I may not be as cool as I thought I was

• Dec 29, 2008

I may not be as cool as I thought I was

Someone pointed out to me recently that no one skates anymore.

Honestly, I hadn't noticed.

Now that I think about it, when I first picked it up, about 14 years ago, there were a lot of people on inlines ("blades" hahahaha)
out on the streets, around Berkeley and SF, on the bike paths, and not just the kids grinding and jumping, but adults, just out for some exercise, or to get somewhere.
And looking around now, it seems that there is... just me.

And all of a sudden I realized; maybe I'm not as cool as I think I am.
Not even close.  Like not even 1/20th as cool as I assume.
Maybe what I interpret as a nod and smile of approval and vicarious enjoyment is actually strangers laughing at me.
Not that this upsets me, but its really interesting to think about.

You see plenty of people walking.  There seems to be a bigger bike culture today than there was back then (I've been cycling even longer than I've been skating, and more regularly and consistently.  It wasn't always so trendy as it is today).
Skating is no more or less practical means of transport, no more or less fun.
What happened to all the people who used to skate?  Did they all stop because they saw everyone else was doing it less?  Are trends really that integral to our lives that we let it dictate... everything?

This is so strange to me, to have been skating along all these years, and suddenly look up and everyone else is gone.

For me, its faster than walking, and more fun the bicycling (hard to dance on a bicycle), its free and its good exercise, and there are no laws regulating them so I can get away with riding on both the sidewalk and the street whenever I choose; I'm gonna keep my 10 mile commute to work whenever I can.

I say one of these days you should get your old skates out of the closet and come roll around with me. 
It'll be fun.

The root of the problem

• Dec 23, 2008

The root of the problem

For a long time now we have tried to believe in supply side economics (also known as Reganomics, closely related to the trickle-down theory).
Cut taxes and/or interest rates, which means people will have more money or borrow more (respectively), which they will in turn spend, and that spending will make the economy grow. Bush Jr. gave tax-payers not just a break, but a refund, calling it a "stimulus". This apparently did not work, because only a few years later we were at the point of handing billions of tax money over to major corporations.

The very idea that stimulating consumption can help the economy is flawed.



The goal is to increase the total amount of value circulating in the economy.
We want constant growth.
Setting aside for the moment the logical, ecological, and spiritual problems with never-ending growth, it is fairly straight-forward that consumption alone does not create anything.

Imagine several ship-wrecked survivors on a tiny deserted island. They have the luggage they brought with them, but nothing else.
Imagine they find some rare, beautiful shells, and decide to work out a system of representative currency using these shells.
It doesn't matter how much these shells are traded, saved, or spent. There is still the same amount of total value on the island.
No amount of consumption is going to increase the overall material holdings of the survivors. The only way any one person can amass anything more than they started with is at the expense of someone else.

As manufacturing has moved over seas, and produce is increasingly imported, we have moved to a service and finance based economy.
Nothing new is created by a service.
The finance industry is literally nothing more than moving virtual money - a placeholder for actual wealth - around, and skimming a transaction fee off the top.
Imagine one of our survivors loaning the worthless shells to another survivor, with a one shell per 100 interest rate, though there is nothing of any real value to buy.
Both the borrower and the investor still have no food, no clean water, and no shelter.

Perhaps one day someone comes across an enormous pile of shells, and places them into circulation.
You could say the total worth of our survivors has just increased - but obviously it doesn't mean anything. In fact, now that they aren't rare, each shell is worth that much less.

This is EXACTLY what happens every year, when the government literally prints up new money which is not tied to any actual increase in production.
They just print new money.
In fact, taxes pay for 59% of government spending. The other 41% comes from borrowing money (not much different from an American consumer with a credit card) and.... scooping more shells of the beach, and pretending that they have any value.
Since everyone agrees that $1 is worth some amount of real stuff, they can get away with this, but since they are spending without creating anything real, that value has to come from somewhere.
Where it comes from is out of every dollar held by every person in the country, as they become less valuable due to the increased supply. In a way, printing money to cover the deficit is a backdoor tax, a tax via inflation, but one which doesn't build us any new roads or guarantee healthcare.

When you think of the island, it is easy to see that this system isn't really doing any good overall.

In the scale and complexity of the real world, it can seem like something more is happening.
We gauge the economies success by the stock market - but the stock market is just trading money around. The stock market doesn't actually produce anything. Stock can go up in a company because the company has built something amazing and new - or it can go up because a lot of people think it will come up with something new. When someone starts shouting "soy" everyone thinks maybe they know something, and everyone buys soy. The mere fact of people buying drives the price up, even if nothing has changed in the real world.
When they speak of "investor confidence" this is exactly the phenomenon they are talking about.

So what does actually create real value?

The most basic ones are those which make raw materials available to us, mining, logging, and agriculture.
Then, the processes which turn those raw materials into more complex and useful things, the processes of technology. Manufacturing, construction, trade-crafts. These things cause something useful to exist which did not exist previously.

America was built on these very industries. Today they make up an increasingly small portion of the economy, overshadowed by finance (over 1/4!) trade and consumption.
It should go without saying that consumption does not create wealth. Production does. By definition.
As government regulation and import taxation decreased, industry increasingly moved overseas where they could find cheap labor. The cost of our cheap Asian and South American produced clothes and food is not only lost American jobs, but a loss of the creation of real wealth. It looks like the economy is growing as a few people get much richer, but if the entirety of GDP growth goes to the top 1% of the population...

(median income has actually dropped over the past 7 years, while total GDP has risen 19.9%. Currently the richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the entire lower 90% combined)

...then it doesn't do anyone else any good.

This is all an inevitable result of an increasingly free market. A deregulated market has lead to outsourcing labor and the obscene, unprecedented wealth we are seeing concentrated in the hands of just a few individuals; weakening unions (and accompanying loss of benefits and job security) and a massive trade deficit, not to mention untold environmental degradation.

It seems that at least that top 1% was genuinely benefited (albeit at our expense), but the very system is unsustainable at its very root.
We keep shuffling the same few items in the luggage that washed ashore around, but no one is doing any real work.
Eventually our creditors are gonna start calling in the debts (well, with 50% of the worlds military budget, no one would dare, but they will stop offering new credit)

We are not in an economic crises.
We have never seen an economic crises.
The Great Depression was not an economic crises.
Not like the one we are setting ourselves up for.

I believe it is not inevitable. It can be diverted. But the one chance we have is to drastically change our priorities - no, our entire outlook, define the ultimate goals in terms of the effect on average people, and be willing to challenge the wealthy who have bought a lot of power.
And we have to do it soon.


