Wednesday evening ramble

Do you guys remember that askers vs. guessers divide we talked about in January? What I'm about to ramble about is only indirectly related to it. One of the points was that if you're going to ask someone about something directly, which is my preference, you're not going to press it; if the person is not interested, you let it go and back off. You do not change the conditions of the question; you don't push as to why the askee is demurring; you just drop it. Well, the same goes for things that are not asked. It comes down to how nobody owes you anything, and so nobody owes you an excuse for not doing something you've asked. A simple "no" suffices. If I were less lazy, I'd search for some Miss Manners links to back me up on this.

I bring this up because one of my coworkers called me out today in a really appropriate way. There was a goodbye-lunch for her last week--she's relocating--and I didn't go for a variety of reasons, including that (1) she's not a close friend; (2) I didn't have time; and (3) there wasn't anything for me to eat at the chosen restaurant, and the chosen restaurant generally stinks of friend seafood. I shouldn't have been put in a position to justify my absence. but, today, I was. First, she mentioned that there had been a lunch (among our issue group). Then, she told me that my teammate was there--implying that she knows I didn't have a meeting at that time. Then, after asking how the work was coming along, she repeated--implying that we couldn't be that busy--that my teammate was taking lunches. It was really awkward, but I still didn't feel that I owed her an explanation. And now I feel even better about not having gone. I don't need to tell you that I could have had other meetings that my teammate wouldn't have been a part of (it's not unusual at my place of work to have multiple commitments or plans), or that just because my teammate decides to take lunch on a busy day, I may make a different decision based on what I have going on at or outside of work. More importantly, I don't need to tell her, because I don't owe her an excuse or even an explanation.

***
You may have figured that, based on my mom experience and, to a lesser extent to my RM experience, I have an over-developed sense of boundaries. In that I am very, very attuned to incursions. I'm also very attuned to attempts at manipulation, but that's not an issue here.

***
A few weeks earlier, this woman--the one whose luncheon I skipped out on--came into my office and told me that her heart went out to me because I was single in DC. She meant well; her angle was, "I think you're awesome, and it's unfortunate that you're in a place where awesome women outnumber suitable men." That is a fair statement. But the way she said it was extremely condescending, as was everything she continued to say in response to my responses to her (see above about knowing when to stop pushing.

My first response--and it was genuine--was, "actually, it does not suck to be single in this city. I mean, it is difficult to meet men, but it's a good city in which to have a life in the absence of a date and significant other. I suppose my odds would be better in North Dakota, but would the dudes be better, even though there are more of them?" But she insisted and persisted, and things got weird. She started talking about a friend of hers who, at her age (our age) was finding the dating pool full of divorced dudes, and those dudes have issues, so it's best to date widowers. At least they don't have issues, she said; they were our best bet. What do you say to that? I let her know that, really, I was okay. She continued to try to convince me that my life sucked and that I deserved her sympathy, but I'll spare you the details.

I don't need to tell you that I need no one's sympathy. I was just thinking--independently of that weeks-ago conversation that I only just recalled in light of this afternoon's conversation about the luncheon--about how awesome it was to live where I do and have the opportunities that I have. To be surrounded by awesome people from various aspects of my life. I hope from party to happy hour to dinner with friends to play to discussion group, etc. I have fascinating conversations with fascinating people almost every day. I feel loved and connected and full of love toward (specific) others almost every day. Which is not to say that it wouldn't be awesome to be in an awesome relationship, but it is to say that I am living an awesome single life, so I don't need anyone's sympathy. Save it for someone who's unhappily married or unhappily single or unhappy for any other reason. May your heart go out to me for reasons other than condescension.

Wednesday evening roundup

This nurse's story will make you cry but you should read it anyway. So will Lisa Murkowski's op-ed, in a different way.

This description of the Wall Street Journal editorial on sexual assault in the military will make you scream.

The science of doubting the victim.

Really, CNN? Really?

You can drink a little while pregnant.

You can go ahead and study the humanities.

The tetraquark has been confirmed.

Guys can be funny.

Wednesday morning roundup

Friedman's dispatch from Istanbul.

Wait, I thought lung cancer was (often) caused by smoking?

Overspending parents actually benefit all parents.

I disagree with Carolyn on this one, given my experience with my own toxic mother. Just because someone isn't well, doesn't mean their toxicity doesn't have consequences. Doesn't mean their continued manipulativeness needs to be your problem.

