Category: i love absurdity

View posts about the absurdity of human antics (amusing or irritating).

Posted on

secrets and lies

Isn’t it funny that the more interactions we have, the less we tell each other? I mean the way that when we intentionally meet new people (dating, new friends, etc.), after the prerequisite fluff questions (work, blah-blah-blah), by the 2nd or 3rd conversation, things quickly turn deep, with questions about deep-seated political views, religious beliefs, where we grew up, what our family life was like, what defining moments really made us who we are. Yet, with the people we already know, we’ve long forgotten any such conversations, if indeed we ever had them. Conversations with people already know usually bounce along subjects like the weather and how are you feeling, not unimportant exactly, but in some ways trivial. I sometimes think I’ve told people I’ve just met know more significant things than people I’ve known for decades.

This is not to say that I’m not close with people I’ve known a long time, but there seems to be more of a veil in place, layers of secrecy and omissions (especially with family) that just isn’t there with the new people. I think it has something to do with personal evolution. We’re constantly reinventing ourselves, but with the people we’ve known forever, it’s sometimes easier to pretend to be more similar to the old self than we really are. The people who remember that self so clearly are pushing for that anyways (and may not even acknowledge a difference you choose to reveal). With people we’re getting to know, we can present the new self, with the newly discovered memories of defining moments, refining our viewpoints, our religion and polishing it all with the brush of experience.

Also, there is an allure to strangers, the illicit thrill of revealing too much, a message in a bottle with your heart’s desire clearly spelled out and thrown into the ocean tide for acceptance, or not. Sometimes, it’s easiest to forge a connection when you know someone you just met will be leaving soon (or you will) and you can abandon your cumbersome but necessary inhibitions for a short while, knowing that you can put them right back on, more comfortably, after you’ve had a bit of a break.

On the other hand, there’s something to be said for the accumulated months and years of interactions. There isn’t as much need to tell because the non-verbal communication is much more free-flowing and in a way, it’s easier to say true words and lie to a virtual stranger, than it is to say false words and misrepresent to a close friend. Still, it is strange that, verbally, we divulge so much to the new and omit so much from the old.

Posted on

staking the pretentious heart of chivalry

Women are but flowers, requiring tender care and kindest words. They are a separate species, without which we men might perish, but for which we must be strong and deferential, the proverbial knight in shining armour. This belief system is chivalry and it is the most dangerous type of sexism because the behavior pretends to be benign.

Where do you think this behavior comes from? From the belief that women are physically and emotionally inferior and require extra attention and protection. That they are incapable of fending for themselves (and incidentally that other men are deserving of little or no consideration). I’ve got no contention with basic politeness, but when it singles out a single gender as more deserving, then it’s plain discrimination. Worse, because it sets up gender role expectations that have ripples throughout our society.

For example, if men are the breadwinners, the ones who pay for everything on the dates, then why is it surprising that a woman will get paid less for doing the same job as a man? Why is it surprising that though women make up a little more than half of the population and have had the right to vote for nearly 100 years, that far less than half of politicians are women and that we’ve never once had a female president? Why do you think men get the right to decide on reproductive rights for women?

I say, Fuck Chivalry. I’d stake its still beating heart to the earth if I could, set it afire and spit in the ashes afterwards. It’s a vampire carrying undeath to the idea that men and women are so vastly different and inequal that they merit completely different behavior (at least from men, what women do amongst themselves is of no import). That’s right, I say women can open their own doors, pay for their own dinner and buy their own flowers (while earning an equal wage and the same opportunities and respect as men). Nothing wrong with some equal exchange or common courtesy within heterosexual dating, but basing it on a gender expectation is absurd.

Posted on

Killer Christians

What is up with the Christians these days? I understand not all Christians in this country (USA) are advocating war and murder, but some of them are (WTF? and WWJD?). I’m not myself Christian, but I was raised Christian and I read the entire New Testament and not once did Jesus Christ (coincidentally the root of the word “Christian”) advocate killing. Not in bloodbath revenge for terrorism, not for murderers either. In fact, as the Bible tells it, Jesus was a pretty nice guy overall, forgiving and open-minded. He befriended outcasts, such as tax collectors (including Matthew, one of the disciples) who were frowned upon at the time and defended an adulteress, protecting her from stoning by shaming her would-be killers. He advocated humility, love for all and forgiveness.