[NOTE: Consumption, while not creating wealth, does "create" jobs, in a sense, if and only if what is being consumed is American made goods - more here: "A Poor Person Never Gave Me a Job" http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/poor-person-never-gave-me-job.html]

The term "I told you so" comes to mind

• Dec 22, 2008

The term "I told you so" comes to mind

I would like to point out that in January of this year, I wrote about houses not being a sound financial investment.

Popularly "sub-prime" is thought of as referring to lending to people with poor credit history.  In fact, 61% of sub-prime borrowers had a credit rating high enough for a traditional loan.  The middle class tend to be at least as guilty of living beyond their means as the working class.  21% of those making over 100k a year say they live paycheck to paycheck.
At the time I wrote the blog an unprecedented number of people were deliberately buying houses grossly out of their means using interest only loans (which would never be paid off, by design) on the assumption (by both the consumer and the bank) that the housing market would continue to climb at the rate it was forever. 
That climb, however, was driven mainly by that very speculation, valuable only due to popularity.
This summer, 6 months later, so many people were defaulting on their loans that it affected the entire credit industry, and by extension, the entire economy.

I have an associates degree in economics.  How is it that I was able to see this, yet no one in the dozens of banks and credit institutions, nor the rest of the financial sector was?  Or perhaps were they just confident that friends in the white house would help out with tax payer money?

Stay tuned for the coming of my more direct predictions.

Sex vs. Morality (Warren was right)

• Dec 21, 2008

Sex vs. Morality (Warren was right)

The Warren controversy is over the following statement:

"But the issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

People are, of course, up in arms about this, as apparently comparing gays to people who commit incest or polygamy is extremely offensive.

Why is it ok to claim incest and polygamy are inherently immoral or unacceptable?
There have been, and currently still are, a great many cultures where polygamy is practiced, accepted, and legal.  Obama's father, in fact, was married to more than one woman at a time, which is legal in Kenya. 
We are talking consenting adults.  You personally may not want to share your spouse.  What reason do you have to deprive someone who does? 
It is legal, right here in California, for first cousins to marry.  Siblings are slightly closer than cousins genetically, which makes it slightly more likely that certain genetic illnesses which reside on regressive genes could surface if they had children together - but we aren't talking about having children.  Our sexual morays were developed long before the advent of accessible, safe, effective birth control.  Set aside that its gross and weird, and that you personally would never want to do it.  There is no objective reason why two siblings, who are consenting adults, shouldn't have sex if they so choose.  No one is harmed.  It isn't immoral.  Its unusual, (because our brains evolved before birth control. We naturally feel its gross, because its better for the gene pool to be mixed up), but there is nothing wrong with it.
So then, seriously, why shouldn't siblings be allowed to marry? 
When I first began a relationship with my ex-wife she was, technically, a child.  I was an adult, and in CA it was, technically, illegal (had I been 20, instead of 21, however, it would have been legal).  Of course, with a parents consent, a 17 year old can get married, and the age of the other party isn't relevant.  In different cultures and different times, what age is considered a "child" has varied.  There are a great number of countries - as well as most US states - which currently allow marriage at age 16, several at 14 (including 3 US states), and a few at 12.  In many cases (including in the US) this is below the age of adulthood.  Warren did not specify pedophilia (which implies a prepubescent child) nor the age of the older person.



The real issues are about sex - in general - and whether it is inherently immoral when used for pleasure; and about tradition and whether it is a legitimate basis for, well, anything.

Warren was not necessarily talking about morality.  As a Christian pastor, his beliefs, "morality", and understanding are all influenced by, if not directly based on, some book written thousands of years ago.  Essentially, tradition for tradition's sake.  It has nothing to do with reason, or actual morality (based on the harm or good done to real people), or common sense, or modern reality.

That is not an issue of Warren himself, or of conservatives, or of Christians.  Really, its an issue of having ANY tradition or text, religious or otherwise, dictate truth to you.  The real issue is faith verses reason.  If you accept a Christian as legitimate leader, you don't get to line-item-veto those things you don't like.  The Bible is not ambiguous on homosexuality.  (In fact, its rather more ambiguous on incest and pedophilia, and clearly accepts polygamy). 
Instead of demonizing one individual, why not focus on the source?

I happen to agree with pastor Warren 100%.  Those things he mentioned ARE similar to homosexuality.  They are different than normal, different than what most people do.  They are about sex, and as such are automatically pushed toward being considered immoral in many peoples eyes, independent of whether or not anyone actually gets hurt.  And they are not actually immoral in any way.  Creepy, maybe, but not immoral.

I find the response to his comments to be far more offensive than his comments themselves.
Prejudice is prejudice.  Progressives are supposed to be the enlightened ones.

A twitteresque moment

• Dec 19, 2008

A twitteresque moment

Fushi (the cat who lives with me) taught himself how to use the toilet so he wouldn't have to go out into the rain.

I will never call him dumb again.

A brief addendum to the free software blog

• Dec 11, 2008

A brief addendum to the free software blog

I just discovered a website which allows bloggers to easily add a feature so that readers can receive email updates when a new entry is posted, rather than using RSS feeds or randomly checking for new entries.

Alternatively, it can be used by readers to receive emails, even if the author hasn't set it up.
I just added one to my biodieselhauling server based blog (http://apps.biodieselhauling.org/blog). See, there it is, right at the top of the page, on the left!

for authors:
http://www.shootthebreeze.net/blogalert/myAlerts.php

If you can not access your source code, see if you can add a "custom script" to your side bar items.

for readers:
http://www.shootthebreeze.net/blogalert/

pretty straight forward, just do it once for every blog (or other RSS item) you want to follow

Its free.
Enjoy!

Moving upstairs

• Dec 9, 2008

Moving upstairs

The non-profit I work for is government financed.

We were trying to expand both our size and range of services for the
community, (not to mention securing better working conditions for the
employees), and many people had been working behind the scenes on this
project for a couple of years.  When I started 2 years ago it seemed
little more than a vague idea, but at each new meeting updates showed
it was coming closer and closer to a reality.

And then

Last week

I was invited to a last minute meeting, which I was told was very important.

At it we were told that the city (the smallest of 3 funding sources for
the project, but a vital component w/o which it could not happen) had
decided, unilateral, to rescind the (as yet unofficial) offer to back
the project, using the funds for a smaller, independent, temporary,
substitute instead.


The federal grant has been pending for almost 3 years, and is due to expire at the end of this year.
We were informed of this change early last week.

Not 'literally' last minute, but about as close as possible.

We had exactly THREE DAYS to prepare, between the sub-committee meeting
where we learned of the potential change, and the general city council
meeting where it would be voted on.

