post the hundred-seventy-sixth, 2013

okay, here's the thing. i am running out of stuff to say. the daily adventures of me are wearing thin.

so.

the choice is: stop writing or get some better daily adventures.

i prefer the latter, and i am going to work on it, but until i have some sort of plan or i am ready to say something new... well... thing is... there will be a bit of a hiatus here.

now, now. don't get upset. this is not The End.

i promise.

in fact, i more than promise.

i do hereby and herein most solemnly and steadfastly swear to each and every one of the four of you, my loyal readers: i am not abandoning you.

i'm not saying when, but... i'll be back.

(cute sign, huh? yeah... it's sort of pathetic how many different types of these little "blog hiatus" placards exist... and of course, by pathetic, i mean, you know, comforting to me.)

post the hundred-seventy-fifth, 2013

i don't like chicken soup on my waffles
or raining in my concert hall,
but i like chicken soup
and waffles
and raining
and i do like concert halls.

i don't like tuna salad on my pizza
or campfires on my airplane ride,
but i like tuna salad
and pizza
and campfires
and i do like airplane rides.

you've heard two wrongs don't make a right,
and i'm here to let you know -
sometimes two rights can make a wrong...
as these fine examples show.

post the hundred-seventy-fourth, 2013

(Enrico Fermi; b. 1901, d. 1954)

enrico fermi was a physicist who lived in the first half of the 1900s and worked on projects ranging from particle physics to quantum theory, from radioactivity to statistical mechanics. he was a great thinker and didn't have televised football to distract him.

among the untold numbers of things that he thought about, fermi thought about extraterrestrial life, and this thinking resulted in the FERMI PARADOX.

basically, the FP says that statistically speaking, earthlings should have long since either colonized, or have been colonized, by others.

see... out in the great wild universe, there are other suns and those suns have planets and those suns with their planets form systems, and it just defies logic that every single other solar system is lifeless. by orders of magnitude, it's more logical to think there is life in other locations in the universe -- and not merely "life" but "intelligent life". i mean, assuming an infinite universe, it's simply implausible that the entirety save our minuscule corner is devoid of life.

so?

well.

if we assume ourselves to be intelligent and assume other intelligent lifeforms exist, then the next logical step is curiosity about those other lifeforms, and curiosity leads (excepting, with cats) to ACTION. curiosity is what makes us want to go and do, explore and build, creep to the edge and peek into the abyss just to see what the fuq is down there.

our instinctual drive to know what and who are OUT THERE fuels our feeble attempts to find out, and putting aside the highly unlikely notion that we are the valedictorians of the universe, there's someone out there making a better stab at interstellar travel than what we're able to put together.

anyway.

what fermi was saying was that based on all this logic about the universe, we should have either colonized others or been colonised ourselves by now. according to the wikipedia article on this topic, there are 80 million (MILLION!) observable galaxies, and in all those, there's not a single who calling a single horton.

fermi asked... "Where are they?" and this is the fermi paradox in a nutshell. where are they? where are all these other lifeforms and civilisations? we're not seeing any evidence in our neighborhood of 80 million (MILLION!) galaxies.

how many solar systems are in a galaxy, anyway? well, there are between 200-400 billion stars in the milky way. (there are 70 sextillion [that's 70x10^22] in the visible universe.) so, say that there are (for example) 312 billion stars in the milky way, and for the sake of argument, say half have planets, and those that have planets have an average of 3. that's 468 billion potential life-bearing planets IN THE MILKY WAY ALONE. i can't do the math for the visible universe (much less that outside our sight), but i think you get the drift.

anyway.

the reason it's a paradox is because while it's completely logical to believe there is life somewhere out there, we have the complete sum total of zero (scientifically verifiable and roundly accepted) evidence.

where are they?

- maybe too far away from us for either of us to make contact with the other.
- perhaps no brighter than us, ergo no further down the exploration path.
- could be they don't exist at all.
- could be we don't understand the universe at all.

from here, theories get deeper, murkier, less penetrable - so, i'll stop here say my theory is that we simply don't understand the universe at all.

i mean, c'mon. most of us don't even understand ourselves.

post the hundred-seventy-third, 2013

we're watching this show "the newsroom" with jeff daniels and firstly OH MY GOD this is NOT your mama's jeff daniels. he's like... smart and smarter, if you see what i am saying there. now, secondly, here is the thing about an aaron sorkin production: the characters throw dialog around like hand grenades -- word grenades -- and dance around the delivery like ballerinas. it's word-grenade ballet, that's what it is. no one talks this way, in real life. this dialog is all the stuff you wish you would have said, you know, when you go over the scene in your head, later, too late to say what you wish you would have said -- only everyone here is saying those things the first go-round. and, their timing sparkles like crystal. and, their delivery is as punchy as a sorority pledge sipping her nth chardonnay. it's all down to choreography, this word-grenade ballet, this finely choreographed word-grenade ballet. it's entertaining -- soooo entertaining. it makes excellent television. but, you know, no one really talks that way.

post the hundred-seventy-second, 2013

during the course of my work today, i read this footnote**. not book, chapter, article, essay, paragraph or even sentence. 