As I said, I’m not Christian and I don’t agree with everything that the Bible says, but it’s pretty clear (if you actually read the gospels, aka the New Testament, which is the basis for Christianity) that Jesus did not condone or advocate violence against fellow humans; in fact, the opposite. So, those who are supporting (or igniting) The War on/of Terror and claim to be Christian are perverting their purported religion into some unrecognizable form. Likewise, for those who monger hate in any fashion. I understand that people have their own moral views and Christianity may have some (OK, a lot) of moral judgments that to make, but those judgments are not for Christians to enforce.

Here are some relevant Jesus quotes (with my comments in italics):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” -Matthew 5:38-40 Continue reading “Killer Christians”

Posted on

hypocrisy aint so bad

When I was younger, I used to think that hypocrisy was one of the worst things that humans do. To advocate certain behaviors for others and act contrary to one’s words just seemed so wrong. But later, I learned an important lesson about it. At one point, I had a very bad roommate situation as we were completely incompatible (though we had been close friends before living together). I learned some things though and ended up reevaluating my feelings on hypocrisy. This is because she often referred to me as a hypocrite for situations that seemed perfectly logical to me. I don’t remember all the circumstances, but I do remember one.

She was a night owl and often stayed up until 2 or 3 am on weekdays, while I was generally in bed by midnight. Since she was up, she liked to do things, including laundry, but the laundry machine was near my bedroom and the dryer was very loud (especially with clothing that had metal in it) and kept me awake (I’m a light sleeper), so I asked her not to begin laundry after 11 (so that it would be done or close to done by midnight). She was rather unhappy at this request and I needed to reiterate it on a number of occasions, but she did grudgingly comply. However, one day, I was running out of clean clothes and desperately needed to do laundry and I began it at 11:15 and suddenly I was a hypocrite. Now, her bedroom was on the other side of the apartment and as I said, she stayed up until 2 or 3 am most days and she’s a heavy sleeper and she never asked me not to do laundry at night. So it seemed perfectly clear to me that the situations were different – my request of her was one of consideration for me, but because I did something that I asked her not to do, I was a hypocrite. Even after I asked her if it bothered her if I did laundry and she said no, except that I’m a hypocrite. Continue reading “hypocrisy aint so bad”

Posted on

Proprietary Passion & the myth of originality

Oh, we humans are so proprietary with our laws and all our abstract concepts that can be “owned”. No doubt whatever gods may exist are highly amused at our childish antics. As if owning a piece of the earth weren’t absurd enough, we also think that we can own ideas themselves. I invented this or I thought of that first and I got dibs on that mathematical equation. Granted, there are some brilliantly creative minds out there that come up with relatively new concepts that many of us can reap the benefits of, but no one really creates anything from scratch. All ideas are derivative and new concepts are only new combinations of old elements.

Benjamin Franklin didn’t invent electricity, it was already there and he is the first successful publicist of the concept (in fact, the Greeks had discovered this concept much earlier with static electricity). Likewise with Isaac Newton and the gravity (thanks, apple). And oftentimes, many of these ideas come about at the same time and then there’s a publicity war about who invented or discovered it first. Galileo was a proponent of the world is round theory (at a time when most of Europe believed the world was flat), but behind this theory lay the science of astronomy (and his trusty telescope). The sum of human knowledge is additive and with the more complex blocks that exist each generation, we can build even more complex paradigms, much like atoms are composed of building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons, while molecules are composed of atoms and cells are composed of molecules and so on. Continue reading “Proprietary Passion & the myth of originality”

Posted on

Intellectual Property and the pursuit of profit

We live in a rapidly changing world, the information era, and, most assuredly, we need to equip ourselves to handle protections for people who create easily copyable digital media. However, the maximizing of profit (aka “greed”) is promoting the very “piracy” that they purport to oppose, in much the same way that US foreign policy promotes terrorism while aggressively denouncing it.

What is going on here? Last year, I got excited about some new digital book technology which could save a lot of environmental costs (trees, transportation, etc.), only to find out that the prices for the books were equivalent to hardcover book prices – even for older books, that you could easily find on paperback or used (even though the reader itself had a reading surface about the size of a single paperback page). And let’s face it, it’ s a lot easier to read a printed book, than to read from some kind of computer monitor. And easier to transport and doesn’t require batteries and you get the picture and blurbs on the cover. Not only is the physical book superior in many ways from a consumer standpoint, but it costs a lot more to produce (cost of materials, cost of printing, cover design/printing and transportation costs), so why couldn’t they pass along some of those significant savings onto the consumers? Greed: They think the technophiles will give them an easy boost for even higher profits than for paper books.