Small household appliances

What with the dehydrator debacle, I found myself thinking about all the household appliances that have traveled between Washington and Boston, sometimes round-trip, sometimes in the company of other people. There was the LePresse that I asked a friend to lug up on his way to a wedding we were both attending (I was going camping first and wasn't about to lug it along) that mom then forgot she asked for. There was the kitchen scale--she accused me of losing hers, so I bought her a really nice one, at which point she told me to take it back because she already had one. There was the vacuum cleaner that she insisted on bringing down (I'm recycling it at MOM's this weekend). There's the Magic Bullet (same story as the dehydrator: she pushed it on me and then insisted that I took parts of it that were hers).

Could that possibly be all? I feel like there were others. Not that it matters.

Tuesday evening roundup

Piracy is alive and well on the West African coast.

Latin America is awash in renewable energy potential.

Cleveland gets peer-pressured into processing rape kits; ends up solving lots of crimes.

Britain's got some interesting politicians, too. Maybe not as many?

From the paleo-is-BS department: red meat is a diabetes risk factor.

Vogue editor fails veganism. I hate to invoke Darwinism, but it seems to fit her husband's predicament. 

Why test on animals when you can model on computers to better results.

A crazy-moving essay about a different kind of fatherhood.

I have a bitchy resting face and one of these days I will physically assault someone who tells me to smile.

High heels will hurt you. BTW, I think I've been to that podiatrist.

Tuesday morning roundup

Blackmailers in China turn to Photoshop to enhance their extortion rackets, at the expense of credible transparency. But the whole system is fed by public expectation of corruption and distrust of politicians.

The European Commission gets snarled by a Slovakian coin. I shrug; it's not going to kill (or in any way threaten) secular Western Europeans to see Christian symbols on their currency; it's not like Slovakia is insisting that creationism be taught in science classes (because who does that kind of inane bull$hit?), and it's not a slippery slope. Meanwhile, Slovakian nationalists need to shut up and take stock of how much European Union money has built up their country. This all underscores how essential separation of church and state is to freedom of religion: I don't have a stake in what you believe as long as you don't try to incorporate it into the legal system. That's not "radical secularism;" it's just common sense.

The phenomenon of "first-language interference" doesn't surprise me, but wouldn't it be more accurate to call it "native-language" or "primary-language" interference? I'm not the only one whose first language is not my best language.

Dave Brooks atones for his earlier slam of psychology:

At the highbrow end, there are scholars and theorists that some have called the “nothing buttists.” Human beings are nothing but neurons, they assert. Once we understand the brain well enough, we will be able to understand behavior. We will see the chain of physical causations that determine actions. We will see that many behaviors like addiction are nothing more than brain diseases. We will see that people don’t really possess free will; their actions are caused by material processes emerging directly out of nature. Neuroscience will replace psychology and other fields as the way to understand action.

These two forms of extremism are refuted by the same reality. The brain is not the mind. It is probably impossible to look at a map of brain activity and predict or even understand the emotions, reactions, hopes and desires of the mind.

T. Colin Campbell doesn't accept the vegan/vegetarian nomenclature. I appreciate his "whole-foods, plant-based" focus, but I personally feel no need to cut back on fat or salt, as he recommends. Plant fat has very different effects from animal fat. And--this analogy is extreme--but I would liken his 10-10-80 plan (proteins/fats/healthy carbs) to cutting of your breasts: even if it does work, only do it if you have a family history or if you're walking back an existing illness. I am not a doctor or a nutritionist, so this isn't health advice; it's life advice: just eat food. And by food, I mean mostly whole and plant-based food. Don't drive yourself crazy with counting things. The reason people see results with the bullshit paleo diet is because it's still preferable to the uber-processed, uber-trashy standard American diet. If you go from eating a lot of Twinkies to eating a lot of grain-fed beef, you'll feel better.

But man-oh-man is the paleo guy full of shit. Wow. "All vegetarians" have elevated levels of homocysteines because of B12 deficiency? Vegetarians who are not vegans have plenty of sources, and any vegan with a brain takes supplements or consumes supplemented food. I invite you to test my zinc, iron, B12, and omega-3s, mother-f*er. I am deficient in nothing but excess lard, so go f* yourself and your bullshit research. (Note how Isa Chandra yawns while he's blabbing and then calls him out on his boorishness.) But Isa Chandra's point is the one I make above: we're not here to debate the finer points of medical research; we're just here to tell you from personal experience that plant-based food is delicious, manageable, and good for you.