This is not an over-dramatization.  We had one chance to get it done, and get it done right.
If we did not convince the city council, the city funds would be
eliminated, which would mean we would lose the half-million dollar
grant, which would mean we would lose the half-million dollars of BART
support;
in other words, this one meeting would decide if it happened or not.

Our campaign began the next morning.

It involved, of course, fliers, posters, handouts.
It involved speaking in person to every single patron of our services,
calls to every cycling advocate and supporter in the area, connections
with the downtown business association, the Sierra club, allies in
government.

It involved secret meetings, letters and calls to the city counsel and
mayor's office, and countless, constant, emails between the primary
strategists involved.

The technical details about the workings of official political meetings were shared, so we would all know what to expect.

We recruited people who use our services to offer their support in person.

After getting home around 10 or so from a meeting, I was up at 5:30am to open the shop the next morning.
After work at 2, the rest of the day involved preparations for that evening.

6:30pm, co-workers and allies began trickling in.
At 7, as we walked to city hall, others joined us along the way.

Several popular things were on the agenda that night.

New members were being sworn in, which involved ceremony and speeches.
Many people were present to protest the hiring of John Yoo (the guy who
wrote the 'enemy combatant' laws in order to circumvent the Geneva
convention guidelines for treatment of prisoner's of war) by UC
Berkeley.

The council hall was full.
We were made to sit in the hallway downstairs.

As our supporters showed up to join us, we passed out signs, and waited
to be let in one by one as people there for other reasons left.

We were #28 on the agenda.

We expected to be there all night, waiting.

As an information item, we would be allowed 3 speakers, 1 minute each, and no vote would be taken at that time.

A council member moved that it be changed to an action item.
The mayor recognized that many people there were for our project, and asked just how many there were.
About 4/5th of the room stood.
The mayor moved it on the agenda to be addressed after the first
information item (a report by the financial analysis department.)

The city staff, which had come up with the alternate plan, gave their report.
They were grilled some on the numbers, and it seemed we at least had a chance.
Our line of people waiting to speak, from the manager of the project,
to the director of BART, to long-time patrons of the service who had
given up their cars only after finding out about us, went to the back
of the room.

It was a long night.

We won.

A practical and useful blog!

• Dec 6, 2008

A practical and useful blog!

No ranting here.

It has come to my attention that a lot of people don't really know about these options.

Chances are, if you are reading this, you have a computer, and if you have a computer, you will probably find one or more of these things useful.
They are free.
And they are even legal.

The first are related to security. Internet relate hacking can be a big problem when someone cracks into your computer remotely and ID thefts you. A bad virus can permanently crash computer. A dialer can rack up 100s in unauthorized phone charges by using your fax line to dial 900 numbers. Mostly its just annoying software that hopes to entice you to buy some stupid crap.
While Norton and McAfee would like you to spend $60 plus a ongoing subscription charge, you can get equally good protection from viruses, spyware, and hackers, all for free.

For viruses, try AVG Free.
 http://free.avg.com/
 For spyware (and a lot more under "advanced, if you so choose) install "SpyBot Search and Destroy"
http://www.spybot.com/index2.html
For a software firewall, there is ZoneAlarm (A firewall keeps people from accessing your computer remotely.)
http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/zonealarm-pc-security-free-firewall.htm(note: they want you to buy the pay version. Read carefully and keep clicking the free options. It is fully functional, and does everything you need)



There are plenty of other free security software out there, but not all are equal. In fact, there are some "spyware removal" programs which are actually spyware themselves, and "antivirus" programs which install their own viruses.
These 3 programs have been around for many many years, and are well known. They have been shown in tests to be as effective as the big brand name versions. I personally have been using them successfully for years.

Then there is plain old Mozilla Firefox. It seems most people already know about it. According to my data compiler, almost as many people access my website using it as use Internet Explorer. If you aren't among them: Firefox takes the place of Internet Explorer. It has fewer security flaws. It is easier to use, but at the same time has more options and is more configurable. The latest version of IE was basically them trying to catch up with the format Firefox has had all along (most obviously the "tabs" option, which allows you to have two subwindows open within the same main window.) There is the added bonus of not using Microsoft software.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
Chances are that you are using Firefox to read this right now.
But within it, there is something called "add-ons" which a lot of people never notice. Its in the menu bar under "tools".
Some examples:
AdBlock Plus. It will block all of the annoying flashing and animated advertising boxes and bars on 1/2 of the websites you use.
IETab. There are some webpages that don't function right in Firefox (because they have a deal with microsoft - they are rare, but there are some). Allows you to open a page in a virtual Internet Explorer window, within Mozilla.
Download StatusBar. Puts the separate download window in a more convenient spot at the bottom of the browser window (the same place where the search bar pops up when you hit cntrl F)
GMail notifier tells you with a tiny icon in the corner when you have a new message, to eliminate the need to check 60 thousand times a day when you are expecting something. There are similar add-ons for yahoo or Hotmail. They can handle multiple accounts, and can be configured to tell you who a new message is from and the subject, and/or to make a tone so you know even if you aren't at the computer.
There are many more options, which may be useful depending on what sort of things you do on the internet. There are over 2000.
They are free, and couldn't be easier to install.
Go to "add-ons" (under tools)
Pick what you want, download, restart firefox, done!
or
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

Finally:
Have you ever hit "copy" or cntrl C, and then a little later tried to paste what you copied into another place, only to discover that you accidentally copied something else more recently? Clipboard recorder remembers the last 100 things that you copied, so you can recall any of them, regardless of what you copied last. This may sound unnecessary right now, but believe me, after the first time you use it, you will wonder why it isn't built in to the operating system.
If I had to estimate, I would have to say I use it about 1 million times a day. 

http://www.lw-works.com/clipboard-recorder

All of these programs are genuinely free. There are no ads, no reminders begging you for money, and they are not illegal copies.
They are just free.
Some have pay versions, with more features.
Some simply were never made for the sake of profit.
If you like the software, I encourage you to donate to the people who created it.
Its a whole different outlook, creating things to share with the world, w/o attempting to extract as much as possible from it. But I said I wouldn't rant.

Enjoy

Black Friday

• Nov 29, 2008

Black Friday

Media and politicians would have us believe that consumerism is good for "the economy".

Most consumption is done at chain stores.
The majority of the durable goods (and a high percentage of food and other consumables as well) stocked at the majority of chain stores is imported.
That money only increases the American trade deficit.
Of course a percentage also goes to the corporation which owns the store.
This money goes to those people who have a significant amount of stock in chain retail stores.
Since most manufacturing jobs have been outsourced for cheaper labor, the only jobs this supports are the generally low-paying and benefit-free retail sales and stocking jobs.

