Part I – TagineSquishes
Clacks
Grinding
Water
Sound in mouth. (Note: do others make the same sound? Can they hear me?)Wine
(perhaps this last item is too musical for list)
* C7Q38
The elder royal one on a frisky horse
will spur so fiercely that it will bolt.
Mouth, mouthfull, foot complaining in the embrace;
dragged, pulled, to die horribly.
Bad news for Colts fans, this.
When words won’t suffice:
Fuck. Fuck, fuck, fuck fuck fuck.
Fuck.
Arousal/attribution ad nauseam: Few things demonstrate attachment as much as someone showing up on your blog and spouting epithets: just because they care enough to do so.
The opposite of love is indifference. The opposite of hate is indifference. How can anyone not understand the relationship between love and hate when there are so many divorced couples running around? Are they not paying attention?
Israel: I disagree – Israel does have the right to exist; it just doesn’t have the right to exist in, uhm, Israel. What we should have done: purchased Baja California for our Jewish friends and let them set up shop there. It would’ve benefited both Mexico and “New Israel” economically (and probably socially), and certainly stabilized things in the Middle East.
Besides – wouldn’t you rather live in Baja? It’s not too late – they could start building settlements next week*!
Online relationships: There is no reason to believe they are not just as potent as flesh/blood relationships. Projection vs. perception: These days, I’m in the perception camp. While on the one hand you might think the unidimensional quality of online interaction means the degree of projection going on dramatically increases, it’s possible that much of what’s absent is noise and distraction.
Perception, though, is a tricky thing. I see people rubbing each other the wrong way in a dramatic way, and it’s pretty clearly related to feelings of kinship they wish they didn’t have. See above point on arousal/attribution.
Writing posts: I think writing posts is like catching a wave: timing and momentum are critical. You know how you can feel a post coalescing in the back of your head? You observe something and then it percolates on the backburner for awhile, until suddenly you can smell a fine stew being cooked up.
For me, lately, this has been happening while I’m driving – like, on extended road trips. I’m either going to have to start dictating, however, or cultivate a way of remembering the momentum, along with the ideas. By the time I get around to writing, I’m stuck with a bunch of half-baked concepts and a hollow bewilderment surrounding what, exactly, I had been thinking.
Which is why I haven’t posted anything on Wikifray in a month. And why I’ll be posting this. What’s one more off-topic, I figure?
Switters: I don’t get it. Not the humor, but the critics (and the critics of his defenders). That some find him unfunny: not surprising. The world has never lacked for concrete thinkers of the humor impaired variety. Think Switters unfunny? There’s plenty of room for differences in taste. Think Switters bigoted? That’s just insulting – also insulting to those of us who find him funny (guilt by appreciation?). One might find “The Protocols” funny, if one were of a particularly dark bent, and were able to find that level of paranoia and hate (and the people who promulgate it) funny. If one were to find it funny because of the arguments contained therein were funny, then that might mean something else.
Ghassan apparently doesn’t know how to distinguish the two.
What do you think Mel Brooks was laughing at? Or Vonnegut? They clearly thought something was funny. Are they anti-Semitic?
Online relationships part deux: We seem to be less forgiving of the foibles of people online than IRL. I think it’s easier to treat people badly when you never have to look them in the face. Also, we take a leap of faith when we interpret someone’s behavior. Silly to think some of those leaps aren’t misguided, but where’s the corrective mechanism? In person, I can see whether someone’s apology is accompanied by a frown, or a smirk.
Personal: Got my daughter for today and tomorrow. I took her out for brunch, and was subjected to her characteristic rapid-fire barrage of observations, stories and jokes. [Sample here.] It's always like that - I never tire of it. I marvel we’re genetically related at all. She just came in to share a funny line from her latest teen read; “What is it with you and Jesus: does he, like, turn you on?”
A couple of teens were caught making out in a church basement. “No kissing ‘till you’re eighteen” I say. “No way!” she shouts, so I respond “Fine! Twenty then!” and tickle her. It’s an old joke.
Spanking and abuse: Children, even infants, are incredibly perceptive. The difficulty with enforcing child abuse statutes is that it’s impossible to define abuse in an objective way. When my daughter was five months old, she was subjected to both an upper and lower GI. When my son was a toddler, I tripped while carrying him and he ended up with a mild concussion. The implications for these injuries are far different than if I’d smacked my son on the head with a frying pan, or had forced something up my infant daughter’s anus for purposes of some obscene gratification.
Anti-spanking legislation is just another example of priorities being set out of convenience. Child abuse statutes typically include physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and emotional maltreatment. You know how hard it is to substantiate a case of emotional maltreatment? In Utah, the only times I saw it happen were when a parent threatened suicide in front of their kid, and one particularly egregious case in which a preschool-aged girl actually began to identify herself using terms like “spoiled little cunt.” The damaging aspect of abuse – all abuse – is in the ephemeral “emotional maltreatment” dimension.