I'd like to have a word with the vegans now: let's say your an ethical vegan (like me) and you're not in it (primarily) for the health. It's still important that you take care of yourself, that you don't subsist on vegan twinkies. You don't want to be giving those silly people fodder. Eat well, for the planet and for the animals. As Isa Chandra says, sickness helps no one, deficiencies help no one.

Monday roundup

Have we mentioned that (1) humanitarian intervention and (2) Syria are complicated?
Wow for both letters to Carolyn.

I'd argue that even if you do know what someone's going through, it's not necessarily helpful to say it. There's a lot of value in, "what you're going through is difficult." Period.

A Brown student feministizes Taylor Swift.

There are two different things going on here: women aren't indifferent to the appearance of men's bodies, but it's just a different response.

Ag gag threatens more than animal welfare:

"It's absurd," said Amanda Hitt at the Government Accountability Project. She said she couldn't believe that an industry that has been so regularly recorded breaking the law "would then have the audacity to come to any state legislative body and say, 'Hey, we're sick of getting caught doing crimes. Could you do us a favor and criminalize catching us?'"

Check this out:

But Berman's rhetoric comes off as positively mild when compared to the email Tennessee state Rep. Andy Hoyt sent the HSUS when his ag gag measure passed: "I am extremely pleased that we were able to pass HB 1191 today to help protect livestock in Tennessee from suffering months of needless investigation that propagandist groups of radical animal activists, like your fraudulent and reprehensibly disgusting organization of maligned animal abuse profiteering corporatists, who are intent on using animals the same way human-traffickers use 17 year old women. You work for a pathetic excuse for an organization who seek to profit from animal abuse. I am glad, as an aside, that we have limited your preferred fund-raising methods here in the state of Tennessee; a method that I refer to as 'tape and rape.' Best wishes for the failure of your organization and it's true intent."

Do you live in a vegan-friendly city?

I'll have you know (and my readers do know) that I don't scare monger about GMO safety even as I advocate for labeling. But the science case is not as clear cut as some would argue. 

Does anyone edit this stuff for logic? Foods with "more fat, protein, and carbohydrates"? What else is there (besides water)?

What people drink where: an infographic.

Mom: keeping it absurd

Did I tell you guys about the dehydrator?

I was considering buying one--a lot of vegan (nut and seed) cheese recipes, among other vegan recipes, call for one--and asked my parents what brand they had and whether they liked it. Both mom and dad insisted on giving me one of theirs. They thought they had two, but upon checking, dad found that they had three. I was just as happy buying my own, but agreed to take one of theirs in the interest of reducing the amount of extraneous crap in my parents' house. Which is a lost cause, but I digress. So Jay stopped over to pick it up before he came down for anti-Valentine's day.

When Jay was over, mom suddenly decided that she needed that dehydrator but grudgingly agreed--at dad's urging--to turn it over to Jay. After removing over half the shelves, because she needed those. Then she turned the dehydrator over to Jay and he brought it down.

Meanwhile, my dad has been encouraging me to visit, and I've been reminding him that mom won't talk to me, so why doesn't he visit me, instead. Take a break from being driven nuts by mom. We've discussed this for a while, but today he said that mom is practically chasing him out the door--she wants him to go and get the dehydrator back. She needs it.

I told him he could have it back. He shrugged and said they didn't need another one but it was easier to get it back than argue with mom. He insisted on buying me another one. I told him that it was okay but that he really should come visit.

Sunday morning roundup

I'm still not sold on intervention in Syria.

Factory farms are getting a green light to keep polluting.

It's amateur hour at the Post. Where is the substance, the analysis? You can't just say something without backing it up. You really think the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Turkey are basing their domestic policy on U.S. responses to Russia? Could you provide some actual evidence or analytical rigor? And, what "more" steps? Man, could I get an op-ed published in a major newspaper by just putting unsubstantiated ideas out there?

At least another Post op-ed calls out a silly idea (specifically, that cyberwar is on par with nuclear war).

What a very smart dad wants for Father's Day.

Rat dads have paternal instincts.

It's not easy being married to an astronaut.

Einstein and Freud debate the nature of war.

Friday evening roundup

Al Madrigal on ag-gag:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Eat plants so that your son will have a healthy penis.

Eat plants because,

You do know that well over 95% of GMO soy is fed to farm animals, not people, don't you? @JulianWarme
— Vegan (@vegan) June 14, 2013

And in case you got bitten by the wrong tick.