Unless you buy exclusively from independent retailers selling exclusively US made goods, shopping has no beneficial effect on "the economy".
What they really mean when they say "its good for the economy" is that it supports the people who own stock.
Because, ultimately, there is no such thing as "the economy".

There is only people.
People have more or less money.

To a large extent value is created when skilled people make valuable things out of cheaper raw materials.
But a lot of economics also has to do with transferring wealth from some people to others.

When we transfer wealth to those who already have it, by shopping, or with government bailouts, its called supporting the economy.
When we transfer wealth to those who actually need it, its called communism.

I am not an ass burger

• Nov 24, 2008

I am not an ass burger

First of all, I wish to formally express my displeasure that the scientists and therapists were thoughtless enough to name a condition without giving thought to its potential for school yard ridicule.
They already have trouble with socializing, and are likely to be identified as different, (even though the in class helpers generally do a good job of hiding the fact that they are there for anyone in particular).  Eventually the term is gonna leak to the general public, and it won't be long after that until it trickles down to the school yard.
There was a time when "retard" was not an insult, but simply a descriptor of a person whose intellectual development was significantly slower than average.  It meant "mental disability".  "Cripple" just means "physical disability".  No matter how many times we change the names, kids will start using the new term as an insult, because its the content that carries the offensive meaning, not the eventual term.
But did we really have to give them "Ass-Burger"?

But I digress (and that's pretty bad, since I haven't even started yet)



I noticed quite a while back that I seem to attract a disproportionate number of teachers into my life - there can not possibly be as high a percentage in the general population as the percentage of my friends, dates, and clients are.  Who would do all the other jobs that need doing in society?  I don't know why this is.  I don't go looking for them.  They find me.  I am not, and have no interest in ever being, a teacher.  I haven't even gotten a bachelors degree.  And the chances are pretty high that I never will. 
But as it turns out, it gets even more specific than that.
Of all of my favorite people, 4 of them are currently or have in the past worked as in-class therapists/tutors for autistic/aspergers grade-schoolers, or in some similar way worked closely with them on a regular basis.
I realize it is being diagnosed more and more these days, but that's just weird.

Or is it?

"...difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others...
This social awkwardness has been called "active but odd".  This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive. The cognitive ability of children with AS often lets them articulate social norms in a laboratory context, where they may be able to show a theoretical understanding of other people's emotions; they typically have difficulty acting on this knowledge in fluid, real-life situations, however. People with AS may analyze and distill their observation of social interaction into rigid behavioral guidelines and apply these rules in awkward ways—such as forced eye contact—resulting in demeanor that appears rigid or socially naive.
Abnormalities [in language use] include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance, use of metaphor meaningful only to the speaker... unusually pedantic, formal or idiosyncratic speech...
Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors", but have difficulty understanding figurative language and tend to use language literally."

hmmm....

I obviously don't come close to many of the other common components (a narrow range of interests, for example, or repetitive behaviors)

I am not an AssBurger.
But I'm not sure I could claim to be "Neurotypical" either.

I always thought I was perfectly normal.
That it was everyone else around me that had the problems.
But there has certainly been an obvious pattern.  The same complaints, especially about my misinterpretations of people's language (which people who don't know me assume is deliberate), at least since high school (chances are I just didn't notice before that).
A lack of awareness of peoples emotional states or reactions.  All that subtle non-verbal stuff which I am told makes up the majority of communication... (not mine!).  Interpreting things literally (come on, honestly, wouldn't it just be so much easier if people just said what they mean?)  Annoyance that I am "too logical" (like that's supposed to be a bad thing?).  I have noticed sometimes that I can monologue with people who don't really care.  And that, I guess, is part of what distinguishes me, that I recognize it on my own (albeit only in retrospect)

Of course the number of DSM IV entries increases every year, and the number of people who fall into one of them does even faster.
At first there was just autism.  Either you were autistic, or not.
Then it was recognized that it isn't always exactly the same, and the definition was expanded to a "spectrum" of disorders.

10 years ago someone with Asperger's - socially inept, often physically clumsy, extremely well versed in some narrow subject, literal use of language - would have been referred to as a "nerd" (or possibly a "geek".  I get them mixed up).

It is now debated among professionals whether or not Asperger's should properly be considered as a subset of autism.  It can't be diagnosed by any one characteristic, risk factor, or written test.  In fact, it is usually diagnosed by not just a doctor or therapist, but by a team of them.  This is implicate of how complex and imprecise it is.

Given that I seem to fall somewhere in a range between aspy and neurotypical, I have to wonder if it is really something you either have or don't have.  But if there is a smooth and continuous range between them, and Asperger's itself is a part of a range of ASD (Autistic spectrum disorder), and there is no definitive way to draw concrete and consistent lines between these categories, perhaps the categories themselves are an artificial construct.

I am beginning to suspect that Asperger's (along with a great many "conditions") is perhaps the product of psychology professionals obsessive need to label and categorize everything.
Wait...
isn't that a characteristic of mental disorder?

Some more stuff other people wrote

• Nov 18, 2008

Some more stuff other people wrote

I'll write something of my own soon, promise.
Until then, here are two articles, with some steps you can take in your own daily personal life which will ultimately benefit everyone (not to mention your own wallet and health!).

_____________________________________

Because every time you buy gas, the terrorists win:

(Original artwork by Bakari Kafele)

"Wayne's driving obsession began after 9/11. Before then, he drove "75 miles per hour in the left-hand lane," but in the wake of the attacks he vowed to minimize his personal consumption of Mideast oil. As he sees it, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda received their operating funds from all the U.S. consumers who bought Saudi oil. That money paid for the construction work that made bin Laden's family rich. "If Osama bin Laden didn't have the money to burn," Wayne says, "he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. There was a direct relationship between our addiction to oil and the World Trade Center coming down."

Less consumption of Mideast oil would also make our economy less susceptible to spikes in the price of opec oil, which have triggered U.S. recessions. More than half the gas we pour into our vehicles in America is imported, and we send more than $4 billion a week abroad to buy oil. If we all got a 25 percent improvement in fuel economy (far less than the 50 percent improvement that Wayne and his hypermilers routinely get), we could reduce by half the oil we import from the Mideast for our cars. And then there's global warming. "I'm not just doing this for myself," Wayne told me before we met. "I'm doing this for my country and the world."

...

in 2002, Wayne bought a Toyota Corolla to replace the 1999 Nissan truck he had been using for his daily commute to the power plant. Online, he saw that "guys in Priuses were bragging about 44 mpg, and I was doing better in a Corolla." But it was driving his wife's Acura mdx that moved Wayne up to the next rung of hypermiler driving. That's because the suv came with a fuel consumption display (fcd), which shows mpg in real time. As he drove, he began to see how little things—slight movements of his foot, accelerations up hills, even a cold day—influenced his fuel efficiency. He learned to wring as many as 638 miles from a single 19-gallon tank in the mdx; he rarely gets less than 30 mpg when he drives it. "Most people get 18 in them," he says."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.html

(Summary: You don't need a hybrid.  Just slow down.)

