On Producing Delicious Meals:

The best way to describe the health and well being of medical students, if not most physicians, is rampant neglect. This can be measured simply by the bluish hue coloring the bags under the eyes of many of my beloved colleagues. But it is equally evidenced by the self-deprecating prioritization of business over food. In conjunction with an attitude reflecting this cultural shift to work harder and masked by the inaccurate accusation of laziness, the tendency to ignore the importance of such a crucial activity as eating runs too deep in the culture of physicians and subsequently the general population. Our dependence on sustainance falls tragically to the grade C cafeteria zoos, the colorfully fraudulent chain cafes with bloated, dramatized menus and the dubious grease houses playing to our fantasy of a diverse cuisine.

But there are some who resist this by injecting a dose of their own self-reliance into the equilibrium to balance out the tendency for forming bad habits. These people, like myself, rely on a more convincing network of food production that, unless you're sharp, is subtly deceiving in it's own right.

If everybody says fresh, natural and organic is better, then a smart business solution is to play to this market either through tricks, lies or genuine truth. For a while now, I have been unaware of this: just trusting supermarkets enough to train myself in prioritizing my kitchen over the comparatively low-quality cafeterias and cafes. Yet it's time to realize that ingredients ingredients ingredients rule the day. There is no good meal without good ingredients, and there are very few bad meals made from good ingredients. Between the packaging, labeling, commercials and gimmicks surrounding products (eg. "organic") as well as markets themselves (eg. "The Fresh Market"), it is extremely difficult to really know which is what you want and which is subtly deceitful. After fully considering what I'm saying here, the logical progression, although far-reaching and demanding, is that the only way to be sure of what you are eating is to grow it yourself or trade for it from trusted neighbors who's gardens and techniques you've witnessed and discussed.

The prospects for sustaining yourself by your land and your local network for, let's say, a year seem dim if not impossible for the near future. Barriers: no room, no knowledge, no understanding, no urgency, no will, no priority. And this is difficult. Because the barren societal networks are currently far too thin and weak to support the kind of sharing and trading needed to really make independence and self-sustainability a possibility. Also, there are simply too many distractions to allow us to keep one eye on a garden and one eye on the rest of our lives.

But when the shock, created solely by the illusion that you are incapable or uninterested in this kind of living, becomes old and blunted, and when your arguments against taking action become as thin as your interpersonal skills, you will realize that the appreciation for all things that grow has always been there, instilled in the bank of instincts previously suppressed by the distractions you no longer care about. Indeed, we will be able to rebuild the human-to-human connections and begin relying on one-another once again.

Eventually, the dust settles. And every modern person becomes more tuned to growth around us and the tantalizing possibilities afforded by the flavors, varieties and nutrition from other living things. Only then are we capable of choosing truly fresh and natural and organic and instinctual ingredients for the kitchen and for our soon-to-be delicious meals.

A Return to an old Revolution: Agriculture

In the summer of 2008, I realized that through cooking delicious meals from market produce, I was creating a mound of waste out of the excess trimmings that never went into the meals. The routine of cutting off and rejecting unwanted fractions of my food and sentencing them to a plastic bin to be hauled off somewhere distant, triggered a deep response in me that had originated millions of years ago. This simple act of watching good, organic materials - that I had purchased - disappear unused, uncovered a logical progression from which I concluded not only that I should save these rich products but that I could use them to create further enriched heaps of food that would eventually make their way back into my own kitchen.

In May of 2008, after exciting my brother to these new terms in life (that even now we haven't fully realized), we built a simple compost (composed of a porous garbage can) in a backyard of the house we were fortunately living in. We proudly started depositing our newly beloved raw materials from the kitchen and combined them with various carbon scraps and our trusty little digestors from the backyard.

Having started a process that I instinctively knew would take a while, it dawned on me that I would eventually need to use the worm and fungus detritus for an even grander set of events: growing things! After once again expanding the boundaries of my brother's view on the possibilities in life, we dutifully constructed a greenhouse in that same backyard that we were slowly falling in love with.

After surveying our crafty creativeness, I began to picture a new type of yard: Rather than overgrown weeds and imposing shrubs, we could clear and clean a good part of the land and lay down some soft grass to stop the tide of weed growth. In the newly created spaces currently inhabited by jungle, we could scatter sleak and refreshing greenhouses that not only appear like oxygen and health powerhouses but also decorate the yard in the new bio-eco-green-organic-friendly-love thyself style that will soon become the fad. But we could do it early and with our own spin: lounging tents, grills and yard furniture interspersed among the theme-dominating bio-structures. A lot of work encroaching on my regularly demanding schedule; but surely a worthwhile vision.

Now two months later, with all these fanatical images flashing through my head during this warm summer, I have become instantly addicted to the art of growing plants. The joys of choosing the components of a garden, originate not from an aesthetic standpoint but more from an instinctive goal to be in the kitchen smelling, tasting and digesting what comes undeniably naturally from the soil and toil of my own land. My impulsive instincts are not necessarily to reduce, reuse and recycle (although I will ultimately theorize, in my life, how these principles should pervade all of our activities) but to satisfy my stomach and to hail "kitchen ingredients" as the most important director of how we decide to sustain ourselves, satisfy ourselves and pleasure ourselves in the great realm of diet and nutrition. And from this intellectual point of strength, I begin my personal agricultural revolution to triumphantly take back my diet from the modern supermarkets and dining cultures that have deprived me of my heritage for so long.

What Lies Beyond "Insurgency"?

On the eve of the first significant exam of my medical career, I find myself interested in the term "insurgency." In my constant obsession with communication and the precision of word-symbols, I wonder if insurgency is the right way to describe the anti-American, militia-style forces resisting and even attacking our troops in Iraq. When I turn to the internet, it seems that wikipedia (ie. human emergence) has beaten me to the initial development of the answer to the question. Read it and see for yourself, as I don't really need to say much more to start the conversation.

For my own part, I can't see how violent, internal, and possibly even popular opposition to a foreign occupation, such as ours in Iraq, can be called an insurgency. I believe I'm far too sympathetic (and willing to put myself in the Iraqi's position) to simply call home-grown Iraqi fighters insurgents. Insurgency against what? Us the foreigners?

Of course, if you consult the Bush Doctrine, you might find that Americans have ruled the world for a while now and a place like Iraq is certainly considered something along the lines of home soil. Therefore, under those conditions, I can see how opposition to our Hobbesian sovereignty there can be described as insurgent force.

Surely not every American subscribes to the bush doctrine. Yet the word insurgent is used repeatedly without much substitution in the press, documentaries (American-made) and from our government. Is there not a more objective word we can use to describe these forces that are surely considered freedom-fighters by many in the Middle East?

A New Kind Of Performer On An Old Stage

Hours beforehand, workers arrive to set up the stage.
There's a hidden energy palpable
Like the World Series
Or a Michael Jackson concert.
They make sure the arena is clean before the crowd comes in to take their seats.
It's going to be a long show so everything has to be ready.
They check the sound speakers and the acoustics.
"Check 1-2, 1-2 Check!"
Everything sounds good.