Eat food not drugs.

I'm cool with this pro-industry argument for GMO labeling.

Snowden is no Ellsberg.

Rosa Brooks on public vs. private-sector surveillance:

Government data collection, as such, isn't really the problem -- at least not in a world in which practically everyone is collecting data on practically everyone else. The problem, insofar as there is one, is not a privacy problem at all, but an accountability problem, and we reasonably expect our government to be more accountable than corporations. Given the current lack of transparency, we don't know what rules govern who can see what data, under what circumstances, for what purposes, and with what consequences. We don't know if this sweeping data collection has led to mistakes or abuses that have harmed innocent people, and we don't know what recourse an innocent person would have if harmed in some way.

It's reasonable to worry about those questions and to expect government officials to offer a little more clarity. (And, no, this won't somehow "tip off" the bad guys; the bad guys will assume the U.S. government's lying and doing far more than it admits anyway.) If there are innocent individuals who have suffered some real injury as a result of these government data-collection programs, there needs to be a mechanism to remedy the damage and impose appropriate consequences on government wrongdoers. If these data collection practices (or any similar past practices) lead to innocent people getting stuck on no-fly lists, or getting harassed by federal agents, or ending up wrongly detained, there should be a prompt, transparent, and fair means for them to challenge their treatment, see the supposed evidence against them, and get the problem fixed.
The mere fact that large quantities of data are collected by the government isn't an outrage in and of itself, however, and it shouldn't be any more troubling than the fact that countless non-governmental entities also collect (or can gain access to) our "private" data. We should worry about how the data are used, not whether it's collected.

Patton Oswalt on understanding rape culture:

First off: no one is trying to make rape, as a subject, off-limits.  No one is talking about censorship.  In this past week of re-reading the blogs, going through the comment threads, and re-scrolling the Twitter arguments, I haven’t once found a single statement, feminist or otherwise, saying that rape shouldn’t be joked under any circumstance, regardless of context.  Not one example of this.

In fact, every viewpoint I’ve read on this, especially from feminists, is simply asking to kick upward, to think twice about who is the target of the punchline, and make sure it isn’t the victim.

 and,

I’ve never wanted to rape anyone.  Never had the impulse.  So why was I feeling like I was being lumped in with those who were, or who took a cavalier attitude about rape, or even made rape jokes to begin with?  Why did I feel some massive, undeserved sense of injustice about my place in this whole controversy?

The answer to that is in the first incorrect assumption.  The one that says there’s no a “rape culture” in this country.  How can there be?  I’ve never wanted to rape anyone.
Do you see the illogic in that leap?  I didn’t at first.  Missed it completely...  

...just because I find rape disgusting, and have never had that impulse, doesn’t mean I can make a leap into the minds of women and dismiss how they feel day to day, moment to moment, in ways both blatant and subtle, from other men, and the way the media represents the world they live in, and from what they hear in songs, see in movies, and witness on stage in a comedy club.

There is a collective consciousness that can detect the presence (and approach) of something good or bad, in society or the world, before any hard “evidence” exists.  It’s happening now with the concept of “rape culture.”  Which, by the way, isn’t a concept.  It’s a reality.  I’m just not the one who’s going to bring it into focus.  But I’ve read enough viewpoints, and spoken to enough of my female friends (comedians and non-comedians) to know it isn’t some vaporous hysteria, some false meme or convenient catch-phrase.

Thursday evening roundup

Our feeble lady brains don't get the way costs work, so it's only right that dudes make decisions about our reproductive future and nether-grooming.

Argentina is no longer as beefy as it used to be. I love how transparent the lobby is:

“Beef consumption is threatened by modern trends of healthy eating, mainly the exaltation of what’s natural and ecological, stimulating vegetable consumption,” the Argentine Beef Promotion Institute warned in a 2006 report, warily acknowledging a “new age culture and the appearance of cooking fads incorporating other products.”

Olive oil is good for you.

Whole Foods' English rule is solid.

There's a new book about rocks.

Animadversion

"Fuck that bitch. Fuck all bitches."

You would be forgiven for figuring that that's some jackass on Twitter, but it's actually Junot Diaz. And as far as I'm concerned, it sums up Junot Diaz (or at least his recent work).

