Last night I put one of my dress shoes in the freezer. I was going to have a little fun with that...do a post and see if anyone could guess WHY my shoe was in the freezer. Then I said to myself, "I'll bet if you go to Google, type in the words 'shoe' and 'freezer,' the answer will pop right up." And so it did.
I've compiled a very long list of things I want to accomplish during my six-month trial period in Austin. One of them is to improve my diet. I generally keep only healthy things in the house, but I'll buy unhealthy stuff when I'm out and about. Also, getting enough vegetables tends to be a problem for me.
Tonight, therefore, I did a Google search for relatively painless ways of increasing one's vegetable intake. I came across the following suggestion, under the heading of "Easy Ways to Get Your Veggies":
"Make vegetables and fruits the focus of every meal. For example, create
a plate around broccoli and cauliflower rather than using them as a
side dish to meat."
Eureka!
The way to make repellant vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower more appealing is to feature them as the center of the meal! It just plain makes sense. You show me a plate dominated by a big, steaming mound of cauliflower, and my only concern is whether there's going to be enough for seconds.
So, problem solved.
In "Dumb and Dumber," Jim Carrey asks his waitress, "What's the soup du jour?" The waitress says, "It's the soup of the day." Jim Carrey says, "Mmmm, that sounds good. I'll have that." (There's a reason "Dumb and Dumber" is referred to as "Jim Carrey's 'Hamlet'" by people in the know.)
Well, yesterday I was at a car repair place. Guy comes in to pick up his car, and the girl behind the counter is giving him the rundown on what was right, what was wrong, what needed to be fixed, how much it cost, etc.
The girl says to the guy, "Okay, your tires were at 60 percent." He says, "What does that mean?" She says, "Sixty percent of a hundred." He says, "Oh, okay."
Regular readers know this is something I've been struggling with for a long time. I've gone from lapsed Catholic, to strict Catholic, to generic Christian, to theist, to deist, to agnostic-leaning-strongly-toward-atheist.
This transformation has been driven by, and has also driven, a tremendous amount of thought, prayer, reading, writing, and conversation. More than a few people have said, "Why do you put so much effort into this? It's not as if you're ever going to get solid answers. Plus, you don't have to take it all so seriously..."
My response to that is three-fold. First, the question of God's existence is--potentially, anyway, depending on the nature of God, if there is one--the single most important question we can ask and answer in life. Second, I enjoy the intellectual exercise of working my way through these issues. Third, despite what people say, I do believe that I am getting closer to solid answers...not necessarily solid answers for everyone, but for me.
In short, I see a clear return on investment here.
So, where am I now? I start with the fundamental question: how did all of this stuff get here: you know, life, the universe, me, soap-on-a-rope, etc. I look at the answers that science gives, and they don't work for me. In part, that's because they're terribly incomplete. Scientists simply don't know, for example, how life began on this planet. They have some well developed ideas, but at this point, that's what they are: ideas, not answers.
Beyond their incompleteness, many of the ideas lack an intuitive plausibility and simplicity that I need in order to say, "Okay, that makes sense to me." For example, the idea of the universe having its origins in an infinitely dense singularity doesn't help me much. First of all, I can't imagine or understand the concept of "infinitely dense." Second, even if I could imagine and understand "infinitely dense," I would want to know how the singularity got there, how long it had been there, what "there" even means when you don't have the concepts of time and space to work with, and why the singularity violently heaved all of its matter outward 14 billion years ago. I want answers that I can wrap my brain around. They are not forthcoming.
Now, some (many?) would say, "That's just because you're not smart enough to understand the science." Could be. But that doesn't change my situation: science doesn't provide satisfying, intuitively plausible answers to my questions.
You can proceed two ways from this point. On the one hand you can say, "Give science some time. Eventually it will provide the answers you're looking for." On the other hand you can say, "If the answers that attribute all of this--life, the universe, you, your self-awareness--to random chance aren't satisfying to you, then maybe answers that attribute it to some sort of higher intelligence will be satisfying."
Because I'm worried about dying before "eventually" rolls around, I'm going to go with the "other hand" here. (I can always jump back to scientific explanations if good ones turn up before I die.) That gives me two more options: 1) intelligent design; or 2) some sort of organized system of philosophy or religion that assumes (or believes it can prove) the existence of a higher intelligence.
I can't embrace intelligent design for two reasons. First, I don't understand the science well enough to make legitimate judgments about its intellectual merit. Second, many people who do understand the science--even Christians who understand the science--are highly critical of ID as science. So, intelligent design, like the purely materialistic/scientific explanations, doesn't help me much.
That leaves me with non-scientific systems of thought, whether philosophical or theological. They provide answers that do make intuitive sense to me. Again, this may be true simply because my brain isn't large enough for the scientific explanations to make the kind of sense I'm looking for. But I'm stuck with the brain I've got, and the philosophical and religious answers to my big questions are the ones with the most intuitive plausibility. To me. For now.
