Ryan Egesdahl

I don't hate you
Your hair is too red
Damned Mick!
Get down the street
We don't serve your kind here
Get a job
But renounce your Pope first

I don't hate you
Your eyes are too slanted
Damned Jap!
Get down the street
We don't serve your kind here
Get a job
But wash my clothes first

I don't hate you
Your skin is too dark
Damned nigger!
Get down the street
We don't serve your kind here
Get a job
But pretend you are White first

I don't hate you
Your hair is too long
Damned hippie!
Get down the street
We don't serve your kind here
Get a job
But cut your hair first

I don't hate you
Your wrist is too limp
Damned fag!
Get down the street
We don't serve your kind here
Get a job
But pretend you are straight first

I don't hate you
But you are different
All people
Have differing rights
Equality is ephemeral
Malleable
And only for those like me.

The passing of Question 1 in Maine is a serious blow to supporters of gay marriage, it is true. Likely, many people I know are feeling intense sadness and bitterness at the outcome of the vote. But let us all remember that the voter turnout was very low during the election. The results reflect that a minority believes that gays do not deserve the same rights others have, and that the minority was allowed to have power. Do not let yourself be convinced that the question is answered definitively; only what those people who voted have answered is known.

For that matter, spare a thought for the people for whom this question was not asked. Many more people still live without the right to marry the person of their choosing because of another's belief. We aren't done with our work, and we must press on. Bitterness is not excused by defeat when there is still work to do. Shed tears for the loss for a time if you must, but keep asking the question until people understand that rights for us is the same as rights for everyone.

There is an old saying: if you want to know who has the power, follow the money. Never was a more true thing spoken from one person to another, for this truth echoes throughout nearly every interaction between people. Would you like to know who has power in your life? Consider what happens if you don't pay your mortgage or your car note, or if you don't pay the power bill. It's amazing to consider that the price of freedom seems not to be only vigilance, but a thinner wallet.

As easy as those who hold power over your everyday life are to identify by looking over your own finances, less easy is it to see who has power in government. The reason? Nobody has to clearly identify where their money comes from when explaining what influences their decisions in public office; we do not have any way to identify who holds power over those the voters choose to serve, so no person, save those directly involved in the exchange of money, may clearly know who the true masters of society are.

The problem is that our founding fathers were right for the wrong reasons. While it is very important that power be checked in its exercise, balanced with opposition, and always distrusted, a complete picture of who holds what power and where was never considered important to the framers of our nation. The fact that money and power follow similar paths was well-known even in the late eighteenth century, but the influence of money over elected office was not an important concern. What we forget in our modern year is that in the year the constitution was ratified, power was almost exclusively wielded by landed gentry; having money was strongly associated and correlated with a strong education, and those were the people who were not only best-considered for office but were also likely best-suited for it. The few exceptions to the rule are remarkable as examples of the American Dream and of their rarity.

But the political landscape of the United States of America is far more complicated now than it was then. The large transfer of wealth to the corporate sector over the years, coupled with the rise large media conglomerations has concentrated the amount of power those with money possess. It is far easier now than ever before to color the perception of a political candidate and to influence his or her vote once in office with the promise of funds for re-election - or with the promise of money after office through lucrative professional associations. Only recently has the trend begun to change with the Internet providing some clarity on various obscure issues through the power of independent bloggers, but the Internet is inherently unreliable on the quality of any information gleaned; while facts provided by bloggers can be checked, the time and money to do so has not been adequately dedicated to the task. Worse, those in power have discovered the cheap media outlet that is the Internet and are using it to their advantage.

The solution is obvious: reduce the effect of money in determining the acquisition of power; one could as well wish for the sky to turn pink with purple polka-dots as expect such a thing to happen. Implementing reforms to repair the oversight of our founding fathers would require the cooperation of those benefiting from the situation to change it. The best we could expect at this time are half-measures, platitudes, and promises to think about working on the problem. For what reason would any person making money by holding power ever give up that power? For what reason does any person benefiting at the expense of another suddenly decide to step down off his fellow's back and lift him up to a proud countenance? Only two possibilities exist: appeals to the conscience or making those who profit responsible for the outcomes; as Upton Sinclair discovered, the former is as rare as the Warren Buffets and Andrew Carnegies of the world.

