course, amazing. He drove us in, mostly because he knew he could get a good, free parking space on a Sunday afternoon, and that opportunity was too good to pass up. We listened to showtunes. Need I have even written that? No. Brunch was at a trendy-ish Chelsea place, and we ate and chatted and such. Then came the awesome, awesome movie. Now, V said he'd rather see a movie with great projection than with a good crowd, but I think I may have proven him wrong with this one. The Chelsea crowd was priceless, even if they did interrupt a couple of good moments. One guy whispered "Oh, shit!" right after the cowboys had sex for the first time, as if he were surprised. Everyone cracked up. Also, I loved seeing a line out the men's room door and no line for the women's room. On the ride back I rediscovered exactly how much V hates traffic. He's a total taxi driver...can't stand people who are less able to maneuver than he. He kept saying "I hate people," which eventually caused me to break out into my once-improvised song "I hate people," written in the Best Buy parking lot on Central Avenue.
After the movie, V said this movie showed a good example of why gay men shouldn't get married. I paused. "...to women." Him: "Right." He said that he's seen 3 gay friends of his get married...in two of the occasions, he was left to comfort one of the groomsmen whose sexual relationship with the groom ended at the wedding. Oh, joy. And by joy I mean emotional hell. Also: V always smells good. It's a little weird. Actually, it's really weird. What the hell? It's like the glee club director who never sweats. Sick, sick, none-too-ethnic people.
Today was "Brokeback Mountain" with V, which was, of course, amazing. He drove us in, mostly because he knew he could get a good, free parking space on a Sunday afternoon, and that opportunity was too good to pass up. We listened to showtunes. Need I have even written that? No. Brunch was at a trendy-ish Chelsea place, and we ate and chatted and such. Then came the awesome, awesome movie. Now, V said he'd rather see a movie with great projection than with a good crowd, but I think I may have proven him wrong with this one. The Chelsea crowd was priceless, even if they did interrupt a couple of good moments. One guy whispered "Oh, shit!" right after the cowboys had sex for the first time, as if he were surprised. Everyone cracked up. Also, I loved seeing a line out the men's room door and no line for the women's room. On the ride back I rediscovered exactly how much V hates traffic. He's a total taxi driver...can't stand people who are less able to maneuver than he. He kept saying "I hate people," which eventually caused me to break out into my once-improvised song "I hate people," written in the Best Buy parking lot on Central Avenue.
After the movie, V said this movie showed a good example of why gay men shouldn't get married. I paused. "...to women." Him: "Right." He said that he's seen 3 gay friends of his get married...in two of the occasions, he was left to comfort one of the groomsmen whose sexual relationship with the groom ended at the wedding. Oh, joy. And by joy I mean emotional hell. Also: V always smells good. It's a little weird. Actually, it's really weird. What the hell? It's like the glee club director who never sweats. Sick, sick, none-too-ethnic people.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
And You May Ask Yourself...
Tonight my life took a turn for not-like-my-life. I'll chat on an individual basis...maybe...
But everything else paused when a series of likely coincidences took me to the very front spot of the subway. I was almost all the way from union square to grand central, when I realized that my back was immediately to the window that overlooks the track. I turned around and held the bars to either side of the window and just looked forward, a la Kate Winslet in Titanic. Without the imminent doom. So I got a great train's-eye-view of the subway. It's kind of great looking. I recomment riding at the front if you hav the opportunity. Pulling into a station will never be the same again.
Also, I was happy to read this post on my latest (and most creative) addition to the Seed website.
But everything else paused when a series of likely coincidences took me to the very front spot of the subway. I was almost all the way from union square to grand central, when I realized that my back was immediately to the window that overlooks the track. I turned around and held the bars to either side of the window and just looked forward, a la Kate Winslet in Titanic. Without the imminent doom. So I got a great train's-eye-view of the subway. It's kind of great looking. I recomment riding at the front if you hav the opportunity. Pulling into a station will never be the same again.
Also, I was happy to read this post on my latest (and most creative) addition to the Seed website.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Downside of Vanity
These are the last three entries you get when you google my name:
anal-intercourse-story.notbad.net.ru - anal intercourse story
lesbian gone wild
GIRLS GONE WILD - THE GREATEST XXX SITE . FREE GAY TEENAGER XXX
Yet, I still think it's a good idea to spend as much of my life as possible writing stories about monkey porn and broken virginity pledges. And making atrocious puns (see an article to be posted tomorrow). Hey, if a Salon journalist can write, "He attempts to answer the question, 'Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?' Dowd-ing Thomases might put it thusly: If men aren't necessary, should we care?" (my bold), I can pun as badly as I want to!
anal-intercourse-story.notbad.net.ru - anal intercourse story
lesbian gone wild
GIRLS GONE WILD - THE GREATEST XXX SITE . FREE GAY TEENAGER XXX
Yet, I still think it's a good idea to spend as much of my life as possible writing stories about monkey porn and broken virginity pledges. And making atrocious puns (see an article to be posted tomorrow). Hey, if a Salon journalist can write, "He attempts to answer the question, 'Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?' Dowd-ing Thomases might put it thusly: If men aren't necessary, should we care?" (my bold), I can pun as badly as I want to!