_________________________________________
But wait, there's more:

Our collective diet uses as much energy as our driving.  Eating vegetarian, local, and organic, isn't just about health or the poor little animals.  Its also about our environment and energy independence.  Energy independence is also a matter of national security, so eating low on the food chain should be a priority for both the left and the right.
Excerpted from: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/11/diet-for-a-warm-planet.html:

"Our migration from the Profligate to the Sustainable Hemisphere requires us to trim atmospheric CO₂concentrations from 385 to 350 ppm, which we can do by cutting emissions by the same 10 percent. Right? Not quite. Atmospheric CO₂
concentrations are rife with long-term feedbacks, both positive and negative, and our current saturation level reflects 250 years of anthropogenic emissions, not just last year's.

So how do we come up with a goal? I'm not a PhD in atmospheric sciences, and neither are you, probably, so this is more in the realm of the hypothetical diet, designed to make a qualitative difference while convincing the world's leaders that we're serious about forcing them to join us in the fight. The United States emits 13.1 trillion pounds of CO₂ a year, 22 percent of the total annual global emissions—about 43,000 pounds per American. But before we start deconstructing the merits of fluorescent lightbulbs, let's consider the bigger picture. Yes, China is catching up and by some estimates has already surpassed us. Yet the vast majority of the 385 ppm clogging the atmosphere was emitted by us.

Since America is responsible for 22 percent of annual emissions, I suggest we set a target of shrinking our personal carbon footprint by 22 percent, or 9,606 pounds. If Americans all did this, it would mean we'd take a disproportionate chunk out of that 385 ppm—which China and India would fairly argue that we should. Twenty-two is a hefty number with an alliterative ring to it and is indicative of serious intentions. If enough of us pull it off, 22 percent has the power to fuel a movement our leaders will follow.

So what would a 22 percent diet look like? Step Two is all about losing weight.

Seriously. Body fat. My personal flab is not just a private matter between me and my coronary arteries. Nineteen percent of US energy usage—about as much as is used to fuel our cars—is spent growing and delivering food to the average American who consumes 2,200 pounds of food a year. That's a whopping 3,747 calories a day—or 1,200 to 1,700 more than needed for personal or planetary health. The skinny truth is that as much as 7.6 percent of total energy in the United States today is used to grow human fat, fat that translates to 3,300 pounds of carbon per person.

Sure, liposuction is an untapped fuel source—and New Zealander Pete Bethune extracted 3.38 ounces of his own fat to add to the biofuel powering his carbon-neutral boat, Earthrace. But a more sustainable strategy would be to avoid growing the fat in the first place. A comprehensive Cornell University study found that we could cut our food energy usage in half by simply eating less, cutting back on meat and junk food, and considering the source of our food.

For starters, half of our food energy use comes from producing and delivering meat and dairy. If we gave up just meat, we could maintain that hefty 3,747-calorie intake but consume 33 percent less in fossil fuels doing it. If Americans cut just one serving of meat a week, it would equal taking 5 million cars off the road.

One-third of those 3,747 daily calories comes from junk food—potato chips, soda, etc. We can save on fossil fuel costs in this area by installing more efficient lighting, heating, and cooling in the plants that make the stuff and by using less packaging materials. But we'd save a lot more if you and I simply bought less of it. A can of diet soda, for instance, delivers only 1 calorie of food energy at a cost of 2,100 calories to make the drink and the can. Transporting the components and the finished product costs even more, and shipping processed food and its packaging accounts for much of the problem of America's food averaging 1,500 travel miles before it's eaten.

Ideally, we'd eat our recommended 2,000 to 2,500 daily calories from food grown on smaller, traditional, and organic farms—particularly for dairy and meat, which are extremely energy intensive in their nonorganic forms. To make this work, though, we also need to buy locally, since organic can be grown halfway around the world, and that's hardly sustainable. True, local produce could find its way to your table via too many polluting pickup trucks, but buying locally from sustainable farms generally produces a smaller carbon footprint than factory farms with their fuel-heavy pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and travel miles.

But wait, you say, it's too expensive to buy all that local, organic, boutique food. Well, demand drives the market toward affordability. Today nearly 5,000 farmers markets across the US provide fresh neighborhood food to cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The number is growing (up 18 percent between 2004 and 2006) and the farmers are profiting ($1 billion in sales in 2005). The Agriculture Department now provides farmers market vouchers to low-income mothers and seniors—though not yet enough. The next big step in trimming fossil fuel costs is community-sponsored agriculture (csa), where paid subscriptions support a local small farmer, who supplies his subscribers with weekly deliveries of fresh, neighborhood food. There are now 2,000 csas nationwide. What begins as an elite market eventually becomes something common. But it only happens if you and I make it happen.

Our best friend in making it happen is higher fuel costs, which will eventually make some local food cheaper than distant food. Higher gas prices have already prompted Americans to cut back on driving over the last year by just under 5 percent. That's a bigger decline than during the gas crisis of the 1970s, and it was accomplished without too much pain.

To get to our goal we need more like a 25 percent decline in driving. That and one less 1,100-mile plane trip per person would save us each an estimated 2,365 pounds of carbon. Assuming we've saved 3,300 pounds of carbon by going on an actual diet, we've already gotten halfway to that 22 percent reduction in our carbon footprint without sweating. Closing the gap is easy. Even a middling hot water heater produces 3,000 lbs of carbon a year. So when the time comes to replace it, get an on-demand model that doesn't labor to keep 40 gallons of water hot round the clock. Until then, turn down the temperature to 120° F (carbon saved: 500 lbs). While you're at it, turn your thermostat down in winter and up in summer (2,000 lbs) and compensate with sweaters and solar shades or glazes. Hang your clothes to dry; you'll cut 1,440 pounds of carbon, plus gain a few meditative moments with your laundry. My personal favorite: Shop thrift stores. You get to be more of a recycler, less of a consumer, especially if you donate your stuff back when you're done with it. With almost every decision we make, there's a carbon way to look at it. (See "Where Carbon Comes From.") So do an audit. And share your goals with others. Diets work when we support each other. Just as no bar-tailed godwit can make it to New Zealand and back again on its own, neither can we. The secret to Step Two is to learn to flock. Any one of us changing out our lightbulbs is helpful. Many of us acting together becomes a force."

