There must be something wrong with me

• Sep 28, 2007

There must be something wrong with me

I say "have a good night"

They respond "enjoy your weekend"

It sounds pretty stupid, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I always feel like maybe they are trying to show me up with a superior salutation (wait, does that mean greeting? what is the term for goodbyes?)
Like I should say "on yeah, well enjoy your whole week! Have a good month!!!! I hope your whole life is filled with meaning, pleasure, and goodness - motherfucker!"

These thoughts would not occur to normal people would they?


Here is an unrelated question.
I have asked it before, but no one ever answered it.

I have 7 readers (one of the 8 is really me)
This blog has supposedly been read 16 times today, and 95 this week, although there have only been 2 posts.
Who are you? Where did you find me? Why don't you ever comment? Or are the same 7 people refreshing the page over and over and over, 13.5 times each, (or is it all Beth, who mentioned doing something like that once, refreshing the page 83 times this week?)
On average each post has had 26 views. Maybe thats normal. Someone must be reading this and knows the answer and refuses to tell me. You, whoever you are, are just so weird.



See my new profile picture? One of the earliest cars with the Tango. It probably won't be the car of the future, but it should be. 2 Passenger electric car, powerful, fast, full steel racing style roll cage, thin enough t lane split or park between 2 regular parking spaces facing the curb. The traffic jam would go the way of the model T.
Unfortunately, the reasonably affordable models are only concept cars until they get more funding.

George Cloony bought one of the first of their top of the line sports models.



hour and a half till I get to go home...

Abridged list of enemies in EarthBound on SNES

• Sep 26, 2007

 

You may well be wondering why I am posting an abridged list of EarthBound NPC adversaries.

I have no good answer for you.

All I can say is that was one of the greatest games ever, primarily because of the various people and things your character had to battle.

They never made an English version of the sequel. (It was a Japanese game. I read that the characters and scenarios were in part making fun of American culture)

If I remember correctly, this list is in order of difficulty (i.e. the ones near the bottom are more powerful)
I picked only the ones which amused me most. There are many more like this in the game.

Spiteful Crow
Mobile Sprout
Unassuming Local Guy
Ramblin’ Evil Mushroom
New Age Retro Hippie
Annoying Old Party Man
Territorial Oak
Mole Playing Rough
Happy Happyist
Worthless Protoplasm
Handsom Tom
Smelly Ghost
Urban Zombie
No Good Fly
Zombie Processor
Slimy Little Pile
Armored Frog
Plain Crocodile
Violent Roach
Rainboob
Smilin’ Sphere
Cute Li’l UFO
Mad Taxi
Crazed Sign
Annoying Reveler
Scalding Coffee
Mystical Record
Musica
Enraged Fire Plug
Clumsy Robot
Dali’s Clock
Abstract Art
OverZealous Cop
Kiss of Death
High Class UFO
Demonic Petunia
Even Slimier Little Pile
Hostile Elder Oak
Big Pile of Puke
Manly Fish
Manly Fish’s Brother
Master Barf
Lesser Mook
Atomic Pover Robot
Starman Deluxe
Ego Orb
Soul Consuming Flame
Psychic Psycho
Molecule
Loaded Dice
Carefree Bomb
Wild ’N Wooly Shambler

Love

Sep 18, 2007 

Love

My definition:

Several parts, all absolutely necessary without exception.

(In no particular order)

Intimacy:

Which I consider to also consist of two parts –

Trust: one should be willing to tell the other what they think and feel.

Comfort: one should be as comfortable doing or saying anything in front of the other as they would be if they were alone

Care: I define this as not only feeling sympathy, but the willingness to make a personal sacrifice for another's gain. One is not only willing, but will take the initiative to give up something they want, or to do something they don't want, in order to make the other happy. This should be up to, and including, a one to one ratio – i.e. a sacrifice of equal magnitude to the gain the other gets from it. In any particular instance the ratio can be higher (I give up something I strongly want to give you something you moderately want) but overall it should not exceed 1:1; that would be an indication of a non-mutual, and ultimately unhealthy, relationship.

Enjoyment: A desire to be with the person, just for its own sake. Not because it makes the other happy, not because one should, not because they provide some particular useful thing, but just because it is enjoyable to spend time with them.

Understanding: Both knowledge of and understanding of the reasoning behind the other's beliefs, principals, opinions and preferences, and having one's own beliefs principals, opinions and preferences known and understood. This does not mean that each must necessarily agree with them all, but they should know what they are and why.

All of these things must be present for me to call it love. Any one or any two of them I would not be comfortable calling love. I certainly have felt one or two of these for others before. Never before all three for the same person. I had to experience it before I could formulate my definition, and so I have used the term in circumstances which I wouldn't today. To me, it is not an easy thing to come by.

Note that the first 3 can exist without being mutual.