You may (but probably will not recall) that about this time last year, I was disappointed not only to find myself on my way to Europe with a current New Yorker has a Diaz story in the fiction section, but to find that the other recent issue that I'd grabbed also had a Diaz story. I was already sick of Diaz stories--because they're basically 5-10 pages of "fuck all bitches," and here I was with two more of them. When I could have had something readable to get me through those flights and train rides.

My M.O. to keep up with the New Yorker was to read each issue on the metro, as I got it. Which usually meant that I would toss it in a pile before getting to the fiction section. I love the fiction section--it was, at least in concept, a treat--but if I was going to keep up, I had to put the old issue down when I got a new one. Since my subscription lapsed, I've steadily made my way through that pile of unread New Yorker fiction, most of which I have enjoyed. There was a great story by Zadie Smith, and an okay one by a forgettable writer that I was nonetheless glad I hadn't read before I got my own wisdom teeth pulled. And then, yesterday, I grabbed an old issue--it would have been at least the third that summer, since there were two that ended up in Europe with me--with Junot Diaz.

And I knew the second I read the first few sentences that it was Junot Diaz. He's pretty formulaic: dude sleeps with lots of women and speaks derogatorily of them, but nonetheless has a soul because he's hurt that the one he actually cared about has left. Every time. This is what the man wins prizes for? I should point out, again, that I have friends whose literary judgment I trust who love Junot Diaz and maintain that I must read "The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao," and I probably will. But can we stop with the more recent stuff? We get it: your characters--Yunior in particular--sleep with a lot of women and treat them as disposable, and Diaz passes it off as literature because he anchors it in a cultural context. I mean, I could do that--drop a bunch of salty language and anchor it in culture--except that Gary Shteyngart has already cornered the market on that within my ethnicity. The difference is, Shteyngart's profanity-laced, over-the-top writing is nonetheless worth reading, whereas with Diaz I'm still wondering why the f* he's wasting my time.

Would you want to be that writer? Would you want someone to blindly pick up a story and within seconds know that it's you, not because it's beautiful but because it's formulaic in its language and misogyny? Also, dude got what he wished for (i.e., for someone to explode a bomb Boston); are you happy, fucker? And who's the fiction editor at the New Yorker who decided to publish at least three of these in one summer, much less at all?

***
"Stupid Fucking Bird" was too bad. Not because it was bad--it was good--but because there was some really good stuff in it--great lines, great moments, and a generally great concept--but there was just, disproportionately, too much play for the amount of good stuff. I cannot recommend it. After the first act, I thought it was worth it. After the second, I was having doubts. After the third, I couldn't with a clean conscience send anyone to give up two and a half hours to that play (which, again, is too bad, because there were some very cool ideas). By the time I was waiting for the metro--waiting 25 minutes for the metro, with speakers that were consistently emitting loud static, a man who smelled of urine trying to chat me up about my headphones, and a shitty Junot Diaz story about a bunch of dudes who somehow get a lot of women to sleep with them--I felt more than certain that the play had not been worth it. When it comes down to "maybe it would have been worth it if I'd gotten a train right away," the play has to do better; I was stuck for a while after "The Real Thing," but that was worth every minute of metro wait.

Thursday morning roundup

Wait, there are serious intellectuals who thought that the British Empire was all cupcakes and rainbows? Why doesn't it surprise me that Niall Ferguson is one of them.

I've heard similar sentiments--to those expressed by this poor guy waiting for his VA benefits--from a number of people:

'I'll tell you the truth. I never believed in mental illness,' says D'heron, a city firefighter and former Army reservist. 'Never. I always thought that you suck it up; deal with it. And then this.'

Can we just skip that step and everyone acknowledge that mental illness is real, without having to go through it or have a family member who does?

This piece on surveillance makes valid points but fails to convincingly make its main point. Yes, bureaucracy is annoying; yes, being snared by the tax code is annoying (I, too, had to go through a lot of hassle to prove to Massachusetts that I'd moved). Yes, suspicion can build out of nothing but starter suspicion. But can't you see that no one's watching for irrelevant bits of information that you are nonetheless concerned may be used against you?

I can also identify with frustration with existing systems:

These programmers, who often describe themselves as hackers, are experts at examining complex systems and finding ways to make them work better. They tend to think about society as just another complex system in need of optimization, and this sometimes leads them to conclusions starkly at odds with conventional wisdom.

And appreciate the pull of the rabble-rousers, like I appreciate the role of PETA even as I roll my eyes at some of its antics. But as you take your head out of your ass, you may start to appreciate why uprooting an entire system to fix its flaws is not always constructive. Then again, I'm not a hacking genius.