FOOT. NOTE. 

by its very nature, a footnote is not the heart of the matter. it's a small tidbit over to the side, a supporting player, not enough on its own to be gushed over and written about on the main page, but a mere scrap of information tucked away below the margin.  

reading this footnote, i felt equal parts intrigued... and glaringly ignorant. 

and, the more i pondered this piece, this item presumably so devoid of worth that it merited not a smidgen of space on the main page, this unworthy tidbit allowed only to tag along at the end... i slowly realized that if i don't know these, the lowly pieces, the red-headed stepchildren of publishing, how can i ever even begin to consider the possibility of entertaining the outside chance of ever even learning a fraction of a slice of a portion of a share of the body of knowledge that comprises this smothering whole that IS. 

i remain devastated by the amount of knowledge I will never even touch, much less grasp once, much less hold for a time, much less hold forever.

smothering. 

**263. Practically all Greek MSS read Βεελζεβούλ (Beelzeboul), although both א and B read Βεεζεβουλ (Beezeboul). Both are different from the traditional “Beelzebub” of the NIV, following the KJV, which had followed the Vulgate. No Greek MS reads “Beelzebub.” This name was related to the Hebrew epithet given to the god of the Philistines in 2 Kgs 1:2, Baal-zebub, “god of flies.” The etymology and the meaning of both Beelzebub and Beelzebul are disputed (cf. IDB 1:332, 374), yet “Beelzebul” may well have been used as the name of a pagan household god, “Lord of the House” (“Heavenly Temple”). Even if by Matthew’s time the etymology had been forgotten, the name was then adapted in Judaism as a pejorative name for the chief demon, equivalent to Satan and Belial. There may be a play on words in the Pharisees’ charge: Jesus, who claims to be Lord of the (Jerusalem) Temple (cf. 12:6), actually operates by the power of the pagan god/demon named “Lord of the Temple.” The word play in 10:25 on “master of the house” (οἰκοδεσπότης oikodespotēs) suggests that Matthew knew this etymology.

post the hundred-seventy-first, 2013

i meant to write you about this the other day, but i don't know... time just got away from me.

a few days ago, there was a news report about a christian singer-songwriter-performer going on a twitter rant from the nashville airport. the singer had a business-class boarding pass for herself and one daughter. another daughter, 4-years old, did not have the same class of pass, so she wasn't allowed to board during business-class boarding.

stop here and think for a moment about what you might do in this situation.

seriously, stop and think. you are faced with boarding early along with one child and leaving a 4-year old to board alone.

hmm... what would you do?

here's what the christian singer did. she tore the gate agent a new one, via twitter. she ranted. she raved. she called out the gate agent by first name.



according to a lawsuit filed by the gate agent, here are all the statements made via twitter:

-- "Gracie is 4. FOUR! she wanted her to board by herself or make us wait Till A34. Even though I was business select!"
-- "I fly @southwestair at least 75x/year. just had WORST experience. Me; A1, Sadie: A3 Gracie A34. Woman refused 2 let Gracie board w/ me."
-- "Nashville. Gate A25. Flight to Denver. Her name is Jennifer. She said "get over it. Follow the rules. Or don’t fly."
She has done this to me before. She has the WORST customer service. My daughter is FOUR.
-- "that is ridiculous! [W]hat did she expect? Her walk on herself & find her seat like a grown adult?"
-- "If your [sic] sympathize with me, when you respond be sure & include @southwestair in tweet. They need to know this WRONG."
-- "Sadie had MAJOR blowout. I think it’s in response to our southwest air experience. She decided to leave them a gift on their plain.[sic] Teehee."

so.

have you thought about it? about what you would do?

i know what i would have done. i'd have boarded A34 - without even batting an eye! least common denominator is A34, so we all board A34. should have bought both girls an upgrade, eh?

that's what i would do.

but, i am not this christian singer-songwriter. her real situation had an advantage over my hypothetical one because... get this... her husband was travelling with her.