The biggest fans arrive early of course.
They've been looking forward to this since the last time
This show came around.
Perhaps there are tail gators waiting it out in the parking lot
With footballs and hot dogs.
Perhaps not, but you know that's what they're thinking.
At least the vendors are out
Trying to sell roasted peanuts to the fans walking by.

The stadium starts to fill up
Adults with arguments, passions and concerns
Excited kids waiting to catch a glimpse of the next American hero
They say an event like this happens only once every four years
A rare opportunity in this town.
You can't miss it!
So everybody dresses their best.
They come with banners and stickers
And buttons and t-shirts
Their favorite underwear
And a poster,
Hopefully to be autographed.
Or at least a hand shake.

See, they love this
They eat this up like
Warm Apple Pie a la Mode
They could sit at home and watch this
Like any sporting event
Like any other media bonanza
But
They've come to see their favorite player
Only
Their favorite celebrity
Only
They've come to watch and cheer
To lose their voice for work tomorrow
They've come to celebrate
With people just like them
Fellow fans full of hope
Wishing for glory by the end of the night
Fellow band wagoners
With the same dream
For the same contestant
They've come for reassurance
Or for questions
That need answers
Doubters to become supporters
Supporters to become Defenders
Defenders to take Action!

You choose
They say.
Don't throw away your right
It's black or white
It's Us or them
But we're right
We know
Because we're hear tonight
We've listened to what they've told us
That's all we know.
And we're hear tonight
To follow you into battle
To follow you onto center stage
Against radically different opposition
You represent us!
No doubt
You will lead us in this mighty clash
Of words and spinsters
You will lead us!
No doubt.
Right?

All is quiet.
Everyone focused on the bright stage
And in walks
Not an athlete
Nor a movie star
But a man in a dark suit
A new kind of performer
Armed,
With practiced and prepared statements
All perfected
To perpetuate our hopes and dreams

And leave us just the way we started.

Defining Art (It's a Start)

If you've spoken to me or read some of this philosophical junk, then you know that I like to emphasize that every word we use is actually a condensed symbol representing a complex, perhaps even emotional, concept within our subconcious. These concepts are packaged up and brought to the forefront of our conciousness thanks, in large part, to human symbols like words. Some words are more precise than others, meaning the range of concepts a single word could be referring to is limited. Lately, the word Art has been used to describe a multitude of concepts. If it's used in too many different contexts, it starts to lose meaning and value as a precise word. And the concept of art may disappear all together. I believe that some words ought to be broad in spectrum and usage and some ought to be narrow. With some words, we need to feel free to use them generally; and with others, we need to precisely attach them to a concept, in order to ensure efficient communication. Without the former, we will feel stifled linguistically; without the latter, we may lose the underlying concepts all together.

For me, the concept behind the word art is becoming less clear at a time when I am feeling like something (that could be called art?) is growing inside of me. So, I will define art first by explaining the concept and then by attaching the word art to the exact place where I think it can be most precisely representative. If you grasp what I am saying, then you should come away understanding my concepts of creativity and art and the exact way in which I'd like to use these two words.

So, what is art? Some say it is everywhere; that everything we do as humans is endowed by our artistic tendency. Some say it is based on intention: anything we mean to do is artistic. Some say it is anything we do that is creative, coming from ourselves. All painters are surely artists, right? But are lawyers artists? What about trash collectors?

My answer to this question is that it depends. In my estimation, anything that we do as humans could ultimately be art. But for each activity to become artistic, we must first go through a developmental process. We must master certain physical and theoretical parameters before we can express ourselves artistically, in that activity.

To better explain this, I will use the examples of writing and of medicine - two activities which I am endeavoring to become artistic in. In order to become an artistic writer, the first parameter we need to master is the physical act of writing. We need to develop our coordination using pen and paper (or typing): the tip of the pen faces down and touches the paper. If you move your hand in specific, squiggly motions, you form symbols that we call letters and words. Once you can perform this physical task well, usually towards the end of elementary school, you are now equipped with the basic physical skills required to write. Medicine is very physical too. We, as doctors, must become familiar with various tools and how to use them. We have to train not only our hands but all of our senses and physical parts to pick up medical clues in order look into the body of the patient, while still remaining on the outside. A surgeon is only a surgeon once he or she can make a straight cut in the belly and then be able to sew it up later. Once this is mastered, the surgeon is on the path towards art.

The next step is to master the theory. This is a little more complicated, because really we are constantly mastering theory. For writing, I am talking about language theory. No matter how well we form symbols with our hands, we cannot actually write unless we know a language. We begin developing language actually before we learn the physical aspect. That is, we start talking long before we put pen to paper. But we don't really master grammer until later (high school, college, maybe never). Because of human progress, theory is always developing; and unless the artistic activity is relatively new, it is very difficult to master all of its theory. In medicine, even after being ordained as a physician, science moves on. And we must do our best to keep up with the theory and incorporate it into our artistic practice. As a medical student, this is very difficult to do because I am spending so much time trying to master the old theory. But, as a mature physician, it becomes easier to keep up with the new literature.

The final step to reaching the artistic level is creativity or individual expression. Creativity is another broad word like art, and I mean to distinguish the two concepts behind these words. Whereas art includes the physical and the theoretical, creativity is just that aspect of art that the artist can call entirely his or her own. Whereas the physical and theoretical aspects were developed by many artists over time, the creative aspect belongs solely to the artist in that moment. Surely, creativity begins as soon as we are born. After all, everything we do is really our own work. But we lose creativity when we start to follow directions. And that's ok, if not necessary, in the beginning of our artistic development. If we're learning how to form words with our hands, we have to start by following the dotted lines. If our teacher tells us to add a period at the end of the sentence, we ought to follow that grammatical convention for better communication. During the early days of becoming an artist, our creativity level is low by necessity. Yet, once we are comfortable with the physical and theoretical aspects, we can begin to develop our creativity. After the surgeon learns how to cut on the dotted line, how to recognize the anatomy and peform the procedure safely, he begins to practice on his own. And after the subordinate feeling of being a student has faded away, he begins to make every procedure his own. The physical and the theoretical are now ingrained into him and he doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning those aspects. So, all of his concious effort goes towards bringing out the subconcious creativity within him. The same goes for writing. Once we've mastered word formation and grammer and syntax, we focus our energy on writing what we really want to express; what is coming from the depths of our creativity. In poetry, we even sacrifice some of the rules of grammer, in order to free up our creativity. And that is when you know you've reached the level of Art: when individual creativity begins to redefine theory.

So, yes, everything that we do could be considered artistic. That includes painting, the practice of law and collecting trash. But it depends, really, on what level we are at in terms of the physical and theoretical parameters and how free we feel to be creative. As I mentioned above, a student in any activity hardly feels free to be creative. He or she is focused on mastering the physical and theoretical aspects of this activity and therefore is not practicing Art, to the fullest extent. But if you train yourself to recognize the creativity of others, then you will better be able to appreciate the Art that is all around us.