These companies could easily push the envelope by lowering prices and encouraging individuals to go digital, thereby increasing environmental benefits, pushing further technological innovation (due to increased market) and all the while earning a much higher profit percentage than results from the much less efficient physical media production/sales. Continue reading “Intellectual Property and the pursuit of profit”

Posted on

down by the river

I hear there was a big riot by the river in Boston last night. Fires set, roads blocked, lots of noise, smoke and trash (dumped in the river)…

Good times for all. Happy [belated] 4th. 😉

Posted on

Thoughts on Terizm

When I was a young boy, myself and a friend did something really stupid. My street dead-ended in a big dirt area just before a small fenced-in forest and above a small creek. At one point, we decided that something must be living in a big hole there and so we took a big stick and shoved it around in there. Well, the “thing” in the hole was a nest of yellowjackets and boy, were they mad. I was stung hundreds of times and my mom combed yellow jackets out of my aching head which hurt for days afterwards.

People are sort of like those yellow jackets. Go shoving big sticks in their oil wells and they get mighty riled up. Even some of the more easy-going insects of the crowd might get angry when their home is trashed. This should be obvious, but U.S. foreign policy creates an atmosphere that supports terrorists. The real whack-job people find a convenient outlet for their madness and the bad conditions related to occupation foment understandable outrage among normal citizens, helping the extremists to garner both passive and active support. The terrorism backlash is mutually beneficial to both our government and to the terrorists themselves. Our government gains tighter control over the population through strategic fear-mongering and “security measures” while gaining the latitude to expand their powers (with corruption better masked than usual) and the terrorists gain more support from the outrage engendered by the backlash and, they think, closer to success.

Aside from all that yellowjacket business, the definition of terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes”. Revelation: war IS terrorism. There’s state-sponsored terrorism, aka “war” and independent terrorism. Sort of like mainstream and indie movies. They’re all movies. Terrorism cannot be violently fought – fighting engenders terrorism (in both parties). Caution is a reasonable reaction to terrorism, then trying to understand the root causes and address them is a good solution, but fighting the symptoms is useless in terms of eradicating the problem. This is similar to how landlords who have tenants report a mouse problem will react by leaving out poison. That’s a ridiculous “solution” – it only kills one batch of mice, but does nothing to prevent the next batch from moving in and freely traveling through the copious holes in the building.

OK, enough metaphors. The summary: terrorism is not the simple “good vs. evil” “eye for an eye” “you’re either with us or against us” matter that those who guide the media would like you to believe. Peace out.

Posted on

global luke-warming

First off, let me say that I am absolutely opposed to the excessive pollution and apathy of major industry towards the effects of their production on our environment. I love nature and animals and prize efficiency (which is certainly not intrinsic to our consumerist society). That said, I think the whole “global warming” thing is a bit exaggerated.

Take the earth in perspective of time. For the earth, a few million years is no big deal. An ice age might last that long. Now, take the science of climatology – we only have data on temperatures (in select spots) for about 100 years going back. Not only that, but if you examine the year-to-year temperatures, they don’t go up consistently every year, but over that hundred years in some spots, if you map a chart and use very small increments, you can see an upward trend. Over 100 years an inconsistent and small increase. Out of a few billion years of earth time.

Did you know that according to scientific measurements and best guesses, the earth’s ocean levels have risen about an inch and the temperature about one degree centigrade over the last hundred years? Take this in perspective of the earth’s billions and it’s practically meaningless. OK, the earth may be warming slightly overall and maybe, even probably, some of that warming is due to humankind’s pollution and resource squandering, but if you think millions of species will go extinct or that all coastal cities will be flooded in your lifetime, you’re buying into populist paranoia. Continue reading “global luke-warming”

Posted on

land ownership is a myth

One of the funniest things about humans is that they think that because they’re standing on something or that they got there “first” (i.e., they were first to make the preposterous claim in their language), they “own” it. Some chunk of rocky minerals, millions of years old topped by some decaying organic matter and because you have a piece of paper with your name on it (probably because you traded baskets of other generic paper for that paper with your name), you have exclusive rights to that chunk of planet? I don’t think so. Human monkeys like to play games and pretend that they’re really in control of nature and that they can bend the earth to their individual wills, but every once in a while a hurricane, tornado or earthquake comes and shows them who’s really boss.