I KNOW, RIGHT??

what the hell, christian-singer-songwriter-lady?? firstly, let the 4yo board with your husband. boom. done. secondly, to absofocking rip apart the gate agent when she was merely doing her job AND saw your husband there... that's icky. thirdly, to misrepresent the situation to your twitter followers, naming names of companies and people, calling out someone for doing their job in a circumstance which you haven't fully revealed... that's beyond icky -- that's just wrong.

yes, i am judging her, and i feel okay with that because i'm confident in saying that if i did this same thing, i'd be in the wrong, too. in fact, if i, as a persona non-publica with a fraction of the twitter followers and a much less obvious claim to organized gatherings of any sort (religious or otherwise) -- if i were to do this thing, even in my circumstances, i would still be IN. THE. WRONG.

here's a thought: turn the other cheek, for christ's sake.

post the hundred-seventieth, 2013

1. have you seen the "sour chicken" ford focus commercial? yeah, it's pretty stupid.

2. while shopping for new kitchen cabinets, we ran across a picture of an office room with a 5ft tall globe. we thought it would be cool to have because (we both simultaneously said) we wouldn't have to water it. yeah, not plant people.

3. the past two days, i have had indoor workouts. this was partially due to the weather, which although i like the grey days i just didn't feel like running through it, and partially it was to get a little cross training and a lot of stretching and some strength work. yeah, i just wanted to read my book.

4. i am shopping for some new shoes, found some cute ones online but think i might look for them at the local store. i've been burned before by ill-fitting mail-order shoes, while i have also been burned by not finding shoes at the store that were available online. yeah, it's confusing.

5. we got a new dvr today. the old one was acting up, so we called AT&T about it, and they said - reboot. so we did, and it was okay for a while then started wacking out again. so we called AT&T about it, and they said, get a new HD cable. so we did, and it was okay for like, a day, and then it started going all wackadoodle again. so we called AT&T about it -- again! -- and finally they sent someone over and he took like one look and said, your dvr is old as dirt and you need a new one and here's a new remote too and have a nice day. yeah, good service is hard to come by.

post the hundred-sixty-ninth, 2013

i run a lonely road -
it's the only road i've ever known.
i know just where it goes -
this road is home, and i run alone.

i run this crowded street -
on the boulevard of hidden dreams -
and every one i see,
sees me run and knows i run alone.

i run alone.

my shadow's the only one that runs beside me.
my shallow heart's the only thing that's beating.
sometimes i wish someone up there will find me -
'til then i run alone.

i'm running down the line
that divides me somewhere in my mind -
on that border line, on that edge
is where i run alone.

caught up in my mind,
all at once fucked up and still alright.
check my vital signs to know i'm still alive
and i run alone.

i run alone.

my shadow's the only one that runs beside me.
my shallow heart's the only thing that's beating.
sometimes i wish someone up there will find me -
'til then i run alone.

i run alone.

i run this crowded street -
on the boulevard of hidden dreams -
and every one i see,
sees me run and knows i run alone.

i run alone.






//with apologies to green day
//and thanks to zyrtec-d

post the hundred-sixty-eighth, 2013

i feel like i should apologize for yesterday's post. i mean, not the topic... no, the topic was solid. it's just... well, i've covered it previously -- and better. so, i guess what i am saying is: the topic was solid but the delivery weak. mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! and, yet... what excuse have i? the pathetic reality is that i don't, in fact, have much of an excuse and i do, in fact, have less than much to say. as is its wont, life marches on, with or without the benefit of my petty observations, and that is precisely what it has done, did, and was doing when i realised it'd been a few days since i posted. yes. yes, well... that is to say... i sort of panic-posted. i mean, the bacon thing WAS on my mind, and it DOES tick me off when people do that -- when they make assumptions about me. those things are true enough, but in retrospect, i find that i was no better. that is to say, i was making an assumption about you: that you would be dissatisfied if i posted nothing for too long. well, now, actually.... first and foremost, i was making the assumption that you exist. i mean, here i am writing and writing with nary a peep from you. perhaps there is nary a peep because there is nary a one of you out there, and so here i am stewing and stewing over satisfying your (insatiable, if i could be so bold) appetite for new writing -- stewing because i can feel your stopping by here and finding nothing new, and your disappointment is palpable, large and puce and beating like a drum... "post"... "post"... "post"... "post"... "post"... you're really quite demanding for a potentially non-existent entity.

and so, in conclusion, that schrödingeresque pressure pressed on me, and in keeping with my nature as an obedient tree, i fell in the forest. if the sound i made whilst falling fell on undeaf ears, and in receiving it, you felt slighted by the weakness of the effort, well... just this: consider yourself apologised at.

post the hundred-sixty-seventh, 2013

somehow the discussion came around to bacon and one of them said towards me - "i know you don't eat bacon cause you're so healthy." ummm... no? i eat bacon -- and just about anything else i please. people think if you're healthy-ish that that means you don't eat fun things. makes sense i guess. what doesn't make sense is why they think they can comment in it. happens all the time -- "you're so healthy, you must never eat cake." or they'll apologize -- "sorry. i know you're healthy, but i am going to have some cake." or they'll make an excuse about exercising later or skipping supper or something. just all sorts of things. but can you imagine turning it around? "you're so unhealthy, you must never eat carrots." "sorry. i know you're unhealthy, but imma have a salad."  you can't call out someone for being fat or unhealthy but you can call out someone for being healthy. it's a form of bullying - - using my healthy habits to ostracize me from the group. 