Okay, so what to do about that? Pick a religious philosophy or an organized religion and follow it. Why? Because it's easier than starting your own. That's the same reason I'm taking Krav Maga classes rather than trying to invent my own method of self-defense. Krav Maga may not be the best system out there, but it's a system into which a lot of people have poured a lot of time, thought, and energy over the years. It will definitely get me where I want to go...maybe not as quickly or efficiently as other methods, but it will get me there.
Religion should work the same way. Why not reap the rewards of someone else's investment? Why not stand on the shoulders of giants (or at least people who shop in the big-'n-tall section)? Why not follow a path that has gotten other people to the place that I want to get?
Okay, so which religion or philosophical stance am I going to choose? I don't know. I do know, however, that it will have to have certain characteristics:
So, there you have it. If you'd like to nominate your religion, the comment box is open for business.
I'm no authority on racial issues. I just know what I try to do in my own life, and what I wish other people would do in their lives.
In my life, I try not to make such a big deal out of race. It's not that I don't see people's race (I'm not colorblind), or that I'm unaware of racial differences and racial tensions. It's just that I try not to let all of that influence me too much.
That's why, for example, when I'm quoting someone who used the word "nigger," I write out the whole word. I don't call it "the n-word."
With my friends who are Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish--I would say black, but I don't have any black friends, only black acquaintances, and not many of those--I make jokes that play on racial and ethnic stereotypes. Not all the time, so that it's uncomfortable, but at times when I know they would think it was funny. And I laugh at their jokes about Catholics, whites, and Americans, too. (I know we're getting beyond race here into matters of religion, ethnicity, and nationality, but you get the idea.)
Also, when I'm writing or talking about public policy or plain old social life, I think it's okay to say things that some people think you're not supposed to say. For example, if you look at Census reports, you know that some Hispanics consider themselves white and some don't. So I asked one of my Hispanic friends whether he considered himself white. I told another friend who was entering the world of online dating that he ought to consider looking first at the predominantly black/African-American dating sites. He asked why. I said that among a largely white subscriber base, which is what he would find on match.com, he wouldn't stand out as much in terms of profession, education, and income as he would among a predominantly black subscriber base. (Of course, there's an assumption here that the subscriber bases on these cites mirror the characteristics of the broader population. That may not be true. There's also an assumption that women care a lot about a guy's profession, education, and income. On second thought, that's probably not true...and guys don't care a lot about women's looks, either.)
So, that's how I approach these things. My reasoning is that we're all grown-ups, and we can deal with matters of race as grown-ups. That means we can talk about them openly, honestly, and with a sense of humor. It doesn't mean that we don't have to be sensitive; clearly, we do. But we shouldn't be SO sensitive that we have to rope off entire areas of contemporary life as too difficult to discuss.
What prompted this post? I was reading this Peggy Noonan article about Hillary Clinton. Noonan expresses shock and outrage that Hillary would have said that she can win white votes that Dems will need to carry the fall election, and that Obama may not be able to. Shocking? Outrageous? I don't think so. I'd like Hillary to be able to back up her claim with data, but she may very well be right. It's the same thing with Bill Clinton saying that Jesse Jackson had won a couple of states on the strength of the black vote, but that that didn't mean he could win the presidency. It's true. That's not "playing the race card," as critics said. It's just a statement of fact. (It was also a bogus analogy to what was going on at the time with the Obama campaign, and you should feel free to bust Clinton's chops for that.)
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are plenty of truly embarrassing, disturbing, shocking comments that people make about race and ethnicity every day. Don Imus' "nappy-headed ho's" remark comes to mind, for example. Or take Bill O'Reilly's comment about his experience at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem:
"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference
between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean,
it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black
patronship."
O'Reilly is speaking frankly and honestly here, as I'm suggesting we all should, but in doing so he's betraying some clear prejudices (literally, pre- judgments). His remarks and the stereotypes behind them ought to be (or ought to have been; they're old news now) addressed in a civil, responsible, honest manner. But there's no doubt that they should have been addressed, and that O'Reilly should have felt chastened. (The day that O'Reilly feels chastened about anything, by the way, is the day that purple unicorns squirt Mrs. Butterworth's reduced-calorie syrup from their horns.)
As I said, there are plenty of instances of genuinely ignorant and irresponsible racial discussion, comments, and commentary in America today. Let's focus our anger and outrage on those. Let's not beat people up, accuse them of racism or "racial insensitivity," or talk about "playing the race card" when someone has done nothing more than speak openly, honestly, and accurately about a matter that in some way touches on the subject of race.
A while back I decided that I wanted to take Krav Maga training. It's a martial art first used by the Israeli Defense Forces, and then disseminated to lesser mortals. It doesn't involve any of the spirituality of the Asian martial arts. There's none of the stuff about "knowing this discipline means you'll never have to use it." There's no weird uniform, no Drunken Chicken poses, and no breaking of boards. Nobody wears a colored belt. You don't have to train for three years before you're allowed to make eye contact with your sensei. (There are no senseis, either.) In other words, there's no nonsense. It's just a very aggressive martial art designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time possible.