Short answer: parents modulate environmental input in such a way that children are not overwhelmed, and it is this role in which children internalize what they’re receiving as part of identity formation. Think about that for awhile, and then think about the implications of sexual abuse, or neglect (which is far more problematic, identity development-wise, than physical abuse). We learned to take care of ourselves like our parents were taking care of us. Psychopathology is a gift of love given to children by their parents. [Lorna Benjamin, again. That was a great class.]
Spanking, in itself, is not (in my opinion) problematic. From an ethical standpoint, I understand the argument; why should it be acceptable to treat a defenseless child in a manner that would result in criminal charges, if the victim were an adult?
The answer is: Why is it legally acceptable for that surgeon to slice open my abdomen, when the same behavior would land someone else in jail?
Context makes all the difference. I once had to soak a very antisocial guinea-pig’s paw in a mixture of Epsom-water and hydrogen peroxide every day for about a month [long story]. By the time the month was over, we’d bonded. Even that guinea pig got the difference. My kids didn’t like it when I took their Bandaids off, either. That they knew I was doing it as part of caretaking made all the difference.
But some people have an awfully peculiar and problematic take on what constitutes appropriate caretaking. And there’s the rub, isn’t it**?
*If a free-and-clear title to Baja were not an acceptable solution, I would wonder to what degree the concept of Israel’s right to exist had been pure varnish, to gloss over their desire to regain holy ground. This is a different position – one I believe is far less defensible.
**Could be a metaphor for editorial discretion on the Fray.
I've just watched a good deal of Alexandra Pelosi's "Road Trip" through the Bible Belt. And mostly, it made me want to move to Europe. Not because the people featured are stupid, for they are not. Rather, they are ill-educated and deluded and pretty much thoroughly unwilling to recognize science or contrary opinion. Europe seems better only because it has already burned through its centuries of stupidity and intolerance. Stupidity, maybe. But their supply of intolerance is intact - simply look anywhere there exists a minority in Europe, and you will find animosity toward that group. The continent only seems less racially divided because up until recently everyone there was white.
In twenty years "anti-semite" will be about as startling an epithet as "liberal." Individual Jews have a right to exist. Jews have a right to exist as a people in the sense of freely practicing the customs that give them special identity. A state however has no "right to exist," because morality is irrelevant to states. … What these right-wingers are implying is that 'Israel has no right to exist' is equivalent to 'Jews have no right to exist.' Maybe in some of their minds this honestly makes sense. To anybody but a nationalist, however, Israel is not the sine qua non of Judaism, but rather a political project like any other. And whatever the jingos might say, nationalism is not the moral default. I know or know of at least five other Jews who feel the way you do. It takes courage to stand up against such a torrent on principle, and you have my love and respect.
Historywife gave me Chloe, her left kidney, last Tuesday. She kept its sister Zoe. We got out of the hospital this weekend. Different surgeries have different results: Now she can move around but can't eat and I can eat but can't move. In the next few days as fatigue and pain decrease I'll try to post more fully on the experience and on our ongoing second honeymoon (close to our 20th anniversary). Like the first, spent mostly in bed. Unlike the first in most other ways.
RE: Forget .36 This made me sad. How can anyone forget .36, which is one and a step away from my favourite number named for my favourite mathematician (taking the limit of the idiot's method above, although admittedly his relationship between number of variables and accuracy is only a happy accident).
Mentoring. Agony. Salon. Geoff and Schad are idiots.
Fun stuff to do: I’m volunteering with the Vancouver School Board as a mentor for a gifted 12-year old who wants to be a writer. Our first meeting is tomorrow. Any suggestions?
I’m not ready to give up on the Agony Lab just yet, but I’m wondering what it needs to generate more interest. My goal was to post brief creative-muscle-toning exercises that could be completed in less than an hour. Maybe dialogue was a bad choice at this point (too hard)? Or is it too simple? Too much information? Too much direction? Or is it just that no one wants to look at the fish? Any input would be welcome.
This is the guy who writes Salon’s advice column:How it came about was I endured some failure as a writer trying to make money as a writer, and had to work at other things for five years. During that time I wrote but not for money. I wrote on the subway, alone, in a notebook, sitting by myself in the crowd. I wrote to save myself.
Have a look at Salon’s other articles. Notice the tab at the bottom for “blog responses to this article” or whatever. Wow. Perhaps we ought to expand our range.