Yup, I've told you how little time I have for these people:

Classic excusatarians: Well-off Americans who resist moving to plant-based diets because impoverished 3rd world people lack similar choices.
— Vegan (@vegan) June 11, 2013

It's really the silliest thing ever to argue against doing something that's better for people, because not everyone has the privilege to do it.

Not that this rant against anti-feminist trolls isn't valid in and of itself, but it made me think of having to defend plant-based eating, too.

This quote resonates--it's how I would characterize my job and what I like about it.

Wednesday roundup

Descriptions of China's labor camps make it to Kmart.

Doctors are overwhelmed by the sea of medical research, too.

The Onion adds nuance to the surveillance debate. So does Tom Friedman.

Carolyn subtly advises a woman to run in the other direction.

Tuesday evening roundup

No easy answers amid continuing, pointless bloodshed in Syria.

All the world needs is armed conflict over the Nile.

More compelling arguments to put the surveillance "scandals" in perspective.

Bruni on the mystery of persistent sexism. On that note, see these talk radio gems. And one woman's brilliant solution for responding to unsolicited crotch shots: send them on to the dude's mom.

There's  now a way to literally dip your balls in gold.

The lasers might convince some guys. MT @_colins_: Gold nanoparticles in your balls may be the new male contraception blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013…
— Matthew R. Francis (@DrMRFrancis) June 10, 2013

Metro has gotten so bad that there are calls for--wait for it--accountability.

Pigs are smart and they get bored.

I'm all for dietary ecumenicism but I can't miss an opportunity to point out that paleo is bullshit.

Here's a brilliant take-down of locavorism as an environmental effort. There are certainly reasons for eating locally, but food miles are not them. There is no substantiated way in which eating animals is better for the environment than eating plants, not even distantly grown ones.

Really, Rodale? Et tu? What kind of idiocy is "overindulging in potatoes may be a no-no if you're trying to lose weight"? I mean, that's a true statement, but it has nothing to do with potatoes; it's the overindulging part that will get you in trouble, by definition. So lay off the potatoes, bitches.

Wasting food wastes water.

It's better to eat food than take vitamins.


Prudence got a guy to reconsider is his upcoming marriage. See also this second letter (though the first is interesting, too) for what we've been talking about with regard to haughty scientist-atheists.

Does the world still need wedding registries?

Get over yourself, New York; you're no longer the theater capital of the country as you imply here. There's more to aspire to than Broadway.

Monday roundup and roundup and response to comments

Ecuador's nasty oil spill will hit Brazil.

These women at the forefront of Turkey's protests bring up an interesting question: why are women so angry? Why can't we just smile and look pretty? That "Everyday Sexism" project is giving women the deranged idea that they don't have to put up with what they'd accepted as the status quo level of bull$hit that comes with being female in this world.

This retrospective on European history as it pertains to the EU is interesting but I'm not convinced of its conclusions.

Sigh. Why must a common-sense issue like prison reform be made partisan?

Know your farm programs and pork producers. And stay the f* away from Krispy Kreme Sloppy Joes. The good news is, you'll have healthier options at national parks.

@vegan was on a roll today:

RT @bongoshoes if you had a list of 5 [vegan] essentials what would they be? >> fruit, veggies, grains, beans, CHOCOLATE ;)
— Vegan (@vegan) June 9, 2013

A big shout out to every 3rd rate writer who spent more energy trashing their vegan experience than figuring out how to make it work.
— Vegan (@vegan) June 10, 2013

All I can say to you if you're confused about sunscreen is that you're kind of f*ed either way. And for f*'s sake, you're an idiot if you buy designer water.

So much wisdom about life in general in Carolyn's advice to an expecting mom.

Why haven't we borrowed more from Chinese?

I love gargoyles and shapely asses, but there's something to be said for taste.

This time last year (well, tomorrow by date but it was a Monday night) I was on my way to Budapest. I'm glad that was last year and not this year.

Metro SUCKS.

Mark O'Connell beautifully articulates what I've been trying to say. First of all, really, people?

When Richard Dawkins was named the world’s “Top Thinker” in a poll recently published by Prospect magazine, it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the world—or at least that part of it that votes in such polls—must have an impoverished sense of what constitutes a vital or transformative intellectual figure. Any list of “thinkers” that doesn’t feature one woman in its top 10 (Arundhati Roy opened the scoring for the gals at No. 15) probably shouldn’t be taken completely seriously anyway, but the fact that it was the result of public voting does offer an insight into the kinds of ideas contemporary Anglo-American culture values most highly.