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
I've Got A Little List
Through a brief-ish but productive AIM conversation with Vaughan, I've started compiling a list. The document consists of "things I know little to nothing about, but should know about if I don't want to be an embarrassment to my family, my country, and myself." The working list is included below this entry. Feel free to suggest things I may not know about that I should investigate.
I also realized that I never talked about the real indulgence relevant to my post yesterday. While it's nice not to criticize harshly, it's really luxurious to praise unabashedly. Try doing it sometime. It's amazing! It has all the creativity of a good lambasting with none of the guilt. You can be even more creative, because the field is less explored (this isn't really the same as love poems and religious praise). Try telling someone they're so un-fucking-believably fabulous. It's stunningly good! "You just blew me right out of the water, like, dropped to your knees and took me from the pit of the ocean to fucking heaven. I'm pissing ambrosia on Zeus, that was so awesome." You know. Just ride with it. It's so amazingly satisfying.
OK, here's the working list:
Things I should know
Genocides
Rwanda
Sudan
Khmer Rouge
Serbia-Bosnia
West Africa?
Conspicuous Absences
Stalin
Pol Pot
Argentina
How Things Work
US
How a bill becomes a law
Constitutional amendments
SCOTUS, how a case gets there, what happens
Lower courts: who are they? how do they work?
Candidates for president
How presidential election works
International
The UN
How the EU works
WTO and how it interacts with the G8
How currencies fluctuate
How Canada and the UK elect their leaders
How the regions got their structures
How the EU was formed
Why africa is structurally fucked
Yugoslavia
USSR
The Koreas
One Germany
Northern Ireland/Ireland
Palestine/Israel
Individual mideast countries
Apartheid
OK, some of those I know more about than others (how we elect the president). But some I know absurdly little about. Feel free to add things along these lines, and for other categories, including "things that will kill us all, or at least tens of thousands of us."
I also realized that I never talked about the real indulgence relevant to my post yesterday. While it's nice not to criticize harshly, it's really luxurious to praise unabashedly. Try doing it sometime. It's amazing! It has all the creativity of a good lambasting with none of the guilt. You can be even more creative, because the field is less explored (this isn't really the same as love poems and religious praise). Try telling someone they're so un-fucking-believably fabulous. It's stunningly good! "You just blew me right out of the water, like, dropped to your knees and took me from the pit of the ocean to fucking heaven. I'm pissing ambrosia on Zeus, that was so awesome." You know. Just ride with it. It's so amazingly satisfying.
OK, here's the working list:
Things I should know
Genocides
Rwanda
Sudan
Khmer Rouge
Serbia-Bosnia
West Africa?
Conspicuous Absences
Stalin
Pol Pot
Argentina
How Things Work
US
How a bill becomes a law
Constitutional amendments
SCOTUS, how a case gets there, what happens
Lower courts: who are they? how do they work?
Candidates for president
How presidential election works
International
The UN
How the EU works
WTO and how it interacts with the G8
How currencies fluctuate
How Canada and the UK elect their leaders
How the regions got their structures
How the EU was formed
Why africa is structurally fucked
Yugoslavia
USSR
The Koreas
One Germany
Northern Ireland/Ireland
Palestine/Israel
Individual mideast countries
Apartheid
OK, some of those I know more about than others (how we elect the president). But some I know absurdly little about. Feel free to add things along these lines, and for other categories, including "things that will kill us all, or at least tens of thousands of us."
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Inexpensive Indulgence
The greatest thing I learned from my crazy mania professor Eric Schwab (I'll say 'hello, eric schwab,' because I'd put him just barely in the self-googling half of the world) is that it is legitimate, nay, desirable, even, to read a text and not criticize it. Just take from it everything you can. You don't have to endorse it or support it or praise it...just use the text to see what you can get out of it. Go on. Whatever you want. Be selfish. Take from the text. Perhaps this wasn't how he phrased it, but he did come down hard on the frequent practice of reading with a mind toward ridicule.