Don’t let the shadow of a rat keep you from feeling the sun

• Nov 8, 2008

Don’t let the shadow of a rat keep you from feeling the sun

[This was written by my mother, and is re-posted here without permission]



There are so many reasons that I am euphoric about Obama's landslide election to the position of President of the United States that I can't begin to name them all, and when I try, I get tangled up in words, none of which can adequately express all the reasons.

At first I was happy not to have to explain anything as most people around me share my elation, and people all over the U.S. , and indeed around the world, understand in great measure the significance of what just happened here.

However, by the day after the election I was disheartened by the number of people in my LGBT community who were so disillusioned and depressed by the gay-marriage set-backs that they failed to be moved by the significance of Obama's election. It is not all LGBT people, by any means, who are too boggled down by that single issue to appreciate the magnitude of the good thing that just happened. But a significant number seem to be.



Then too are those whose political understanding is narrowed in other ways; those who, for example, believe that the only event worthy of the term "revolutionary" is one where a capitalist system is replaced by socialism overnight. Surely there will be those who say of Obama, as they said of Roosevelt , "he saved the capitalist system from itself," and they will see him, therefore, as an anti-hero.

My initial reaction was to feel sorry that some of my friends and associates were missing out on something so wonderful and I put forth my arguments of why they should celebrate, not mourn, this incredible moment.

As I continued to hear from more and more LGBT people for whom the (temporary) gay marriage defeat overshadowed the election of the first Black president of the United States (who also happens to be more progressive than most presidents of our lifetime), I began to get annoyed by the tunnel vision of so many in the LGBT community who, (like so many individuals in so many oppressed groups), can only see their own oppression, their own struggle, their own specific needs, and can do no more than give lip-service to any other cause. I don't know why I always expect more of activists, (and of everyone I know personally), but I do.

Finally, I came to terms with the fact that badgering people haphazardly with various reasons they should be absolutely elated right now rather than sad and self-pitying was not helping anyone, and that I was wasting too much time reacting to the statements of individuals one at a time. I decided it would be much more productive for me to try to organize my thoughts and share them with everyone at once – and then let it go and let people choose to appreciate or not the wonder of this moment.

So let me begin by taking head-on what is getting in the way of so many of my LGBT sisters and brothers:
Learn the difference between a set-back and a defeat. The struggle for LGBT rights that has taken place over my lifetime has made so much incredible progress in such a historically short period of time. Are you old enough to remember the 50's when people were arrested merely for being in a gay bar (and when there was no where else for gay people to meet)? We have now come so far that so many people have the luxury of believing that acceptance of gay-marriage IS the (whole) struggle today.

To date we have been so successful in our struggle for equal rights that in our battle for gay marriage, the opposition resorts to defending domestic partnership as being what we have a right to. Don't your see? They are not positioned to take away the rights we have already successfully won, so much as they are desperately trying to keep us from getting more. The opposition is actually on the defensive trying to stem the tide of freedom and equality as we march forward.

Did you expect that we would never have a set back? Did you think all our work was done? Did you think we could sit back, ignore the need to keep educating "the masses" and let the Courts do our work for us against the will of voters, and it would stick with no more effort on our part? Changing minds takes time, but we have made incredible progress over my short life time and we will continue to do so.

Losing a battle is not losing a war. This is a set back, not a defeat. Gay marriage is only a matter of time, and when that time comes, I hope all the people whose vision has tunneled down to that single limited cause, will open their eyes and see how much more we still need to struggle towards.

Now, as to those who object to my use of the term "revolutionary" in describing the magnitude of the meaning of Obama's election:

As I see it, revolution is not just about a sudden over-night change from one economic system to another. If you agree that a process of movement can take place from a current state of reality toward some goal of a better state of reality, than that is what I call progress. Progress is generally a slow process. Like evolution. Revolution is evolution suddenly sped up a whole lot. A jump-start into a new era.

Do not mistake my elation for the illusion that Obama's election will lead to utopia. No revolution leads to utopia. There is no utopia - never was - never will be. There is no such thing as perfection. You will never have the opportunity to experience euphoria if you must wait for perfection before you allow yourself joy.

Nor do I see Obama as some kind of political messiah that will move our country from capitalism to socialism. Actually, at 53 years old, I can not say that I feel certain that changing the U.S. from a basically capitalist system to a completely socialist system is absolutely necessary in order to save the planet from extinction and meet human needs. Perhaps capitalism is an inevitable impediment to achieving freedom, justice, peace, equal opportunity, and meeting everyone's basic needs and perhaps it's not – I don't know for sure. Personally I would prefer either a semi-socialist system like they have in some European countries, or at least a much less extreme form of capitalism.

But will the U.S. ever get there? I don't know. I do believe that if it does, it will be through progressive steps in the right direction, such as social security, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. (all the things that Roosevelt brought in and which Republicans and some Democrats have been trying to get rid of), plus heavier taxation of rich corporations and using the money for human needs (education, health care, infrastructure, social services, etc.) plus more regulation and enforcement of laws that protect human rights here and abroad.

It will not be through armed insurrection. To begin with, revolutionaries have neither the arms nor the popular support to achieve a violent overthrow of this government. And I am glad of that. Because I do not believe that "the ends justify the means". I believe that the means determine the ends. Violence begets violence. There is no way to peace; peace is the way. The only revolution worth having will be the changes made by a popular majority of people educated and empowered to use what democracy we have to make the changes we need for a better country and a better world.

In any case, just like with gay marriage, the overthrow of capitalism is not my single minded purpose in life. Perhaps being mixed race and bi-sexual has forced me to always be cognizant of more than one struggle, more than one oppression, more than one cause. Then again, most people around me today, white as well as black (and 'other'), LGBT as well as straight, seem to get it; seem to understand the amazing significance of what just took place.

It is not Obama that is the "almost-miracle." It's great that he is as progressive as he is on domestic issues and the environment. It is too bad that he is not (yet?) more progressive regarding foreign policy and our relationship to foreign countries and our role in the world. We hope with bated breath and caution (and readiness to take to the streets) that he won't pull us out of one war only to rush us into another. It's great that Obama seems more like a real human being to me than any president in my adult life time...someone who I can relate to, identify with, who I could see being friends with. It's great that Obama seems so honest and real (very unusual in a president candidate – let alone an elected president).

But the "almost miracle" is not Obama. The "almost miracle" is the fact that the U.S. elected him president.

On the race issue alone, this is an "almost-miracle." This is the part that so many people all over the world get. People outside the U.S. are very aware how racist the U.S. has always been, even if so many white people in the U.S. fail to see it. That the U.S. elected a black person (any black person) to be president IS a revolution in the consciousness of America . It is also a conscious raising model for the world. People will think: if it can happen in the U.S. it can happen anywhere.