There is no Gay, There is no Straight

There is no Gay, There is not Straight;
There's just my chemicals and somebody elses chemicals.

I once saw a chart of diseases that illustrated the interplay between genetics and environment as they combine to create specific illneses. Some bare a stronger genetic component like cystic fibrosis. Others are brought on by specific environments and lifestyles, like type 2 diabetes. But the overall point was that the etiology of each disease was associated with varying levels of BOTH Genetics and the Environment. Think about that.

The body: designed by genes to behave in a given environment...

When it comes to humans, the true nature of sexuality is so complex that we tend to be lazy and just favor labels. Let's call that guy over there gay because he gets off on pinching the buttocks of other men. And let's call this guy straight because he worships the vagina and everything it leads to.

But we can actually think about human sexuality in terms of varying degrees of genetic components and environmental stimuli. Each human being (regardless of what their sex organs might suggest) has a unique combination of genes which results in chemical interactions within the brain that pursuade an individual to be attracted to other, specific individuals. So, in the frequent situation where a person is exposed to both males and females equally, he or she tends to be attracted to one sex or the other. That's where the labels come in. Yet it's more complicated than that. If you were to radically change the environment while keeping the genetics the same, the behavior changes as well. For example, a man, who was normally only attracted to females, spends 10 years in a prison full of only other men; he may find himself attracted to and engaging in sexual behavior with other men in order to fulfill something he hasn't felt since before going to prison. And even in the normal situation, we see people who are attracted to both men and women. Again, in our laziness, it's as if we think they're so different and we need to label those individuals as bisexual. In reality, it's just a set of genes releasing chemicals resulting in specific behavior in a given environment. Change up the genes OR the environment and you'll observe different behaviors.

Ok, so what am I getting at here?

Well, intimacy: The drive to become closer and closer to people we like. See, if we start talking to somebody that we think is cool, we tend to want to be around those people more; and before you know it a friendship develops. You can look at it like certain "bonding chemicals" are being released in your brain that make you feel good and comfortable around that person. Yet, if we get close enough, we're going to want more and more. We're going to want to feel better and better around that person.

Now, since our ultimate purpose of living is to reproduce (see Science as a Politcal Term for the DNA analysis), humans, in our great complexity, were designed to build major bonding relationships with those that we would want to have sex with and reproduce with. In other words, the strongest bonding and feel good chemicals that we possess are released around those that we wish to have sex with. That's why sex feels so good!

So when we're starting to feel good around close friends, it's only natural that we're going to want to take it to the next level with some of them. We're going to want to have sex with those that we feel closest to and best around. Men, women or both. It's all for the chemicals. That doesn't mean every friend is a sexual candidate. With some friends, we're happy the way we are and we don't feel like we need more. Either we're not physically attracted to them, or our psychological bond just isn't strong enough. That's ok; in fact, that's the majority of good relationships.

But the question is, how do we decide who we want to be sexually closest to at any given time? The answer is in the first few paragraphs. It's our genes and our environment. It's not that one person is gay, another is straight and everybody else is bisexual or transgender; it's that different people feel better or worse with other people in the human context. And it's the complex interplay of genes and environment that push us towards a sexy sailorman or a powerful woman in a white lab coat or a transgender, transvestite.

We as a society need to reflect on this. We need to be more open to our own sexual possibilities. From the moment we're born, too many assumptions are made about us. We need to cast away our prejudices and allow our genes and environment to guide us wherever it takes us (as long as we're practicing safe sex). The manliest womanizer in school may secretly be attracted to the second most manly womanizer in school. That goofy, gay (as in jovial) guy dating the insecure girl may really prefer to be with her brother. And the tough chick with all the guy friends might want to be rubbing up against the cute, shy girl in the corner. Who knows?

Can you imagine how free and happy our lives would be if we accepted this; if we were all engaging in that exciting pursuit for the one (or two or three....) that we can really get off on? This, in my estimation, is the highest form of spiritual fulfillment: finding the person that turns us on and allows us to be exactly how we want to be. That, my friends, is the holy grail; that is how you find God.

A Real Challenge

This one's about Ralph Nader. The intellectual challenge is this: do some research, read up on your recent history and try to come up with some arguments in favor of a Nader candidacy. I call this a challenge because it's extremely easy to argue the opposite that Nader is unpatriotic for running for president on a regular basis. It's a cheap argument at this point and ultimately selfish and false. So see how far you can go in the other direction. For anybody who reads this, I am eager to here what you have to say and am always open to a good discussion. Just make sure you know your facts please so I don't have to treat you like a big baby....




Nader Campaign

Communication at its Best

My friend wrote a poem
He wrote it to me
There's trust in the air.
There's confidentiality.
Let's establish that first

My friend wrote a poem
He believes in something
Could you do that?
Do you believe in something?
Could you explain it?
Or do you hide behind institutions,
Other peoples thoughts and poems.
They're not yours you know,
No matter how many times you read it,
Or quote it,
Or use it.
Books
The Book
Their book.
Not yours.
What do you believe in?
My friend believes in something,
Because he wrote a poem.
Ok, that's established too.

My friend wrote a poem
And I listened
I read it
once or twice,
depending on how receptive I am;
But I read it
I read him.
It's not what I was thinking,
incidentally.
It seems we've moved in directions.
Not permanently, of course.
It means we have different experiences.
It means we tackle different problems.
I haven't seen him in a while
I haven't talked to him or picked his brain.
But my friend wrote a poem.
And I read it.
And now I know where he is.
It's beautiful.
It only takes one
or two
or as many as you can write...
want to write
will write
will think
are thinking.

Writing
is
Thinking.

Thinking
and then writing
and then sending,
is communication.
It offers something valuable
to those who are distant.
Distance is not physical.
Ultimately, it is mental.
It is natural,
to be distant.
It is natural,
to be complicated.
It is natural
to experience in different ways.
To be tugged
in different directions.

But it is also natural
to communicate.
Signals:
chemicals,
light,
sound,
touch,
taste,
smell,
feel.
So natural.

So human:
Hear voices,
words,
write,
think and feel,
feel and create,
create and deliver,
deliver and communicate.
Make something your own,
and pass it along.
Even if we're distant,
even if we're far away,
mentally, more than physically,
there is potential between us.

My friend wrote a poem,
he sent it to me.
He delivered it to my eyes
and my eyes delivered it to my mind.
I read it.
I know it.
I know him.
I thought
and responded.
And now you know me.
That feels good.
I'm alive now.

Thank you.
Kind regards.
Take care.
Cheers.

-my mind

Science as a Political Term

Life owes its existence to progress. Historically, the overall function of life has been to persist and progress in the environment.

Of course you've heard that life began in a chemical soup. That's good. You have a head start then. So, I want you to imagine this soup as a broth of individual atoms. Each atom consists of a large proton with high powered electrons spinning around it at different distances and velocities (I won't get any smaller than the electron for now). There are a variety of atoms even in this primitive soup and they interact, to a certain extent, with one another.