Why do people so frequently read this way? I understand you get something valid out of criticism; you practice discerning valid arguments and therefore practice forming strong opinions and arguments of your own. Plus one for critique. Fair enough. But you lose so much. You, number one, get really tense and have that insecure satisfaction of gossip, especially when you critique poorly. You (and realize, of course, that 'you' always means 'I') feel like a dirty, dirty, bad person. And that's not a good feeling at all. "Sure, religious people: there's an invisible omnipresent being pulling all the strings and setting the world up so science can explain everything, but really science isn't the way to answer our questions because he's just testing our faith. Like he is when he kills tens of thousands of people in Asia. He's not cruel. Noooooo. He's just got a plan!" See. I feel dirty now. That's not good. Whereas if I legitimately consider the opinion (unlikely at this point; I've done a lot of that already), or just try to see how the impulse to believe in God reveals something about what it means to be human (very likely), I feel good. And satisfied. Try it! I think you'll like it.
So it feels bad to ridicule and good not to ridicule. You also get much better reactions when you don't ridicule. When you argue with an attitude, people get defensive and it sucks. You wind up in one of those arguments where there's no aim to prove or disprove the original point, you just find an objection to everything the other person says. Those arguments are frustrating. If you remain amicable and ask the person to explain his or her thoughts, you can present challenges and get the person to respond to them thoughtfully. People are much more likely to present their opinions fully and be receptive to constructive criticism this way. If you take the conversation in another direction, they'll be happy to go with you.
And you just get more out of it. You have the power to make the reading of the text or the listening of the speech as useful to yourself as possible. You can use it to explore the topic that means the most to you and resonates most with what was presented. It's a great, open opportunity. Go for it.
If the argument or information really just blows? Ignore it. Move on. Find something else. If there's absolutely no entertainment value, humor, decent points, food for thought, cute facts or anecdotes, consider the time you've spent reading a sunk cost and do something else.
Some people think it's weak not to criticize harshly if something's bad. Why? I don't think it's weak. It's being the bigger, more selfish man. It's doing exactly what you want. It's putting your remaining time to use that works for you. Excellent.
Unsurprisingly, this post is spurred because every negative comment written about my work hits me hard. This is the problem with going public, especially with a poor sense of what should be censored, a creative mind, and relatively little experience in the field. I'm fledgling. I'm learning. I'd appreciate if people criticized constructively...and I'm not convinced they get anything meaningful out of doing otherwise. I know I don't get anything out of that except a quick, guilt-ridden high. But, in my little utilitarian scheme, if it actually benefits them, I can't stop them. I can't stop them anyway.
Why do people so frequently read this way? I understand you get something valid out of criticism; you practice discerning valid arguments and therefore practice forming strong opinions and arguments of your own. Plus one for critique. Fair enough. But you lose so much. You, number one, get really tense and have that insecure satisfaction of gossip, especially when you critique poorly. You (and realize, of course, that 'you' always means 'I') feel like a dirty, dirty, bad person. And that's not a good feeling at all. "Sure, religious people: there's an invisible omnipresent being pulling all the strings and setting the world up so science can explain everything, but really science isn't the way to answer our questions because he's just testing our faith. Like he is when he kills tens of thousands of people in Asia. He's not cruel. Noooooo. He's just got a plan!" See. I feel dirty now. That's not good. Whereas if I legitimately consider the opinion (unlikely at this point; I've done a lot of that already), or just try to see how the impulse to believe in God reveals something about what it means to be human (very likely), I feel good. And satisfied. Try it! I think you'll like it.
So it feels bad to ridicule and good not to ridicule. You also get much better reactions when you don't ridicule. When you argue with an attitude, people get defensive and it sucks. You wind up in one of those arguments where there's no aim to prove or disprove the original point, you just find an objection to everything the other person says. Those arguments are frustrating. If you remain amicable and ask the person to explain his or her thoughts, you can present challenges and get the person to respond to them thoughtfully. People are much more likely to present their opinions fully and be receptive to constructive criticism this way. If you take the conversation in another direction, they'll be happy to go with you.
And you just get more out of it. You have the power to make the reading of the text or the listening of the speech as useful to yourself as possible. You can use it to explore the topic that means the most to you and resonates most with what was presented. It's a great, open opportunity. Go for it.
If the argument or information really just blows? Ignore it. Move on. Find something else. If there's absolutely no entertainment value, humor, decent points, food for thought, cute facts or anecdotes, consider the time you've spent reading a sunk cost and do something else.
Some people think it's weak not to criticize harshly if something's bad. Why? I don't think it's weak. It's being the bigger, more selfish man. It's doing exactly what you want. It's putting your remaining time to use that works for you. Excellent.
Unsurprisingly, this post is spurred because every negative comment written about my work hits me hard. This is the problem with going public, especially with a poor sense of what should be censored, a creative mind, and relatively little experience in the field. I'm fledgling. I'm learning. I'd appreciate if people criticized constructively...and I'm not convinced they get anything meaningful out of doing otherwise. I know I don't get anything out of that except a quick, guilt-ridden high. But, in my little utilitarian scheme, if it actually benefits them, I can't stop them. I can't stop them anyway.