It turned out that writing to save myself was the best way to write. Here is why, I think: Our writing is the voice of a person who is innocent, powerless and in need of protection; our writing is the voice of a person who needs to be heard as he or she really is. It is deep stuff is what I mean. And shocking as it is to say, the person who is writing this -- the person I am today -- is the kind of person toward whom I once would have leveled pitiless scorn.
—Cary Tennis
Thoughts on the Schad/Geoff thing: It looks like a contest to see whose dick is bigger, doesn’t it? It’s just dumb to back people into corners. It really limits their options. Geoff’s interpretation of fray-law seems a lot narrower than Kevin’s, but I think he’s trying harder than Kevin did to “be good”, and I think that’s a problem.
Note to Schad: I could never be married to you. You don’t know how to apologize.
Note to Geoff: If you win you lose, if you lose you lose.
Note to both: Find a way.
Let me back up.
You may or may not be aware of the fact that I may or may not enjoy writing occasionally about those current events that the kids are always so crazy about. Those nutty kids!
So every once in a while (by my best calculations it occurs about every 9 to 11 months ever since 2003), in the 12 to 16 hour news cycle, things on NPR (really the only reliable news source today, sorry) get a little dicey when events in the news of our world start to, how shall I put it (this is crucial how I frame this clause because I just split that infinitive back there)[?], overlap. It started on the drive home last night during All Things Considered and picked back up this A.M. on Early Edition.
I.e., I don't know where to start or how to begin.
Anyways, hold on tight, and keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times.
=
Sending The Wrong Message
The Right: If we don't send another 21,000 troops to Iraq, we are essentially telling the troops already there that we've given up, that we don't care. And we're saying the same thing to the insurgents, who, by the way, will be emboldened by our message sending and will crank it up a notch in that thing that's happening over there that's definitely not a civil war.
The Left: If we send another 21,000 troops to Iraq, we are essentially telling the troops already there that they're incompetent losers, that they've failed us and them, that we're losing what is definitely turning into a civil war. Sending more troops will embolden the insurgency because they'll take it to mean that they're winning.
The Middle: Sending another 21,000 troops to Iraq right now is a mixed message. So we probably shouldn't. Or we should. Is there any more Chex Mix™?
=
The Prospect of Stability in Iraq: The Long and Difficult Road Ahead (I don't think that subtitle is right, I was running late this morning and had the window open to smoke on the way to the gym)
By The National Intelligence Estimaters
A Book Review
Starts out slow, picks up in the middle, then just kind of falls apart in the end. Too many characters to keep track of whose names look misspelled and are hard to pronounce in my head. The ending was stupid. Doesn't seem based on reality, thus too unrealistic to be believable as fiction. This is America; we don't lose. Ever. Even when we do.
Grade: C-
=
•U.S.A. to Israel: Don't Kill Lebanese With Those, Kill Them With These
•[KaBLAM!!!]
•CLUSTER BOMB CONUNDRUM PUTS OLMERT IN HOT SEAT, IDF APOLOGIZES TO SYRIA WITH CRUISE MISSILES
Now that the Palestinians have reverted back to their normal state of existence, i.e., killing each other instead of Jews, this might be a good time to break out our copies of Israel For Dummies 101. If you'd all turn to Chapter 3, "Zion: The One Not Crazy Country In The Region So Let's Just Deal With Them And Let Them Do Whatever They Want To Whomever They Want Because Chances Are Pretty Fucking Good It's Probably In Our Best Interest Anyway". Good. Now let's skip ahead to Chapter 11, "Negotiating With Terrorists Israeli Style", which basically is the scene in The Fifth Element where m'boy Bruce takes out the head Catfish Face Dude with 1 shot. Excellent. Any questions?
=
49,000 Is The New 21,000
Taking a Closer Look at the Fine Print: Uhh… did we not mention that the 21,000 troop escala—er, surge, presupposes another 28,000 troops functioning as a strategic support backup for the aforementioned 21,000 troops? We didn't? Are you sure? I was almost certain we spelled that out. Oh, Okay. Well, yeah, we're gonna need another 28,000 troops in addition to the additional 21,000. Deal with it. At least we have a plan, dumbasses.
=
Laura Bush On The Today Show
Matt Lauer to Meredith Vieira: Would you please give the First Lady my very best and tell her I said hello?
Meredith: I sure will, Matt!
Matt: Thanks so much! Really!
=
•Cold Pricklies Turn To Warm Fuzzies At Hearings
•SENATE SETS NEW CONFIRMATION PER HOUR RECORD, MEMBERS TESTED FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT DRUGS AND SOULS
(•None Found)
That One Congresswoman Person: Have you read the new National Intelligence Estimate with regard to the prospect of stability in Iraq?
Yet Another New General/Secdef/Bureaucrat/Whatever being confirmed basically without incident: Uh… Hmm… No.