Any of the four can exist without the other 3, which would constitute a friendship.

Having, say, 3 of the 4 could make a very special and important relationship. But having all 4 makes a qualitatively different relationship. It is what separates a close friendship from a life partner, or a healthy "long term relationship" from an unhealthy one.

Each of the 4 can be present in varying amounts. None is likely to be 100%, at least not 100% of the time. In some cases a deficit in one (partial, not complete) may make a relationship unsustainable. Which is more important, and the exact amounts needed may vary from person to person. Ultimately, once all 4 are satisfied, there is no significant advantage to going to someone "better". There is some inherent value to commitment, (both emotional and practical) and any improvement in a new person would be only a quantitative change, not a qualitative one, and therefore would have to be very large indeed to be worth it. In a conflict, as long as all 4 are present (or have been, and can reasonably be expected to be again) it is probably worth the effort and difficulty to work things out. If one is missing, and has little hope of ever being present, it is probably better to let it go. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can't help but to think that most people would prefer a partner who satisfied each of those requirements (mutually). Perhaps I am mistaken, but I also can't help but to think that there are very few (if any) people who can find all 4 in the same person with relative ease. I think that even the simplest, most easy going person would have trouble finding someone they were compatible with. Perhaps there are some who genuinely, under the layers of pride, distrust, fear, and "principal" really have no desire to have a life partner – but I doubt it.

Nostalgia means "I love you"

• Sep 18, 2007

Nostalgia means "I love you"

A few minutes ago my iPod, randomly shuffling between a 605 track playlist, played "Everyday" by Dave Matthews Band.
I was putting up window tint, and not thinking about you at all at the time.
It immediately made me think of - not of you exactly, but of the feeling of you, the general thought of you.

Within the next second, it reminded me of Stanford and then El Cerrito. Then again, not really the places, but the feelings that go along with them, a memory not of any particular site or sound, but of the feeling I had when I was there

And of course, the places themselves were of no significance, it was the person I was with who made those places interesting, something to look forward to.

I have the feeling of "nostalgia" now and then, from different things, about different things. In one way it is a good feeling, but usually it is more just interesting than it is pleasant. The good component is usually balanced by an unpleasant part, which is much too subtle to explain, almost too subtle to even notice, but it is there none-the-less.

I can't remember a feeling of nostalgia which was as filled with warmth. Warmth is precisely it. It was all pleasant feeling, even with what has been going on recently. It made me realize something:

I think I really was in love with you, long before I was aware of it, long before I told you, long before I admitted it. Not just "love" in the sense that I have loved you all along and continue to, not just care and positive regard, but "in" love, with that extra little special something which is indefinable.

-A digression:

I have updated my theories of love. I used to belittle the feeling of "in" love as either being "just" a crush or infatuation, or lust, in any case, not real, not sustainable.
These certainly can be factors, and the three can be impossible to distinguish sometimes. But, when accompanied by "real" love (you know what I mean), the distinction comes in the indefinable element.

You can list the factors which make a person someone you would love, but there are always other things, subtle, indefinable, unplaceable things, which are still very real despite being incommunicable, which are the extra element, which make it "in" love.

Sometimes I would say I loved you, and you would ask why, and I might say I wasn't sure. Which you took to mean it was either untrue or meaningless. But really, it was very true, and very meaningful. Probably more so than the list of qualities could ever be. You do fulfill the 'list', but another person who filled the list might not be the same to me as you are.

I had always assumed that when people used the term "chemistry" they were essentially talking about lust. But, this morning I was thinking about all this; you said something to the effect that if certain others had specific qualities, (and maybe they will turn out to) I would really like her - but I don't feel for anyone, now, ever, quite the way I did (and still do) for you, even back when I didn't admit it. Perhaps it could be called "chemistry"; whatever it is, it's missing with others.

I was also thinking about commitment. I used to think that if any two people are together, and a 3rd comes along who is better (by the standards of the 'list') for one, they should, logically, split, and be with the new person.
I disagree with that now.
There is an activation energy, a minimum threshold, which must be overcome for that formula to be valid.
The up hill which must be passed consists of many things:
The difficulty and unpleasantness of breaking up, the giving up of an acquired closeness, risk in replacing someone you know is good for you with someone you merely suspect to be better, and the lack of the stability, comfort, and reassurance which comes with commitment - whether or not it is ever acted upon.
The person has to be not only better in an absolute sense, but so much better as to be worth all of those negative aspects of both the transition and the mind set. For, even if the long term benefit of a new person outweighed the difficulties of the transition, just having that mindset means both people would have to live forever with the constant threat of the loss of their partner. This in and of itself would cause problems, jealousy, unhappiness, stress, fear, discomfort. For, no two people could ever be 100% perfect for each other 100% of the time, and the possibility of someone "better" is always present.
But when the drawbacks of a transition to a "better" are taken into account, the amount of "betterness" required grows considerably.