Monday, December 05, 2005
We Could Be Wrong
So, let's say there is a God. A likely situation? In my opinion, no. In the opinion of others, very. But, as pretty much everyone will concede, a possible situation. Not one we can ever conclusively say is untrue. That's the frustrating beauty of all the theistic arguments. So, anyway.
Given: ∃ God
And therefore everything we know is wrong. Of course, maybe everything we know isn't wrong, and God is one of those Gods who sparked the big bang and evolution and pretty much left the world to function given physical principles and He did so with infinite lovingkindness. Possible. But I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about any situation where everything we know is wrong. God created the heavens and the earth. God created man pretty much as he is.
So, IF this is the case. What is science? Is it still taking all of these testables and, well, testing them? Would we still go about our merry way, finding out what we could via these methods, hoping that the consistency we've seen in this world holds up a little more? Or would we claim that the answers to these questions, even if we couldn't test them, are ultimately the scientific answers, because they are truth? Or would science just be dead/useless altogether?
Of course there's always the question of how we know there's a God. So we have to assume it was revealed to us in some awfully convincing but non-repeatable way. Like the whole booming voice from the heavens, mountains lifted, every person told what he or she is thinking, and then nothing. Heck, I'd be convinced. But it's non-repeatable. OK, now that we have that out of the way...
Is the first priority of science truth? I think it's pretty clearly not. It's just that we're very convinced we can find truth through a system that makes a lot of sense and has some pretty remarkable successes in the past.
On a less extreme note than the "science fails!" scenario, what about the several times scientists have gotten it wrong...such as with the ether. I mean, the ether wasn't a horrible hypothesis. It's not immediately intuitive that light should be the fulcrum of the universe. So, in their science classes they taught the ether. Should they not have? I think they should have. So we kind of tacitly consent to teach untruths as long as they're arrived at via this tried-and-usually-true methodology. Seems mildly messed up. I'll ride with it, but I do kind of feel we should be qualifying everything.
I guess that's what I'll concede to IDers. Not that evolution should be singled out as being flawed, hell no, it's one of the theories with the greatest ratio of explanatory power to problems that we've got. But aside from repeating the steps of the scientific method ad nauseum, I think kids should be given a clearer picture of science: What it's based on, how it operates, what it will not answer, all the incredible things it's done, and how there may be things that are wrong and always will be uncertainties. And that's part of the discipline. The good news, you can tell them, is good science is set up so that it will seek out and find what's wrong. And that's it's greatest virtue. So take the answers as truth with only a small grain of salt.
Given: ∃ God
And therefore everything we know is wrong. Of course, maybe everything we know isn't wrong, and God is one of those Gods who sparked the big bang and evolution and pretty much left the world to function given physical principles and He did so with infinite lovingkindness. Possible. But I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about any situation where everything we know is wrong. God created the heavens and the earth. God created man pretty much as he is.
So, IF this is the case. What is science? Is it still taking all of these testables and, well, testing them? Would we still go about our merry way, finding out what we could via these methods, hoping that the consistency we've seen in this world holds up a little more? Or would we claim that the answers to these questions, even if we couldn't test them, are ultimately the scientific answers, because they are truth? Or would science just be dead/useless altogether?
Of course there's always the question of how we know there's a God. So we have to assume it was revealed to us in some awfully convincing but non-repeatable way. Like the whole booming voice from the heavens, mountains lifted, every person told what he or she is thinking, and then nothing. Heck, I'd be convinced. But it's non-repeatable. OK, now that we have that out of the way...
Is the first priority of science truth? I think it's pretty clearly not. It's just that we're very convinced we can find truth through a system that makes a lot of sense and has some pretty remarkable successes in the past.
On a less extreme note than the "science fails!" scenario, what about the several times scientists have gotten it wrong...such as with the ether. I mean, the ether wasn't a horrible hypothesis. It's not immediately intuitive that light should be the fulcrum of the universe. So, in their science classes they taught the ether. Should they not have? I think they should have. So we kind of tacitly consent to teach untruths as long as they're arrived at via this tried-and-usually-true methodology. Seems mildly messed up. I'll ride with it, but I do kind of feel we should be qualifying everything.
I guess that's what I'll concede to IDers. Not that evolution should be singled out as being flawed, hell no, it's one of the theories with the greatest ratio of explanatory power to problems that we've got. But aside from repeating the steps of the scientific method ad nauseum, I think kids should be given a clearer picture of science: What it's based on, how it operates, what it will not answer, all the incredible things it's done, and how there may be things that are wrong and always will be uncertainties. And that's part of the discipline. The good news, you can tell them, is good science is set up so that it will seek out and find what's wrong. And that's it's greatest virtue. So take the answers as truth with only a small grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)