But this is not just a step forward in the struggle against racism. It is a major step for all struggles for civil rights, equality, justice; a major step forward for the U.S. , in fact for all humanity. If you think that any minority (such as LGBT people) will succeed in all their endeavor for equal treatment, while the great grandchildren of slaves continue to be treated us 3rd class citizens, you are sorely mistaken. This victory for one very oppressed group is a victory for all oppressed groups. In fact, it is a victory for everyone, as it is a very beneficial step in our common evolution and provides so much more hope in the world for our mutual survival and betterment of the world.

Add to the immense significance of Obama's ethnicity, the fact that Obama appears to be standing to the left of any president we ever had (certainly in MY lifetime). The fact that he is so focused on unifying people on the left and the right is not such a bad thing either – even though it means negotiation, compromise and slow progress. We don't move forward alone. We must bring "the people", all the people, along with us. We are one species, one humanity and our seemingly endless wars of "us & them" hurt all of us. We must learn to befriend our "enemies" and educate instead of alienate if humanity is ever to learn peace.

So again I say that Obama's election is such a massive historic, significant, consciousness expanding and paradigm-changing event that it far outweighs a relatively minor set-back in the struggle for gay rights including marriage.

Well, I can not tell people how to think or what to feel. It just saddens me when so many of my sisters and brothers deprive themselves of the awesome emotional appreciation of this unique (possibly once-in-a-lifetime) experience of such revolutionary significance and social/political/spiritual/human magnitude. To many of us it felt almost as powerful and miraculous as it must have felt to South Africans when Nelson Mandela became president there. There have always been many parallels between the U.S. and South Africa . And now we have a president who, like Mandela before him, is attempting to become president to ALL the people of his country and respect everyone's rights. He may have the political savvy not to undermine his efforts by coming out for gay marriage as soon as (or before) he takes office. But he did include us in the very beginning of his speech as he stated that he intended to represent everyone, "Black and white, gay and straight." Can you name one president (other than Nelson Mandela) who ever said that before, let alone in the beginning of his acceptance speech on the day he was elected president? ( Clinton said, "Don't ask, don't tell.")

Although there is so much more work to be done, many of us were thrilled to experience this wonderful feeling of liberation from the old paradigms that said a Black president of the U.S. in our lifetime was impossible. I suppose which ever LGBTs still don't get it, might feel it one day when an LGBT is elected president. If they let themselves feel it even then. I certainly hope so. I don't know whether I will live that long, so I am glad I can feel it now. But the fact that Obama was elected president gives me hope I never had before that an LGBT president COULD be elected in my lifetime (not to mention a woman.) Obama provides hope for ALL struggles, ALL oppressed people. And enough of us knew that and felt that through the core of our being to participate in the communal euphoria that spread all over this country and around the world when Barack Hussein Obama II was elected president of the United States of America.

As I noted in one of my responses yesterday, I think many of us activists are so used to struggling and fighting for our rights and complaining about everything that we think is bad or that we think should be better, that we don't know how to react when something wonderful happens (especially if it doesn't fit into our black/white thinking of the many things we label "bad" and the few things perfect enough to label "good") and then we completely miss the moment and the extra-ordinary experience that we could be sharing with all the forward-thinking people of the world.

Wake up and smell the (de-caffeinated fair-trade) coffee.

This is a wonderful moment. It is big enough to last for many a day. It is not too late to appreciate it. Take a minute to soak it in and bask in a well earned euphoria before marching on to the next plateau.

With nothing but love for us all,

Dajenya

5000/10,000

• Nov 4, 2008

5000/10,000

I wrote some months ago about this same thing, but this time its even more extreme.

On my original MySpace blog, I have reached over 5,000 page views.
[UPDATE: on my current blogger blog, I'm at 23,000 views]
Its been 2 and a half years, 125 entries.
[Its been exactly one year, and 150 posts]
5.5 views per day, on average (although, of course I don't write nearly that often.  More accurately, about 40 views per entry)

[average of 60 views per day - but not evenly distributed; in Dec there were 3,862 views for 124 per day - or 150 views per post on average]
9 readers.
[9 again!  plus 4 email subscribers]
That would be, on average, 570 views per subscriber, or 4.5 views per blog.
[but, well, this time I know most of my views are coming from Google - but there are still numerous reads of posts that don't show up from any search engine]
But why would you read each one 4 times?
So then are actually 4 times more readers, who haven't "subscribed"?
Kind'a seems like a lot.
Who are they?
Why won't they leave a comment?
This is what I asked last time.

My new blog, on my website server, has only been up since Feb. of this year.
8 months ago.
It has over 10,000 hits
(I was planning to write this at 10,000, but by the time I noticed, it was already up to 10,200)
33 new entries since then.
Over 40 hits per day, average.
80 per entry, assuming people reading the new one went back and read every single past one.
300 views per entry if people only read the new ones as they are posted.
And presumably my MySpace readers are still reading on MySpace, since they get automatic updates when there is a new entry which they can access by just clicking the link in the email.
So that eliminates 9 (or 40) people.
I can think of a few obvious people I know are probably checking for updates on the biodieselhauling server now and then.
But not 80-300.
Maybe extra because of checking when there is nothing new. 4 times per day?  I can't even think of 10 people.

So.
I ask again.
Who are you?
Write in the comment section.
I am so curious.

This is too much

• Oct 12, 2008

This is too much

You all know what has been going on.

I didn't seriously expect things to get so...
so quickly

I feel ok
Better than ok

I am in constant awe of everything, of everything, not just the people in my life and our interactions, and it is non-stop, it has been constant - and all but overwhelming - nearly every moment for as long as I can clearly remember (which is about the past two months or so)

As I mentioned before, it is exhausting - but with a week off last week (off from working anyway, though a date, time with friends, and/or a party every single day; and somehow I am becoming aware of my age?  While I have felt like a kid playing grown-up all my life, (well, except when I really was a kid.  Then I felt much more mature than my peers.  Its like I have been at the same maturity level my whole life, and at some point I grew into it, but then I kept aging as it stayed the same (I'm (mostly) kidding)), I have been noticing certain details - owning my home, running a business, being divorced, driving conservatively - which I always associated with "real" adults.  Yet recently I seem to be in the young adult world all over again) I feel re-energized and ready for more.