And when I think about it, you, for me, are too close to ideal for someone else, no matter how much "better" to ever overcome that threshold energy. You, plus the threshold, equals an unimaginably unrealistic vision of perfection - a perfection plus; it makes as much sense as sentencing 10 consecutive life sentences, its simply meaningless.

Given that, I know now that I would be willing to commit to you.
Not just "getting married" in the legal sense, or buying a house together, or even having a child together.
But as a decision inside myself.

I know that you don't feel that way. Which is unfortunate and sad, but its ok. It doesn't change my feeling, nor my willingness. If someday in the future you were interested, you should know where I stand. I realize that you probably feel completely different than me on the subject, and definitely at least somewhat differently, and also that even if you did see it the same way, you have doubts as to whether or not I could be that person for you. I suspect you will come around after going through what ever you have to in the mean time, but maybe I'll turn out to be wrong, and then that's just the way things go.

If we can not be together in the long run, I think I will want to know you again, be friends with you... eventually.
That would be hard for me, very, especially at first. I will still love you, and I will probably still be in love with you too. (Right, "still". As in, I'm beginning to suspect that I have been all along, but since its constant, I don't notice, like the hum on an airplane, except when it is unusually strong.) And, since we have already separated, most of the elements of that threshold are irrelevant, I am still confident you will remain my first choice for life partners. But a little of you is better than none at all, (once I get used to it), just like it is now. Another thing I think you should know.

My company is now a certified green business!

• Sep 7, 2007

My company is now a certified green business!

Wait, what did that title say?
"My company"?

That still sounds so weird.

Yes, my company has been in business for just over one year.

As of 2 days ago, Bio-Diesel Hauling has been certified green by the Bay Area Green Business Program.

As of last night I have a website! http://www.biodieselhauling.org/

Within the next few days I will have registered my fictitious business name. (Form and check are filled out, its up to the USPS now).

I have a newly designed card.

I have had enough work from repeats, referrals, and through the BikeStation that I have not had to post an ad (on Craigslist) for almost 2 months.

In recognition of these successes, I have decided (as CEO) to give myself (as driver and laborer) a 50% raise.

Don't worry, my friends, family, referrals, and loyal repeat customers will all continue to receive my old rate (20/hr & 1/mile) for at least the next half a year.


What I'm wondering now is if anything will ever happen to me in life that I actually did plan in advance.

Dr Cox on love; heterosexual ManLove; and does enjoying performing fellatio make a guy gay?

• Jul 6, 2007

Dr Cox on love; heterosexual ManLove; and does enjoying performing fellatio make a guy gay?

ok, first: I don't mean to imply any correlation what ever between the three topics.
They are totally independent, only there are overlapping themes, love without sex, sex without sex, love with love. Plus, the two clips are from the same show. And as a final pun, his name is "Dr. Cox" which in the context of this blog amuses me more than it should at my age.




I really like this show. Its rare that a show can be so utterly ridicules, and still catch the heart and make suckers like me cry now and then. The situations are often fantastic, the personalities blown to super proportions, the visual gags and gimmicks childish, almost surreal in a way, and yet the feeling in the relationships is believable - you get the feeling the writers have felt the way the characters do. Most of them, most of the time, under all the fun and, all basically unhappy people. And it isn't so hard to sympathize with Cox going back to his horribly dysfunctional relationship, to his deliberately psychologically abusive ex-wife. And you watch this; clearly he knows better. But sometimes, that's just how life is, and people are people.




Was it "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"? Yes, where the wife is jealous of her husbands relationship with his best friends, and he insists she corrupts the relationship they had by suggesting there was a sexual element to it. Maybe there really was, maybe there would have been in a more open society, and maybe neither. Bottom line, it shouldn't matter. Certainly part of the feeling of love evolved to coincide with sex, as a mechanism to hold a family unit together, to get us to care for our mates and young. But we are a social specie as well as one which mates long-term, and there is naturally love for family, for kin, for friends. It is perhaps our deeply internalized homophobia (and literally phobia, as in fear) which prevents more open man love, more heterosexual life-partners, (as a friend of mine explains his relationship with his roommate/friend). Because we assume that love implies sex, even though many of us can decouple the inverse. This subconscious internalization is so pervasive that even I, raised as I was my a openly bi former hippy, with my gender-neutral mind (according to the BBC / PBS online tests), and my liberal philosophy, am often made uncomfortable by the relationship between Turk and JD - not despite their both being hetero, but because of it. That makes it worse somehow, like I can accept homosexuality so long as its something *other*, but in that context, it makes me think abut my own male friends, and it becomes creepy.

Just like my third topic, which is sort of the inverse, but really just different.