TOCP: You haven't? You haven't? Geez!
YANGSBW: No, m'am. I can barely read.
[later]
That Other One Congresswoman Person: Do you promise to keep us informed? Unlike your predecessors? Do you? Cross your heart?
YANGSBW: Yes, I do promise. Unlike my predecessors. Cross my heart. [fingers crossed behind back]
TOOCP: You do? You really promise?
YANGSBW: Yes, I really do. I promise.
[cheering, crying, lots o' hugging, and some "Hip hip hoorays!" and exactly 5 choruses of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow"]
=
•U.N. Study Claims Climate Change Caused By Humans
•WHITE HOUSE CONCEDES GOLBAL WARMING RESPONSIBLE FOR DEAD CANNIBALISTIC POLAR BEARS DYING, NOT ALIEN SPACE VIRUS OR THE CANCELLATION OF THE OC AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
Tony Snow at Whitehouse Press Briefing: Whoops! Our bad!
=
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have to get back to my Idol post for Idolatry, the new board dedicated solely to my obsession with that wonderful show with all the singing and hijinx and retards with huge glasses and what not. (Funny!)
Or, how to get cheese in a can:
I wrote an aborted reply* to this article on Slate earlier today. Unlike as is usual there, the headline "survival of the yummiest," is a better thesis than Dan Engber’s articulate but rambling commentary on Michael Pollan’s strikingly dumb article in NYT magazine. They both share the qualitative point that we’re evolved (or designed) to eat plants and run around a lot. Pollan’s happy with the truism and condemns two decades of nutritional science. Engber’s OK with people doing research to find out the details of why that is. (Good for you, Dan.)
I think both of these people miss how food science has been developed, namely to maximize profit. Nutritional science can explain food interactions and relationships with human health, but the body’s a complicated system, and these explanations have been hijacked or hidden by the food producer's R&D as is convenient. There’s not the same sort of money for that thing, especially since you can make money by lying. If eating real food is as old humanity, hawking false curatives is at least as old as civilization.
I’m not doing research here (though I’m drawing a little on some ancient classwork), but I see food science as having been enormously successful in a number of ways:
-Satisfaction Optimization
Imagine the chemical engineering that goes into a McDonald’s french fry. You have the fry scent piped into that thing; you have your extra-crispifying coating; you have that oily burst calibrated just so; the optimum salt, the optimum sugar. You even have perfectly ergonomic paper fry caddies.
You can take the Pollan route and say that, sure, fat and sugar sells, dude, but don’t doubt that those components have been reduced, dissected, and reassembled in Ronald’s dark laboratory for optimum addictive potential, flavor, and a short arc of satisfaction that will get more fries in your hands as quickly as possible.
-Quality Control
Don’t underestimate how difficult it is to get the same product on your plate every single time. If you’re thirsty enough to pop a can of Bud, think how amazing it is that these twelve ounces of fizzy yellow stuff are completely indistinguishable from the last 96 or so. Brewing is a bitch--there are a million minor side reactions that will create off (or just different) flavors or colors, and all must be carefully controlled to get the exact same calculated frisson in every can.
This is especially true with paler beer. I think one reason American pilsener took off as a preferred beer style, at least in those early post-Prohibition days when beer was surfacing as the country’s choice hooch, is because it was challenging to brew, and it represented the apogee of the craft. (Later, it surely succeeded due to marketing and the fact that rice is cheaper than barley.) I’ve read long papers on industrial brewing science. It’s an enormous field. (Well, it was once. Pretty mature by now, I imagine)
-Shelf Life
My local NPR affiliate did a segment last month on Asian grocery chains and why they’re so immensely cheaper than the Safeway. Short answer: it’s because they sell ripe product. Asian people tend to buy and cook on the same day, so they can get away with that. For the more typical American habits, those peaches would go bad by the time they were dug out of the fridge.
Preservation of food is a modern science. We’ve got six decades of it under our belts by now to show you how keeping the food fresh-looking is way more important than keeping it healthy. Producers will make the most money if the stuff can sit more or less indefinitely on the supermarket shelves, just looking pretty, until it’s finally sold. That’s why we have nitrites, BHT, and those fucking cardboard tomatoes from the other side of the goddamn world. It doesn't have to be edible. It just has to look edible.
So did our tastes evolve? Yeah, but it wasn't nutritional Darwinism, it was marketing Darwinism. Perpetuation not of the fittest, but of the tastiest, hte most consistent, the longest-lived. Food science is driven by the free market. You expect health science to keep up with that? Especially since in order to sell something as intangible as health, you only need ever need to fake it.
*because really, what’s the point? (Also, I was busy)
Transparent self-promotion, pedantic criticisms, and shallow football thoughts...
I didn't say it was an interesting post.