THEN! SUDDENLY!

An external primordial lighting bolt strikes this atomic gathering and the whole environment is stunned. The protons freeze for a moment as the electrons are freed to shift from proton to proton. As the electronic shock wave diminishes, electrons are rearranged around new and different protons creating a surprisingly different variety of particles. This variety leads to new interactions between particles, thus spawning new chemical reactions and further novelty. Yet the sensation dies and the hopes and dreams of an infinite number of new relationships dissolve.

Luckily, in a different environment nearby, another soupy mixture of the same old atoms is subjected to a slightly varying degree of energetic pulse. The protons are stunned again as the electrons rearrange. But this time a new reaction occurs and a complex set of bi- or multi-atomic particles is created in a particular region in the chemical mixture. By sheer chance (a force we will come to depend on for everything), these molecules begin to build on themselves. Perhaps replicating or influencing the chemicals around them. The blast that started it all dies down and the chemical building blocks are left to fend for themselves in the surrounding atmosphere. Despite the absence of their original energy blast, they begin to draw energy from other sources. For example, reoccurring or nearby lightning strikes.

BOOM!

They get bigger.

BOOM! BOOM!

They get even bigger.

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

They're so big now they're differentiating. They're forming groups. They're resisting their harsh environment. They're consuming energy. They're growing. They refuse to dissolve...

THEY'RE SURVIVING...



And now the race is on. They've got to figure out a way to secure they're future. If not, they will surely lose all their energy, the bind that holds them together and protects them (albeit rudimentarily) from the immediate and deadly climate.

Essentially, if they don't stay energized they will lose their LIFE...

So what do they do? Well, they do a lot of things:

1. They build protection - they place strong, resistant chemicals on the periphery in order to enclose themselves and create a new, more stable environment within.
2. They secure an energy source - they develop means of extracting energy from more permanent sources; for example, the sun.
3. They React - with a more reliable energy source, they are able to continually shuffle around new particles to better meet their needs in the tumultuous environment

This is fantastic work if you think about it. Suddenly, we've gone from boring, unoriginal atoms to great varieties of atoms and molecules with limitless possibilities. And the best part is, this aggregation of chemicals is becoming self-sustaining. Look at it like a constant experiment on how best to arrange themselves in order to adapt to the situation. In fact, adaptation is critical. Yet it relies on the random movements of particles as they encounter new environments. As they do so, together, they acquire the ability to withstand these new outside forces. And thus they earn the right to remain in that chemical context.

As these chemicals evolve and differentiate, they begin to take on identities, you could say. Perhaps, actual individual groups of molecules are formed, distancing themselves from the original birthplace of life. We see numerous and similar, if not identical, groups of chemicals slowly migrating and becoming more and more independent. Of course, these early life forms are extremely fragile, even with all of its new developments. It needs to progress. It needs to figure out a more permanent solution for prolonging its existence in a given environment while remaining adaptive to continual environmental changes. It needs to develop a philosophy and a strategy to ensuring progress.

In the end, it chooses to actually harness the force that brought it to existence in the beginning: Random Chance. It does this by creating a sturdy, compact yet surprisingly flexible, molecular structure. This molecule is not only physically well designed to withstand impact and manipulation, it carries real, readable information in the form of different atomic arrangements within the molecule. This information can direct other molecules to react in specific ways. Like a leader. With the help of some of these other molecules, it can replicate itself in order to create new forms, spread itself and sustain itself. Despite its strength, its code of information is purposely vulnerable to accidental changes. This means that as it replicates, it randomly makes mistakes and forms a slightly different arrangement of atoms containing slightly different information. For a given number of replications, a small percentage of new molecules are always created.

You've heard it referred to as the blueprint of life. DNA is the first and most popular discovery of genetic material ever. It truly is a blueprint. A molecular instruction booklet to be interpreted and followed step by step. If followed correctly, the proteins produced by it go to work protecting it and enhancing its existence. Although some proteins are actually able to exist independently of DNA in the form of virons, they don’t ever seem to thrive as well as they do under the command of DNA. You can imagine that as molecular interactions become more complex, DNA extends and enhances its influence over the surrounding environment. It employs other molecules to do the bulk of the work, even at great distances and in fluctuating situations.

Surely genetic molecules such as DNA and RNA are one of life’s most brilliant achievements. This molecule is not only capable of withstanding its environment for a period of time, it is capable of improving its existence within the environment as well as adapting to new environments. Again, it accomplishes this by chance. As genetic molecules replicate and a small percentage undergoes random mutations, new blueprints are constantly formed. This means new proteins are constantly being invented. Some proteins help the overall existence of the life form within its environment; other proteins hurt its existence. Those organisms with more advantageous adaptations are more likely to survive, thus buying time for the better-mutated DNA strands to replicate and continue the trend.

At this point, enough of the story has been told such that it is not difficult to imagine how bacteria came about; and then viruses to live off them as parasites. And then bacteria evolved into more complex species. And the earth began to change becoming more inhabitable. And more complex life followed this change and so on and so on and so on until we come to us, humans.

At this point, life has proven its ability to thrive in a multitude of environments on earth. From individual to individual, it passes genetic information and continues to mutate and adapt. Using this simple method of progress and survival, it has achieved significant statistics relating to size, biodiversity, longevity of species and longevity of an individual. And humans represent great advances in many of those categories. Despite our many evolutionary advances, we absolutely lead all life forms in our ability to acknowledge and voluntarily manipulate the existence of our surroundings in ever new and creative ways. For the first time ever, life can look back on itself and the universe from which it was created. For the first time ever, life can deeply ponder and then react voluntarily to stimulus. For the first time ever, life is conscious of itself.

Humans evolved in a dramatic series of random events, according to completely involuntary forces. Yet now that we are here, we are so mentally complex that we possess a rudimentary ability to manipulate our surroundings by choice. By calculation. By weighing the odds more thoroughly than any other species on earth and then acting on those odds.

Although the involuntary drive to survive and evolve still continues as potent as ever in humans and all life forms, a parallel but less developed ability to adapt and enhance has begun to emerge. One that relies on a new set of forces, with new rules. Consciousness is a gift to our species. It is a new will. A new life force. And as far as we know, we are its first experiment.

Despite our incredible success to date, we humans do not lead the world in all significant categories of life statistics. We are certainly not remarkable in size and our species has not existed for a substantial amount of time relative to other species. But we seem to be getting bigger on average; and our species is growing significantly in number, which is traditionally a good sign of species survival. So we’re doing ok in those categories. But the one category, other than consciousness, that we are heavily focused on is individual longevity.