I had mentioned to a friend of mine that I thought I might be able to learn to be rather good at fellatio, and that it was in a way unfortunate that I'm straight. She questioned whether enjoying giving head automatically makes a guy gay. My reaction was the same as yours - uh, yeah, duh, by definition! But then I thought about it a bit. The giver doesn't have to be stimulated. Not all pleasurable experiences are sexual. And not all sexual experiences have any thing to do with a meaningful or long-term relationship. Remove the assumptions, implications, expectations, and you have left only a specific oral / sensual experience. Plenty of oral fixations are non-sexual; cigarettes have their nicotine and gum has flavor, part of it is just the sucking and the chewing, not to mention toothpicks, and pacifiers. And besides the sensation, it may just be fun, or pleasant to give pleasure, like giving a massage, or a good meal, to someone, without wanting anything from it. Which may be key. Some people (even some Hells Angels) think a person can receive oral from a man without being gay. I never understood that. As the receiver it is unquestionably sexual, and the person stimulating you is another man. As giver it isn't necessarily sexual. You may not want the favor returned. You may not find the person attractive. I can tell a good looking man from your average ugmo, but that doesn't make me want to have sex with him.

Think of a similar example:
In general attractive guys are hard (not like that, silly, I mean from their big muscles). They tend to be hairy. Women, even fit ones, tend to be soft. If I were female, I imagine I would still find sensual pleasure in attending a Japanese soapland. And if your gonna have a slippery naked body sliding around you, it would feel a lot nicer if they are soft and smooth. So aside from the sexual aspect, a straight woman would likely prefer her soapland attendant to another female. Or a male athlete may prefer a male masseuse for his stronger hands. Its a sensual experience without being sexual.

One could be attracted to women, desire only to have sex with women, fantasize about women, have relationships with women, and separate from that, enjoy sucking cock now and then.
I have yet to test this theory. It makes sense, but its still creepy. I'm curios, but the grossness overwhelms curiosity. Maybe someday. Just to prove to myself that I can. Just to add to my repertoire of useless skills and random experiences.
Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll like it... after all, gay guys get way more sex than we do. Some times I wish I were gay for no other reason. I guess that won't really work, since I'm already in love with a female, and I want her to end up as my life partner. Well, its an interesting thought anyway.

original, independent, and dumb ideas

• Jul 5, 2007

original, independent, and dumb ideas

I have never been much of one to go with the crowd.

Probably the main thing that attracted my friends and I together in high school was that.

We were not necessarily so similar to each other.



A lot of people make a point of being "different", for its own sake, for the attention, whatever.

Many of us did that at some point, trying to not fit in, but at root, I think most of us had our own ways of doing things first, and figured if we were to be on the fringe anyway, may as well have fun with it.

It's different.

Me, I found my own ways to do stuff. No one suggested to me that I should, (or could) ride my bike to school (back in middle school). I never saw anyone else do it. I was the only one in the entire school. The happy van, I saw it, it was just perfect, so I bought it. Why pay rent? Why should only the homeless live in their cars? Why use deodorant when hand sanitizer does such a better job? You know what I mean.

I find that many, if not most of the people I find myself close to, or respect, tend to be this way too.

Don't get me wrong - I see value in the alternative, and there are people I enjoy who I would not classify that way. After all, there have been thousands of generations before us who have had plenty of time to figure things out. If we each had to reinvent the wheel, and fire, for ourselves, humanity would not be where it is today, (the bad or the good from collective knowledge). Nothing wrong with learning from others.

The trick is, I guess, to recognize which things have value and to discard the rest. Because sometimes an entire society is collectively blind to some bit of common sense and does something stupid for generations, (tank based water heaters, for example, or refrigerators with the compressor at the bottom and the freezer on top)

I notice this recently.

My mother and my wife, they are both this way. They have their own ways of doing things, which they think are better than how everyone else does. Having two independent minded people interact, it is inevitable that there be conflicts sometimes. I know that they both respect my opinion and consider my input, but when it comes down to it, neither care if I think an idea they have is dumb (like for instance traveling in the 2nd world on a new bike with non-standard parts, or suppressing weeds and grass with sheets of plastic). And in a way, I have to respect them for that. I'm glad that my word is merely one piece of input and does not override, even when I am right; well, when I am pretty sure I am. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I find it a little odd, ironic, that she (wife, not mother) thought for so long that she was passive and just going along, when she never was that way. As though she were any less independent than she is now. Not any time that I knew her. It was her who suggested we buy an RV together, and live in it, she who picked it... I remember debating philosophy, time, long ago, when she was just an acquaintance. I remember her choosing to leave home as a child. But she didn't feel it.
I guess a lot of us have a different self-perception than what those around us see as obvious. She didn't used to think she was pretty, and after all those modeling jobs, I'm still not sure that she fully appreciates just how beautiful she is. There are probably things like this about me too - but of course I can't imagine what they are.