Except that now I am starting to fear hurting certain people (who shall remain nameless and detail-less to protect the privacy of the innocent (particularly since I was specifically asked to and I am most certainly not the type to pull a Lucy Ford on anyone, no matter how disgruntled or resentful I might be - not that I am, not at all, but I'm just saying, in theory, none of you ever have to worry about that; although I tend to assume that anything is ok just so long as you don't tell me otherwise so if you want not to be mentioned here make sure and tell me explicitly because I'm not any good at taking hints) and while I knew in theory this possibility was lurking, I really never expected it and so now I'm wondering how to cope if this trend continues on its current trajectory and certain other things pan out in a way like they look like they might possibly could and of course I am basing this on solittle, I am, and I know it, but it sure looks more likely than average and I can't help but to think about worst case scenarios and its making all sorts of wacky (and sometimes terrible! :( ) things pass briefly  through my mind (the sort of things which are in direct opposition to the ideas in the love essay I've been telling you all I have been working on (I really have been, life is just very distracting at the moment and its hard to focus) if you know what I mean).
I added a note on the ok account about these potential changes, and deleted the lines with Craig, but as Malomar would have it, these actions are exactly 2 hours too late and as things are I don't feel like it would be reasonable to not at least find out because this is a potentially narrow opportunity to learn, and its too important not to find out.  Is it selfish?  That is the question I am struggling with.  That is the question which is forcing me to write this against my better judgment.  Everything I have said has been true, but all of us know (sometimes we choose to ignore, but I believe that deep inside everyone of us knows) that it is always more complicated than can be forced into a set of rules or theories.

My next therapy session is not going to have enough time to cover a small fraction of all this.
The hour goes by unbelievably fast every time as it is, even when I come in feeling like I don't have much to talk about (this isn't just my perception, he is surprised every week when time runs out)

Bonus Points:

If any of my readers actually read through this and are able to make sense of all the ((((())))) and explain in more comprehensible terms what the hell I am talking about here, I will take you out: ice skating or for ice cream; your choice, my treat (your explanation has to be accurate)

Conceptual outlook’s effect on perception and sense of self

• Oct 6, 2008

Conceptual outlook’s effect on perception and sense of self

These ideas are still brand new to me, still forming, and so will perhaps be disjointed, unclear, contradictory, or incomplete.

I had already been thinking about similar ideas somewhat, and of course elements of it have been recurring themes of mine where philosophy intersected real life for many years.
It was in therapy yesterday that it just began to coalesce, several disparate ideas coming together as part of the same general concept.

I'm starting to think that our core philosophical ideas and outlooks, vague general things which we aren't likely to be conscious of, have enormous effects on real everyday things.

It began because he complemented my progress, how far I had come from the time I started going.
(You no doubt remember the state I was in around the time I first went)
It wasn't so much about being able to be self-reflective, let things go, or make positive changes.
It was about being willing to try. Being willing to look at myself in the way necessary to do these things, to be honest about my faults.
To me this sounded like a very strange compliment.

There is no courage here.
This is to my own benefit.

I can see how changing implies admitting you aren't perfect already, and if you aren't perfect, then in a sense there is something "wrong" with you. We don't want to believe there is anything wrong with us, and rather hurt self-esteem (ego, pride) we hold on to our destructive habits and personality traits.

But he suggested that it may be tied in with not just self-esteem, but the very sense of self; with identity.
I have heard this recently. An unhappy person I spoke to recently said she has been a mother and a psychiatrist for so long... who is she if she isn't those things anymore?
He (my therapist) suggested if a person has been depressed their whole life it may become part of their definition of self so that they don't know who they are if they aren't depressed, don't know what to do with them selves I guess.
Perhaps a lot of us type-cast ourselves, and expect everyone else to as well.

I don't understand why we need an identity, what purpose it serves.
I feel, and always have felt, that I am defined as that which is aware of the experiences and sensations which happen to me, that which is doing the thinking.
I look back, and whatever age, whatever stage I was in, it was never "someone else" because I hold memories of that time. Even if I was different in some ways, no matter how dramatically different, it was me, because I am me. I am not the collection of my qualities. I'm just me. So the concept of "identity crises" (oh my god! I don't know who I am!?!?) seems silly, and the idea of changing who you are does equally so. You can't change who you are. You can change opinions, beliefs, preferences, behaviors, but you are still you, and always will be (barring massive head trauma or degenerative neurological disease).

I think if a person is centered in their own mind, focused on their experiences, it might never occur to them to question who they are. Identity only becomes relevant in the social context of comparing self to others. So then identity ties in with self-esteem, in that it also has meaning only relative to others. Having self-esteem, high or low, means you are focusing on yourself relative to everyone else. With low-self esteem you meet someone new and imagine they must think badly of you. With high self esteem you meet someone new and assume they think well of you. When I meet someone new I am too focused on what I think of them to imagine what they might think of me. To have self-esteem, or, possibly, any identity at all, is quite self-centered; its as if we go through life with our eyes outside of our heads, turned around and focused on ourselves.

I think it may be healthier and more productive to have our eyes inside of our heads, focused out on the world. I suspect it is healthier to have no self-esteem than high self-esteem.

In this case the philosophical idea is the way of looking at people, feeling it natural to categorize and define people has the real life personal effect of limiting potentially positive changes.


Perhaps also the society wide valuation of freedom for its own sake has implications for individuals too. I suspect part of why so much is made of freedom has a lot to do with the capitalist model, giving the wealthy, the elites, and corporations the freedom to do what they like while assuring everyone else that freedom means the hypothetical possibility of upward mobility.
Of course it wouldn't do to say it that way, instead one of our most cherished values as a nation is freedom in general. Many of us feel indignant about retaining the right to do even stupid, self-destructive things, (driving without a seat belt, for example) not because there is any personal benefit, but just on general principal.
(digression: I used to feel strongly about principals, but I think now that any principal which doesn't consistently lead to some positive result for real specific individuals is not a valid principal. In other words, nothing should ever be don "just on principal". If there isn't another reason behind it, then the principal itself is invalid.)
No one ever tells us freedom is valuable. Its talked about as if it goes without saying. Its what makes America great so obviously it must be great.
As a result we don't really like being told what to do, even when we know there is a good reason or that the advice is sound. People resent any intrusion on their personal freedom, especially when (ironically enough) it comes from the very people who promoted the idea it was inherently valuable in the first place (and all of this of course ties into all the people I have spoken to the past few months promoting anarchy).


I think societies views on sex, marriage, and relationships is changing due not only to additional freedoms and liberties, (feminism, decoupling marriage from religion) but also due to technology, and it had been so for long enough (multiple generations) that its internalized to the point that some things seem to go with out saying, so we aren't even aware we are thinking a particular way.
I think all of these individual components are good things, but all combined there seem to be unintended consequences which profoundly affect how each of us as individuals view our own relationships, and therefore ends up having a profound impact on individual life choices, and ultimately, happiness.

But I have already begun working on the essay that will expand on that example, so I will leave it at that for now.