As good as DNA is, it is subject to wear and tear; and if a single organism lives long enough, it will eventually cave and die (not without passing along its genetic information of course). Yet humans are different. With our gift of consciousness, we are vividly aware of our mortality. And we don’t like it. We don’t like the inconvenience of aging; and we don’t like the tragic end of life and then death. And thus we are vividly aware of it. We’ve created whole institutions devoted to prolonging life and pushing death farther and farther away from birth. We are advanced enough to know that there is great potential in this field of human thought to redefine the boundaries of life.

We are also advanced enough to know that quality of life can be greatly increased due to technological advancements. Indeed it is plausible to envision human lives so well-cared for that we are free to think and be conscious and do as we like for much longer than we commonly consider normal. 100 years. 200 years. Forever? Is immortality possible?

Perhaps it is. There is no doubt the human species has never-before-seen potential. We can observe things. We can go places. We can develop and build our own devices that work for us. Of course, no individual does this alone. This is the sum total of human development. And it is at this point that I make my case for science as the new political domain.

Human civilization, that is the way we have chosen to organize ourselves, is grossly immature. We preoccupy ourselves with counterproductive activities such as war and other malevolent intentions. By either action or inaction, we needlessly assault one-another, our fellow man, avoiding our duty to human rights; we don’t realize that this kind of behavior is not necessary. Not only does it preoccupy our minds, but it eliminates humans on a scale too great to bear. Every human that is born with some form of consciousness stands a chance of creating a solution to a problem and advancing our civilization. Therefore, every human should be regarded as precious. A future Einstein. A person who could make your life just a little easier. Just a little more enjoyable.

The competition for resources is OVER. We have enough for all to live comfortably. With our consciousness, the universe and its infinite resources are suddenly at our fingertips. Ours to discover and explore. As we learn to harness more energy we will feel more and more comfortable knowing that other humans do not threaten our own existence. And we should feel a sense of species pride and motivation to progress, just as our ancestors in the primordial soup progressed. In this new paradigm of thought, we look to every new human for the answers to old questions and the creations of new ones. Therefore, every new human born is protected and nurtured; educated; and permitted to grow freely, physically and in particular mentally.

This is the kind of civilization we need to push for. Competition in science must replace competition for resources. If politics govern competition among human populations these days, WE MUST MAKE SCIENCE THE STRONGEST POLITICAL TERM. In fact, using the wisdom and foresight of scientists, we must mature and stabilize our governments into one overarching, governing body that ensures the peace and prosperity of every human being on earth. In case it’s not clear. I am essentially advocating for the establishment and upholding of generous, basic human rights for all. This frees all humans to contribute positively to the world society. We can do this. This is possible now.

But we can’t stop with just humans. As a young species, we haven't quite grasped our impact on earth. We have clearly altered the involuntary course of life on earth in a mostly detrimental way. This is to the point that we are losing unique life forms regularly. All of these life forms are the result of millennia of creative adaptation to the environment. This is the same creative adaptation that led to us. The more we learn about life, the more we realize it is actually very logical. We can understand it! We can unlock its secrets; and better yet, we can use those adaptations to our personal advantage.

Remember, the involuntary forces of life have been working long since before we emerged on earth. By random events, it has already discovered much for us to observe and learn from. Yet we permit ourselves to pollute, damage and destroy many parts of it out of ignorance and apathy. Just like every human life is an opportunity to help ourselves; every life, in general, is a chance to learn a little bit more. Every species that goes extinct is a lost opportunity to advance our knowledge and technology. Other species cannot continue to thrive in a polluted environment. We must learn to cultivate the involuntary forces of life, by promoting environmentalism and biodiversity. We will always have a lot to learn from the forces that created us.

Even more troubling than other species' extinction is the current data showing that our own existence is already highly threatened by the environmental destruction that we create. What we take from the earth is completely out of proportion to what we do to preserve it. And we are killing our chances of advancing towards this new paradigm of a sustainable, advanced civilization. We must understand that we are specially designed to live in a relatively specific environment. We, as a species, grew up in a clean, non-polluted earth. We function best, in a clean, non-polluted earth. We are happiest and most productive in a clean, non-polluted earth. And our survival now depends on preserving the earth and minimizing our ecological impact. We can do this. This is possible now.

Without getting too specific into the complex inner workings of the modern human civilization, it is enough to say that existing social structures already function to govern people and affect serious, widespread change. In fact, we have developed great theories on how best to manage ourselves; these political theories have achieved some measure of success along the way. But we don't have what we need yet. The bulk of these structures are far too focused on petty human interactions which demote our status as a dominant species on earth. We need to shift this focus towards sustaining ourselves peacefully.

And it seems like one field of human intellect holds the greatest potential: SCIENCE. By science I mean that discipline which strives towards objective discovery and observation of everything around us. Science is a way of thinking that is only interested in hypothesis testing. It proves or disproves a statement and then builds off of that. Science is not interested in truth. It does not declare real knowledge unless rigorously tested. It uses hard, repeatable evidence to draw reliable conclusions. And even then, these refined conclusions are humbly called theories, as science will never carelessly admit that something is definitely so. Science is also, to a certain extent, ethically self-governing. Although more ethical discussions are needed, committees at least exist which strive to tackle the difficult philosophical questions that inevitable accompany technological advancement. Therefore, science is generally benevolent and more interested in helping than hurting. Science is not one person or entity, but an aggregation of human thought extending all the way back to the beginning of our existence. Throughout the millennia, we have used our scientific minds to create marvelous inventions that make our species so unique here on earth.

In the current human civilization, science takes a backseat to petty human drama. Concerned primarily with its own advancements, and woefully underrepresented in the political arena, the scientific body is not a major political player in the world. Not surprisingly, the alarming calls of earth scientists regarding the acceleration of the destruction of the earth and the threat to human existence have not come close to mobilizing the human species on the grand scale so desperately needed. THEREFORE, IT IS TIME FOR SCIENCE TO BECOME THE DOMINANT POLITICAL TERM. Now, we must make that shift. We must refocus. We must strive for a new paradigm in human civilization. The earth demands it or it will terminate us. Through science, the earth has handed us an obvious ultimatum: “clean up your mess or you’re fired.”

Thus, the future of our species depends on SCIENCE AS A POLITICAL TERM.

Why Wave?

I'm a nice guy. And by that I mean I like being generous. I like holding the door open for a stranger. Or telling her a joke. Or striking up a conversation on the metro (I ride the metro just to be with people).

I'm trying to figure out why I like that. I mean if I don't hold the door open, he'll still get through the door. She doesn't need that conversation on the metro to make it home. And I could just sit there and listen to my music. But then I realized something.

It actually came from a brief flashback to the end of the movie "Forrest Gump" where Tom Hank's little son Haley Joel Osment catches the school bus for the first time. The bus driver tells him to get on the bus; but he hesitates for a moment and tells her he's not supposed to talk to strangers. He thinks for a moment and then introduces himself. She does the same and he triumphantly declares they are no longer strangers! He enters the bus as she starts laughing.

Strangers. Strangers. Nobody likes a stranger. It's scary. It's natural to be skeptical of strangers. The unknown. We can't trust someone we don't know. And as a result, we can't be comfortable around somebody we don't know. And the metro, for example, is filled with that tension every morning.

