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.