So, today was my first Krav Maga training session. I was the oldest guy in a class of about 15. No problem there. In fact, I don't have a problem being older, weaker, dumber, more cowardly, less flexible, or any of those things. Here's what I have a problem with: being slower.
God, I hate that.
I had the same experience when I was boxing. It takes a ridiculous amount of time for a command to get from my brain to my fist, or my elbow, or my knee. My training partner was a kid in his mid-20s. He hit much, much, MUCH harder than I did. No problem. I'm older and weaker. But he hit so much faster, too. In fact, everything he--and everyone else--did was so much faster. For them it was just pop pop pop snap pop snap pop pop bam snap, all in rapid succession. For me it was pop......pop...... pop......
It's not that I didn't know what I was supposed to do. I did. I knew exactly what I was supposed to do. I just couldn't do it as fast as I wanted to...or as fast as I used to be able to.
After the class, the instructor asked me what I thought. Among other things, I mentioned my frustration at being so slow. He said, "You're learning. Give it time." I said, "You know, you seem like a nice kid. But you're what--10 years old, maybe 11? The only thing that's going to happen with time is that I'll get even SLOWER. So, if you can't turn me into a killing machine in the next three weeks, the window will probably be closed forever."
A sad, painful truth.
Where I'm currently living in Austin, nothing I need is particularly close. So, if I need groceries, or a dry cleaner, or a box of junior mints, I have to drive a bit. It's beginning to strike me as fairly stupid to do all of this in a car that's about four times the size it needs to be to hold me and a soiled shirt. Furthermore, parking in Austin is often a pain in the butt. It got me thinking...
I've listed the three most obvious alternatives in the headline of the post. Anybody have experience with any of these modes of transport? (I'd keep the car, of course, but I'm thinking about some other, smaller, more efficient means of transport for my routine errands.)
A few weeks ago I got a Blackberry Curve. It can do so much more than any phone I've ever had, it got me thinking...it's possible NEVER to lack the information you need, no matter where you are in the world. So, I began working to create that reality in my life. (Sidebar/disclaimer: I'm not one of those people who thinks it's actually important to have 24/7 access to email, a phone, my computer desktop, etc. I just think the idea of being able to is cool.)
One of the things I decided I wanted in my never-disconnected world was constant access to my calendar, contacts, and task list. I keep all of this in Outlook 2007. Outlook 2007 syncs with my Blackberry, so as long as I've got the Blackberry with me, I've got Outlook with me. But if I've got a choice between working from my Blackberry and working from an actual computer, I'd rather do the latter. So, how to sync my Outlook with some sort of Web-based service...?
That's where Plaxo comes in. Plaxo is free. It will sync with Outlook 2007. It works with Windows Vista. And it syncs calendar, contacts, and your task list. It is, therefore, the "Holy Grail of synchronization" (a phrase I stole from some other guy who was trying to achieve the same sort of always-connected existence).
I looked at a number of other services--including the obvious ones, Google and Yahoo--and either they weren't free, or they wouldn't sync with Outlook 2007, or they wouldn't work with Windows Vista, or they wouldn't sync calendar, contacts, AND the task list.
Only Plaxo would do all of this. I can get on the Web, see exactly what I could see if I were looking at Outlook at home, and do so without paying a dime. Accordingly, Plaxo wins a hearty recommendation from me.
Footnote: I don't get paid for this, nor do I get "Plaxo Points" or anything like that. I just think it's a good service, so I wanted to share.
Anklenote: Mapquest Navigator for Mobile is also very cool (though it costs money). If your phone is GPS-enabled, you can get turn-by-turn voice directions through the phone. Unfortunately, I sent the Mapquest people an email 10 days ago, and then again 3 days ago, and I still have heard nothing. I'd be happy to sign up for an annual subscription if they'd respond. But it appears they're not going to, which means that I won't be subscribing. Bad business...
Watching the news last night, and then looking around the Web today, it appears to me that the collective judgment of the media is as follows: "Okay, Hillary, you're done." The reason? She got blown out in North Carolina, and she barely won Indiana.
This is a potentially significant development; the media have every reason to try to keep Hillary viable. Why? It's interesting. It's fun. It's a good story. So, if the media are telling Hillary that her train has sailed, it's a very bad omen for her.
I'm not saying that she necessarily needs to get out. I am saying, though, that if she stays in the race, the storyline is going to change from "working the room with an upbeat attitude, despite very long odds," to, "still hanging around the party even though the hosts have put on their pajamas," to, "look, Mrs. Clinton, we don't want to be rude, but we're going to have to ask you to leave," to, "Okay, Marge, you call the police while I get the pepper spray..."
The Clintons usually believe that it's not over until they say it's over. In this case, though, with the media tide having turned, and with possible damage to her future political prospects, I wonder if she might drop out this week.
(I hope not. I hate to say it, but I'm enjoying her lingering death.)