BUT, it only takes a moment, a quick joke, a nice gesture, some common ground to go from complete strangers to friendly aquaintances. And what's more comfortable? Stranger or aquaintance?

The answer, of course, is the latter. And I think that's why I wave to people in my neighborhood. That's why I smile at a woman with her baby. It's for my own comfort. It's to make the positive connection rather than allow the lack of connection to continue, fester and even scare us.

We are a society of strangers. Some of us are changing that, a little bit, everyday. Feel free to connect with me....

A Letter to Republicans

This is a letter to Republicans specifically, but in general to all those who, like me, don't know how to assign their personal values to a political party. I've had numerous conversations with people I didn't even know were Republicans because it's so evident Americans have such overlapping values. It's primarily in the political arena that we even disagree at all; because on the individual level we can usually come to a compromise.

I've been thinking a lot these days about small government and libertarianism; and in a surprisingly libertarian way, I think about how my individual liberties are, at times, inhibited in this current American society. Thanks to my open mind towards traditional conservatives, I realize that small government really is a critical component in any succesful ruling entity. We've got to give people the freedom to do what they will. We are humans, social beings, civil beings, capable of living together peacefully. We've seen this before and we know this. We've got to trust our fellow man and in doing so we will all live more comfortable lives.

The first step is bridging the gap between those who consider themselves Republicans and those who consider themselves Democrats. What I imagine as a viable political system is very much libertarian and small government oriented, with just a few programs to help us all out. My ideas are based on the fact that if we educate EVERYBODY through college and beyond; if we simply make the social sacrifice that says anybody living in this country will be exposed to the uniquely advanced human intellect found in a robust, well-maintained education system; then we will be able to trust that everybody has the necessary tools to make sound decisions that are good not only for themselves but for the community that we share as well. And we will all feel safer and comfortable living together in this environment.

Now imagine that you are starting to trust others in your community. Even strangers that you've never seen before. You don't fear that person because you know he or she has been educated just like you and is just as willing to get along and live peacefully and altruistically as you are. We would need less laws. Drugs don't need to be allowed anymore because people are making the right decisions not to get involved with drugs. And those who do take that road don't need to be put in jail. They can be helped and educated further so that they realize their lack of understanding. Abortions don't need to be outlawed. Now, in no way am I advocating abortions. But in this educated society, people are making better decisions and avoiding unwanted pregnancies altogether. There are also less abortions resulting from sexual abuse because our educated community not only knows better than to commit such atrocities but is also busy advancing our culture for the better. For this reason, they use drugs less as well. Perhaps we wouldn't even need speed limits while driving because everybody has been educated to know their own limits. In fact, we can imagine doing away with a lot of unnecessary rules because our educated population is making better decisions and nobody is really interested in going against the grain created by society's hidden laws. We have people who are living their lives, enjoying their lives with a great understand of civilization; rather than struggling individually and against one another.

Now you begin to see a much smaller government evolve as personal responsibility and good decision-making become the norm. However, I would argue that the other big social program needed is one that provides the best health care possible to EVERYBODY. The truth is, America has absolutely brilliant technologies, ideas and methods of ensuring that individuals are healthy and productive. However, it is limited to only a few that have financial access to it. Can you imagine how productive America would be if all its inhabitants were healthy? With our new, educated population that is excited to work and contribute to society, we've got to make sure that they are physically able to do it. And we can do this most efficiently and cost-effectively by, once again, educating the individual about a healthy lifestyle that will prevent common diseases that are crippling our society and the healthcare world at the same time. Medical bills will go down, I promise that. And public healthcare will all of a sudden seem cheap and fiscally possible.

So this is the basic framework of the world I imagine. Give us all the tools to create the lives we want to live, and then sit back and watch everybody enjoy their lives. Like Republicans, I wouldn't want to go too far down the road of socialism such that we are helping people with every individual need. Of course, we have to leave a lot of the decision making to the individual. In fact, I advocate less governmental intrusion than the social laws that woefully infiltrate our individual rights today. I agree with Republicans on many fronts and I think that a little bit of socialism and a lot of freedom make a great combination.

Thank you for your attention.

I'm..... a Conservative?

I'm for small government, believe it or not...
...really small....really really small

I believe this society could exist without written law
Without the executive branch singularly law-enforcing some words on a paper.
What does any random cop or agent know about civil liberties and protecting people?
'Cept what he's told, and any basic, altruistic instincts he might have.
Don't make the founding fathers out to be conservative or anything, by grossly over-inflating the executive branch.
We just need a little education without all the distractions and law-enforcement won't really be necessary anymore.
Coming from a controling monarchy, the father's put trust in the individual.
They gave them freedom to carry a gun so they could protect themselves.
There were no laws back then, with such prohibition as we see today.
People were principled and free thinkers

I am a self-sustaining, fully self-governing individual
I have principles
I have a keen morality
A shrewd sense of courtesy
I want to understand you and influence you
But you need not fear or worry about my hurting you
I won't hurt you
And for as long as I have time to spare
I will try to help you
That's what makes me feel good
And that's what would make you feel good too if you worked on it
If you can glimpse what I have seen.

Imagine a world where a child's sum total of education was so comprehenseive that it drove kids to develop awareness of all subjects
People are thinking for themselves!
They are developing a concept of the state of humans that allows for extreme altruism as the individual survival instinct extinguishes under the worldwide pressure for equality.
The awareness level of the average human is developed earlier and faster such that comfortably wealthy people are not so easily distracted by the luxuries of materialism.
We are making real progress.
People are benevolent doers rather than idly ignorant.
Just as they feel the imbalance and immaturity of the current human state, they see the opportunity and potential for cooperation, communication and connectivity of individuals and cultures.
A motivated push towards this outcome would force any individual to become a critical thinker and a self-governor.
If given logic after being allowed to see the problems of world, he or she could begin to find solutions.

Imagine if we had a whole generation searching for real solutions
While voluntarily living, moderate, proportional, fulfilling lives;
Giving more than you take, because it feels good;
Enjoying human interactions;
Satisfying your intellectual interests,
And social urges to actually enjoy living moments;
People would be happy and productive....

So here's kicker
Here's the image I really want you to see:
We want to live in a lawless society with minimal governmental intrusion because government has already provided education, healthcare and security with the assumption that a population, growing up in a society that ensures their basic needs and the tools to advance themselves according to their interests, will learn to control the internal survival extinct and actually enjoy just getting along with everybody on a daily basis. Rather than creating an isolated, individualized society, people will learn to turn to honest communication and courtesy as the easiest ways to be social. This way, everybody is free to do what they want with personal privacy; while also being motivated to make something of their existence and contribute positively to our increasingly benevolent global village.