More to the point,

White is a nonbeliever, but like a lot of nonbelievers—me included—he’s frustrated with the so-called New Atheism’s refusal to engage with anything but the narrowest and most reductive understanding of religious experience, and its insistence on the scientific method as the only legitimate approach to truth.

and

You don’t have to devalue empiricism to believe that there are kinds of understanding that can’t be accessed in a controlled, peer-reviewed experiment. The problem, obviously, isn’t science; it’s the arrogance with which many scientists, and popularizers of science, dismiss the value of other ways of thinking about questions of meaning, about the world and our place in it.

and, so beautifully stated:

Scientism is essentially the belief, the faith, that all problems and questions are potentially soluble by empirical investigation (and that if they’re not, they’re somehow not real questions, not real problems). But there are large areas of human experience for which science has no convincing or compelling means of accounting. I am, I suppose, more or less an atheist, but when I read the Book of Genesis, I find that there is something profoundly true about the picture of human nature in those verses—a picture of our perversity and self-alienation that neuroscience, for instance, has no way of getting at or talking about. Schopenhauer, Freud, and Heidegger all give us comparable forms of truth—truths that aren’t verifiable or measurable in the same way as those of science, but that are no less valuable. The most important truths are often untranslatable into the language of fact.

I really feel that this is what turned me off of science (and onto literature) as early as college.

***
I didn't like "Black Swan." I see so much theater that close-ups strike me as overreach: who does the director think he/she is to tell me where to focus my attention? I did like that you couldn't tell what was real and what she was hallucinating; that was the best part, or the only thing that made the movie worthwhile: how those who want to destroy us can only do it if we let them in.


***
I think I will keep the speakers (in case they come in handy) and toss the CD. I really don't care about those photos anymore. It's funny--that was a relationship that dragged on three times as long as I was actually happy in it, and the bf's photographic skill and artistry was a factor in my convincing myself to stay in, even when it should have been clear that it was a dead-end. That (doomed) relationship influenced my dating behavior for years to come: it was a lesson in de-emphasizing shared interests (the man loved to hike, bike, and travel--what else could one want? A soul, for starters). In a way, the relationship that ended a year ago was a reversal of the overcorrection brought on by the former relationship: yes, it's okay to want to date someone who likes hiking and traveling. It does matter. It's not the only thing that matters, but it matters. I'm not compatible with someone who doesn't like that stuff, and he's not compatible with me. It hit me not too long ago how wrong I was to think I was the one doing the bulk of the "settling"--not in a binary way, but in consenting to a life without adventure--but it's so clear now that the same reasons that the (more recent) ex didn't care for camping were the same reasons he'd never be quite comfortable with me in general. He was obsessed with order; I valued the natural disorder that you let in because it's worth it. I'm not comfortable with sterility--with hospital-white walls, plastic decor, etc.; I prefer the warmth of outdoorsy things, even when they come with some mess.


All of this made me think about how everyone I've seriously dated has taught me how I am who I am by choice. I tend to go into the relationship thinking, "this person has figured out something I haven't," and I always leave thinking, "no, I've got that right." A few years ago I dated this hipster social worker--at the time, I was wondering whether I'd sold-out, career-wise, and I really admired that he hadn't--but after a few weeks, I saw how simplistic and pathetic he was. [Note: that conclusion is not to be extrapolated to all hipster social workers; I stayed with a lovely one in Prague last year (he was gay).] But this one was just a prick with a worldview unchallenged by interactions with anyone different.


None of these dudes was a waste of my time, even though they were all spectacularly wrong for me. I learned a lot from all of them; each of them--or at least my reaction and eventual rejection of each of them--is a part of who I am, for the better--and not just in ways that inform whom I would want to date. Although, arguably, anything that makes you who you are, informs who you want to date. But they've also taught me a lot about dating--particularly, to heed Maya Angelou's advice about believing you when someone shows you who they are. About not making excuses for them, or idealizing them. And about hanging back and letting the guy do the work early on in the relationship, because that really weeds out those who are either not into you or not into any work. So, that's what I've learned. As my boss would say, "onward."

Sunday afternoon roundup

Colombia's nightmare leaves a legacy of trauma.

Chunkush's last Armenian.