yeah. go ahead and roll your eyes. i know the truth. 

post the hundred-sixty-sixth, 2013

watching the titans play the chiefs and there're myriad reminders that it's breast cancer awareness month. pink flags. pink gloves. pink shoes. pink on the cheerleaders and pink on the fans. pink everywhere. it's good, right? all this attention on breast cancer? well, sure. of course it's good for us to be reminded about the devastation of cancer and ways to avoid that devastation.

however.

while breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and is the #1 cancer killer of hispanic women, it's not the #1 cancer killer of any other group of women. moreover, it's not the #1 killer.

the three most common cancers in women are breast, lung, and colorectal. the stats go like this:

race	most common	second	third	most lethal
white	breast	lung	colorectal	lung
black	breast	lung	colorectal	lung
native american	breast	lung	colorectal	lung
asian and islander	breast	colorectal	lung	lung
hispanic (across races)	breast	colorectal	lung	breast

so. lung cancer is most lethal in most populations. breast cancer's second where lung's first and vice versa. the third most lethal cancer in women of all populations is colorectal.

however. the most common cause of death in women of all ages and all populations (according to statistics from 2009 [the most recent available at cdc.gov]) is heart disease. 24% of deaths are attributed to heart disease while 22.2% are attributed to cancer. heart disease is also the most common cause of death in men, followed by cancers, of which lung tops the list.

why, then, is there so much emphasis on breast cancer awareness and wearing pink for the entire month of october, yet heart disease gets merely one day of wearing red (next one will be 2/7/2014) and little attention? because breast cancer has a better PR department and, as the less lethal of the two, a larger band of survivors.

and, did you even know that november is lung cancer awareness month?

post the hundred-sixty-fifth, 2013

him - do you want to go to the movies tonight, see gravity, 8:50?

me - mmm. do i have to tell you now? that's three hours away.

him - you're right. let's see how things unfold. we can always get tickets later.

me - yeah, sounds good.



[commitment comes in all shapes and sizes.]

post the hundred-sixty-fourth, 2013

tiny bowls.

this is the sort of thing that fascinates me, intrigues me, compels me, pulls me in. if this were a person, i would flirt with it. that is how attractive it is to me. tiny bowls. tiny bowls filled with tiny ingredients. ee wee ickle wickle bowls.

i want to touch them and move them, rearrange them so they can talk to each other. i want to make little zooming noises while i push them around. mmmzzoooummmm mmmmzzzoooouuuummmmmmm..... zouuum. hello. hello sugar. hello raisinetta. hello almondine. hello. hello to you and you and you.

i want to put them in one formation then move them to another formation. single file then a triangle then around and around chasing their collective tail.

zouummm....

i want to touch them. i want to feel their smoothness and their weight. i want to gently tap-tap on the ingredients and see if they will budge or if they are attached together. i want to feel their cool porcelain outsides and their rough ingredient insides.

zouummm....

i want to touch them.

i want to move them around.

zouummm....

but most of all, i want to put them in my pocket and have them for my very own, so that i can take them out and play with them anytime i want.

zouummm....

it's a good thing they keep those little angels behind the glass. that's all i am saying.






zouummm... zzzzoooouuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

post the hundred-sixty-third, 2013

two weeks ago, i bit down on a pizza crust and a sharp, metallic pain shot up from my jaw to my eye. hellooo??

well it calmed down and that was that. until yesterday when it happened again while i was eating an english muffin. ack!

i went to the dentist and he discovered i have two (count 'em two) cracked teeth. two! ack!

he sent me to the endodontist to be sure i didn't have nerve damage and need a root canal. all's well there. yay!

but still... cracked teeth. * sigh *

makes me feel old and fragile. 

when we were kids, no one really taught us dental hygiene. we drank a metric shit-ton of milk and had them cleaned professionally a few times, but cleaning our own teeth on a daily basis just wasn't a priority. despite the neglect, my teeth were always strong, which i credit to the milk and genes i guess... althoughi don't think either parent had exceptional teeth.  

anyway. here i am with two cracked teeth. and there's no telling how many are on the edge of fracture. it's part of getting old and just like most parts of getting old, it's about loss. 

loss of some of the original equipment. loss of the time required to have the repairs done. loss of confidence in my body. loss of that place where the strawberry seeds always get caught... cause they don't build crevices into the crowns, you know. so -- that place where the strawberry seeds always get caught will be gone and that place has been a part of me since i got my big teeth in. 

i'm just trying to say that what i'm losing by losing these teeth isn't only the teeth.