That's life - Us I mean

Humans are an example of life getting a little ahead of itself:

-Up until humans came along, life was in perfect balance. Species in general were surviving or dieing due to basic principles. Life was hard, but species were well equipped with serious survival mechanisms. That was the whole point, survival and reproduction. No one species was really threatening other species the way we do now. In other words, everything was held in check and no species had really figured out (or wanted to figure out) how to dominate. Maybe an individual dominated an area (a lion is king of his domain); but a lion was not affecting polar bears in the arctic.

Then along came humans and consciousness. I feel like life was heading towards this anyway. The brain in other species was already so complicated. Primates just beat everybody else to the punch. This pushed life over the edge into a new realm of continuous consciousness. Wondrously designed creatures we are of course. Mentally, we are stupendous. For example, we realized that if we cook meat, we won't get sick as often. Beautiful! That really does help us survive better. Just like most other marvelous human accomplishments. It's all for our survival.

More specifically, it's all about my survival and those like me. Yes, humans are actually different from one another. And because of the divisions in human society I am not only in competition with other species, but also with fellow humans. Wait, other species aren't really threatening me anymore (except bacteria and viruses if I am educated). In fact, my biggest threat now is my fellow human who wants the same things that I want. So I have to get as much as I can so I know I will be ok. Actually, I live in one of the more wealthy societies so I pretty much know I will be ok. Now I want to make sure I don't really have to do that much anymore and still be ok. More than ok. Much more than ok.

And that's where we are right now. Humans are caught in a strange and new position that no species has ever consciously considered: we have everything we need to survive now. There are enough resources to secure a tolerable lifestyle for all humans. Yet our individual survival mechanisms are still turned on so high. We want more and more because we believe that our lives are still at risk in some way. Really it's just our luxuriously oblivious lifeSTYLES that are at risk. Perhaps our survival instincts block the revelation that we don't need to struggle anymore. As we have ascended to species dominance, we haven't yet learned to shut down our survival mechanism appropriately. We continue to plow through the earth's nonrenewable sources (which is ok because we can figure out how to use the earth's renewable resources). But this is all at the expense of the earth itself, which is not ok. The cost of creating the amazing species that we are, could deal a significant blow to life itself.

-The amazing thing about life on earth is that the damage we cause will all be corrected eventually, and life will go on. It may be that the earth must expel humans (and much of life) in order to gain a fresh start (everything needs a makeover now and then). But humans are aware enough that this doesn't have to happen. So, we have to ask ourselves how can we come to realize we are all ok. How quickly will it take? And how much damage will we have caused when we do finally realize this?

-"Survival," as we have come to know it, is no longer a necessity.

Why Listen When I Can Read?

From what I've seen in America, coexisting happily in a society of people involves putting up a front. Everything is PR. Yes you can be yourself...but only to a certain extent. You have to give people a little (and sometimes a lot) of what they want, otherwise (gasp!) THEY WON'T LIKE YOU. And in many ways, that's what seems to drive you. No matter how honest you think you are, the desire to be liked binds you to superficiality....

But I want you to know it's not going to work on me. I can see you. I don't care what you're telling me, I'M reading YOU. And I'm seeing a different picture than you'd like me to see. I'm seeing you. You're in the closet and I'm fighting my way in there just to be with you. Even if nobody else is. Even if you don't think I care.

I'm taking the time to read you because I DO care. I'm seeing you for all of your beauty and for all your prejudices; for how quickly you write me and others off; for how you want to say that sarcastic joke, but you don't; for how you don't quite like your friends or "loved ones"; for how you hide your love to those you really care about; for the external ego that masks your emotional turmoil, that prevents you from being honest with yourself. I'm seeing you and I'm telling you there's no need for superficiality anymore.

I see you sometimes like to take it out on me...and that's ok. Because soon I will be beyond hate; beyond my own ego. And I will be an untouchable beacon of objectivity. And when we've both learned to control our egos, we can talk; and we can learn. Because I do care about you. I do want to talk to you so I can understand you. There's no reason to fight. No reason not to fix misunderstandings right away. That's the human spirit. That's the human potential. That's the ultimate evolution and purpose of consciousness. We all just need to see it.

Take care.

Dear Mr. Giuliani

This is a pretty good rip by a talking head I am becoming more and more impressed by. He shows emotion, eloquence, intelligence and sincerity. He's normally also humorous...but not today.




I don't think Giuliani knows what he is talking about and he is a fraction of what his previous reputation as New York mayor makes him out to be. He is no longer a viable candidate to lead this country. He's simply a sellout Bush poser looking to continue the dismantling of the government already started by the current administration. He will use lies and deceit, he will spare not a single life but his own to get what he wants (just ask his ex-family). And I encourage you to see through all this so you can understand what's really going on here.

Ego vs. Objectivity

In the course of human awareness on a given subject, it is often most beneficial to develop this awareness during interactions between open-minded and egoless poeple. In a simplistic model of these interactions, you will meet people who, objectively speaking, are more aware or less aware, or, perhaps, equally aware of different facets of the issue. This is usually dependent on experience, time, and the skill of understanding as many angles on the issue as are possible. Often, the person with a greater awareness (more experience, time, skill etc) is in a better position to argue more effectively for her position of higher awareness and in doing so helps expand the understanding of the less aware, yet open-minded individual. The more aware person is given more didactic authority (and perhaps responsibility) to illuminate the mind of the less aware individual. That is not to say that awareness is travelling unidirectionally. It is more to say that the less aware person is increasing his awareness at a greater rate because of his initial position. But both are certainly benefitting from the interaction.

However, I emphasize that this is in the idealistic situation where all parties are completely open to new ideas without any tendency to protect their ego if they, at any point, appear less aware of the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, such objectivity from two parties in a debate is often a luxury in any real life situation. In a debate where two minds attempt to reach maximum awareness, their respective ego's, as well as their respective understandings, go head to head. Ego plays an important part here because if unchecked, it has the power to transform objectivity into subjectivity. In other words, if in a civil debate, both parties allow their ego's to interfere such that both want to be right in that debate, each begins to think that he is actually right, regardless of his true awareness level. Who then is the more aware person? Who has the more complete understanding and the didactic authority to teach the other? Who ought to lay his defense to rest and focus on the other's greater awareness? The objective answers to these questions are blocked by the ego.

As their ego's continue to clash, each individual perceives that he is correct and the other is incorrect. Whether one is more objectively aware or not, they each think the other needs them and thus both foolishly press on with what they think is a more complete argument. At the same time, both become more offended by the other's persistence and seemingly arrogance. Frustration, anger and hurt get the best of them as the formerly civil debate degrades to a purely defensive/offensive sparring match. This may degrade further and further into verbal abuse and then perhaps physical abuse. Emotions control the fate of the interaction now and civility is completely lost.

At this boiling point, the only slution is to terminate the debate, separate and wait for the bruised ego's to heal. Objectivity and civil discourse can only return once this has happened.

It is important to note that any stage of this progression can be reversed. It simply requires a minimum of one party acknowledging the entrance of ego onto the scene (an act which is itself a proof of greater awareness) and a conscious attempt to remove it. If the other party is not receptive to this, the prudent person will terminate the interaction knowing it can no longer be productive and is likely destructive.