Ruth Marcus compares "The Invisible War" to "The Jungle." Kathleen Parker thinks women are miserable because they're ambitious.

Utah considers ag-gag.

Sunday morning roundup

This is an easy one: What do India, Brazil, South Africa, and the U.S. military have in common?

The latest appointees know that there's a steep price for "intervention on the cheap."

I've always loved the Washington National Cathedral but today I love it even more.

Only children are alright.

It's a great weekend to stay out of the Metro.

My two cents: customer service is about really listening and genuinely trying to resolve the issue without passing the customer off (or, worse, directing the customer) to multiple people. 

I've been to Suzdal, and it was pretty cool. The local choir was, indeed, amazing and the street vendors were just as described.

Why the legs article makes me angry

Or, a follow-up to this morning's post, specifically to this bull$hit. In light of Kate Fridkis's piece on what she wants for her unborn daughter. She wants her to not agonize over her body and her "flaws." Don't we all want that for our daughters and ourselves? That's a rhetorical question, coming from me, because obviously my own mother likes to make sure that I agonize over my body. But that's not what I would want for my daughters or for any other human being. And it's hard to achieve that--the not agonizing--when you've got people who profit from convincing you that there's something wrong with your legs, or anything else.

I can't fathom the self-hatred or other motivating factors of someone who would risk their functional, god-given limbs to achieve some bullshit standard of attractiveness. First of all, who do they think is looking at their legs or butts? Second, surgery is serious stuff; save it for when it's medically necessary. Third--I know this is easier said than done, but like I said, I've survived my mom's best efforts to the contrary--love your body. Tweaking it surgically is not going to change how you feel about yourself. There will always be something. This isn't the first or second or third time I've ranted or rambled about it, but I just can't get over it. I do believe it's up to us to overcome our body issues, but I wish the forces that would profit from cultivating our insecurities would give it a rest. Body hatred is a circle of hell that I've managed to avoid, but only just; it saddens me that so many other women are mired in it. It's just not worth it.

Decluttering dilemma

On Monday--wow, the week has really flown by--I blogged about my feng shui/decluttering kick. Whether or not you buy into feng shui (and there's a point early on where I don't), don't you agree that your surroundings affect you? Clutter in and of itself isn't conducive to clarity of mind, but there's also something to be said for feng shui's intolerance for broken things or things you don't need anymore. Anyway, I thought I was done--though there was still stuff that I didn't need, that wasn't working, but it would have to wait until the fall, when the city would do a special pickup for electronics and stuff. Only it wouldn't, because I got an e-mail from Mom's Organic Market saying that they'd be hosting a week of electronics recycling at their stores from June 22 to June 30th. You wouldn't believe the anticipation--I'm not sure when I last couldn't wait for something this much. I've prepared my old laptop (anyone know how to remove the hard drive, since I can't scrub it, because the computer's dead?), two cell and one landline phones, a $hit ton of batteries, cables, and chargers, some obsolete appliances, and a bunch of other crap (including--I $hit you not--VHS tapes and LAN cards--remember those?).

So I have a (non-ethical) dilemma. I fundamentally believe in clearing one's life of old and no-longer-needed things. I especially believe in clearing one's life of things associated with no longer needed relationships. But in sorting through my electronics, I came across two sets of things, each from a different ex: (1) a CD of (really amazing) photos (taken by the ex) from a trip from ten years ago; and (2) a set of speakers--the kind you attach to a laptop--casually given to me by the most recent ex. Do I get rid of both for the sake of getting rid of both? I never look at the CD; I think I have most of the pictures I want saved on my computer anyway. But still. And I haven't used the speakers... but they don't take up much space and I could give a $hit about my ex at this point, so shouldn't I just keep them in case they come in handy? Or is holding onto either or both in some way holding onto the exes?

Which brings me to another point: I'm all about a clean break from old relationships and I'm all about getting rid of stuff, but I think it's unrealistic, and at a certain point, counterproductive to try to erase a person from one's past. Isn't it healthier to just accept that that person was a part of one's past, but has no place in one's present? Getting rid of every trace isn't going to change the past; you can keep a thing or two and still leave the person in the past.

After my last breakup, I immediately deleted all photos of and e-mails/texts from the ex. It took months before I could entirely clear my physical and virtual spaces from traces of him, just because it would take time to stumble upon those traces. There are some things I can't really get rid of, but it just doesn't matter. A few traces are fine, negligible.

So--I'm asking--do I get rid of the CD and the speakers?