Blog This

Times are completely changing. It's purported that by 2020 information will be doubling every 72 hours. Exponential growth of intellectual wealth. How do we keep up with that? How do we adapt? As the generation that inherits this expansion of knowledge, perhaps the best thing we can do is to keep an open mind to what we come up with.








Enjoy these mo-fo's.

This Guy is Really Nasty

While he was critical of that government and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , he offered praise and words of solidarity to the Iranian people. Iran "is a place of unlimited potential ... and it has the right to be free of tyranny," Cheney said.

-CNN.com on Dick Cheney

Raise your hand if you've heard this type of rhetoric before. I'll give you a hint. Replace the "n" in Iran with a "q". I wonder if it will work again...

The Bill Maher Caucus

I feel pretty close to this guy right now and it's not just the smile. He's making me feel good about myself. If I decide not to vote for Kucinich for principles, Edwards could be my candidate for practicality. It seems like he's matured a little - Al Gore style. He's funny, patriotic, perhaps even principled himself. The last thing to do is check the money...which could be difficult because he's not as transparent as Hillary.

This is Amazing

Now is the time for Congress to stop playing politics and to join the President in finding common ground.
- A white house statement

Does anybody really know what politics means? Is it good or bad? Does it mean debate and consensus? Does it mean arguing and fighting for media attention? Does it mean not joining the president? Does it mean helping one another reach conclusions?
I think that politics, whatever its true meaning might be, play very little into the scheme here.

"JOIN the President in finding common ground" - Isn't it that once they've joined the president, there is no more common ground? Doesn't the idea of finding common ground disappear as soon as you join your opponents side? They're definitely playing some sort of game here. But I don't think it's politics.

You Don't Know Me

In high school, my friend joked about how one day he would be a famous writer. And all these critics would read his works and try to find the deeper meaning of every sentence, every statement, every word - just as we were beginning to do in school. And he would see all this and laugh at them, knowing he wrote it with no greater purpose other than to fool them into thinking they know what they are talking about.

DO we know what other people are talking about? Is our interpretation of anybody's primary text really that valid? What lies beyond a text is a complicated individual in a complicated situation. The more we are distanced from that person (by time, geography, generations, words, translations etc.) the less of a chance we have to comprehend what that person is going through; and the more arrogant and diluting we become to think we actually understand.

I go through everyday knowing what I say is not understood by others. I let people walk away from me with a distorted fraction of what is actually transcribing in my head. I know it! And with attention spans as shortened as they are these days, it is very difficult to either prevent this or reverse this once it has happened. In order to be understood on any meaningful level by even a single person, I need to spend countless hours of dedicated conversation discussing, clarifying, finding common ground and identifying our differences. There seems to be no other way. And I caution against the arrogance of those who think they know me or their classmates or their enemies or Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ.

The Worst Question still continually asked

"What's your favorite......"

This is a question I will never be able to answer if it continues to apply to the typical subjects: color, food, music, class in elementary school etc. First of all, I genuinely don't have a favorite anything yet. And second of all, even if I do like something a lot I couldn't just single it out as my favorite. There are so many foods I want to eat. So many songs I want to listen to. You can't just wittle my intersts down to one example each. To admit one thing is my favorite, would say much too little about me. I just can't represent myself in that way. And I won't. A much more creative approach is to ask, what are you eating tonight? Or, what is playing from your speakers right now? We can go from there.

I want to extrapolate a little bit more by suggesting that becoming so interested in a single historical figure (eg. Bob Dylan, Jesus) is dangerous in its limiting nature. Just as having a favorite food may prevent you from exploring other cuisine; having a favorite messiah may unilaterally influence you just a little bit too much. Besides, it seems sketchy to me to think you know that much about somebody else who is dead and has left behind little more (and sometimes less) than his or her words for you to interpret - see my post "What LIES beyond a Word." Of course, some part of me wants to get to know these people; but the pop-obsession, and often distortion, of prominent people and ideas still makes me wary of getting involved. In general, my ideal is to take a snapshot and then move on.org

Original Cheesy Profile for Posterity (spelling mistakes included)

9/17/07
My name is Matt Wideroff. I am a robust, productive 23 year old with great potential; yet I feel old, weary and frustrated. You've come upon me at one of the most imortant moments in my life. This is the moment where I shed the golden light that has beamed so brightly in me; this is the moment where I cease to be a beacon of dangerous optimism; where I trade my plastic smile for an introspective magnifying glass; as I descend into the reality of my existenc; where I discover what it feels like to be overwhelmed; and where I ultimately eliminate my detachment and ascend with new guiding principles... May cheesyness reign, only temporarily, in my life

I'm really happy these are no longer my sentiments. Flip-flopping is so fun and natural! Plus I'm avoiding cheesy.

"Blind C C" - see?

A girl emails a group of us about a barbeque birthday party. I look at the 'sender' and see her address. I look at the 'recipient' and don't see anybody elses email address 'cept mine. Yet the email is clearly addressed generally to a group. Luckily, I know enough about email programs these days and I am aware of the BCC function. Blind CC's mean I can send any email I want to anybody I want, about anybody I want and control who sees whom is in on the in-teraction. Clearly my friend used the BCC option to prevent me (and presumably everybody else) from seeing who else is invited to the party. What's the point of that? Isn't a party about seeing people and social interaction? Shouldn't I be able to see who is invited so I can get excited about seeing these people? Instead I'm left feeling turned off by the organizer of the party herself (who incidently stole the whole idea of a barbeque birthday party from me in the first place - which makes me think she has a control issue about the party anyway ;)

I guess my overall point is that the BCC is a tool to withold information. If used inappropriately, it breeds mistrust in the email system. If used blatantly incorrectly....it just confuses the hell out of me.

The ironic thing about my friends invitation is that at the end of the email she encourages us to invite anybody we can think of who is not on the list. She's talking about the list she didn't let us see...

(P.S. I apologize if really the email was some computer glitch and she didn't BCC us - haha. But the point still stands.)

The Gift of Caring

If you really care about the human population and all of its individuals, you have to prepare yourself for giant mood swings. I was flipping through a series of pictures of events going on around the world. Yes there is killing, destruction and utter human inefficiency, distrust and disappointment. But I also saw pictures of a married couple kissing on their 80th anniversary. I saw a picture of a man who invented the technology behind tiny computers such as the ipod. A human did that! He thought that up in his mind and spread it to everybody else. We now have satellites set up to monitor the universe for other signs of life. We want to make friends with aliens. I don't know why but as my friend said with sincere gusto, "I'm loving people right now. "

The gift of caring about others is that feeling that goes straight to your core when you've connected with someone. It puts a smile on your face. Let it! The truth is, we are a growing species. And amidst all the conflict and pain there is a special potential that has not been fully recognized or unlocked yet. Listen to the Allman Brothers Band's piece "Little Martha" and perhaps you will be inspired as well. Humans made that too!