The question is, then, of how we make those truly in power responsible for the results of their influence. Answering that question is where those with conscience fail because any sense of justice is inevitably hampered by the subjective sense of fairness. Do police officers responsible for the protection of the public pay restitution to those they fail to protect? Are prosecutors held responsible for failure to punish only the guilty and are defense attorneys responsible for failure to protect the innocent? No. We allow atrocities to go unpunished out of a sense of fair play to those who may not be responsible - as it should be. True justice would be too cruel to uphold, and we instinctively steer away from making possible what may end up punishing us at some point in the future.

But perhaps there is an easier way to free ourselves from the power of those who wield influence over us: we take from them that which gives them power. With simple attention paid to those to whom we give money, and with enough information about who holds power over us, we may gain some advantage over our masters. We can make money a double-edged sword, striking down those who would profit from our suffering. Yes, with vigilance - the only price of freedom - we may regain what we lost to the mega-corporation and the well-funded political party. But therein lies the problem: if vigilance is the hard work that must be done to secure our freedom, who will take the first watch?

Edit: I should mention that I do not advocate for either major political party, nor do I specifically advocate for the electorate to shift its vote in any way. What is missing from political discourse and legislative action is not some subjective measure of conservative or liberal ideology. No one person or political party owns the whole truth; good ideas and consciences exist in all parts of the political map. What I ask is for people to watch their elected officials and find ways to ensure that the power remains with the people. There is no reason that we should allow only politicians and those who fund them to determine the course of our nation.

Women have boobs and men have pecs. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Women wear makeup to work, and men stop at moisturizer. Men don't wear panties - women do. Women wear skirts, but men call them kilts.

Much of the language we use on a daily basis is centered on sexual the sexual and gender differences between men and women - even the terms "man" and "woman" are inherently gender-biased. It's impossible to separate gender from speech however hard we try to do so. But people do try and even more words are invented, such as "sexist", "feminist" and even "misogynist" and "misandrist" to explain the differences between how different people come to differing interpretations of the same words.

I was recently accused of being sexist - or at least of using inherently sexist language - and I find myself confused by the label. I don't consider myself to interpret human beings in terms of anything other than physical and behavioral characteristics displayed by individuals. Even the somewhat racist ideations I have at times are produced by this - how difficult is it to not form an opinion of a black male who is dressed like a thug? Similarly, what opinions should I not form about a woman who burns her bra, calling them the shackles men impose upon them? What about the women who prefer to be called "womyn" instead, as if inventing a new term should increase understanding?

Speaking of which, I should define the terms I use, just in case someone out there is prepared to misinterpret what I have to say:

Sexism

the attitude of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Misogyny

the belief that women are inferior to men; the belief that women are by default sexist; discrimination against women.

Misandry

the belief that men are inferior to women; the belief that men are by default sexist; discrimination against men.

Sex

the physical characteristics of an organism that determine reproductive roles.

Gender

culture-specific behavior norms, normally but not necessarily, associated with one’s sex, and/or the state of acceptance of those behavior norms irrespective of sex.

Gay

indicating a desire for forming life partnerships with members of the same sex or gender as oneself.

Feminism

any specific ideal of gender and sexual equality with an emphasis on the role of females in society.

You may not have the same definitions, but this is the way I see things and it's how I will be using these words from now on. Besides, it's my blog and I get to have things my way here.

I should note at this point that I am not a feminist. I can't be; this is not because I do not consider females to be the equals of males but because I am not female. I have neither the organs nor the psyche of a female. I cannot have a specific ideal that emphasizes a feminine role because it would be presumptuous of me to speak for women who define their own roles in society. I do have my own biases and beliefs about the roles of males and females (which I shall share), but I can in no way speak of that which I cannot possibly understand.

For instance, I believe that females can perform nearly any task that a male can and vice-versa. I do not, however, believe that men and women are equivalent in the tasks they perform, mostly due to the physical differences between men and women. I also do not believe that men and women have any specific roles in society except the ones dictated by the reproductive processes; women bear children and have the breasts to feed them and men do not. All these distinctions should not be taken for an endorsement of any gender being superior to another - they are merely distinctions dictated by obvious facts.

Where I think things go wrong in the relations between males and females is a misunderstanding of equality. As one of my favorite childhood authors, Madeleine L'Engle, put it so wisely, "Alike and equal are not the same." Just because two people are equal does not make them alike in any respect, nor should they be considered or made to be so. This is obvious to most of us in politics - or, the reasonable among us at least - when we discuss differences in government policy. Just because conservatives and liberals hold differing views of how governments should be run does not make them unequal. Similarly, the fact that males and females have different plumbing or accept different gender roles should not imply inequality in a society. And whether males and females are equals in society also should not suggest that they will be alike in gender roles or mentality.

But now add in gays to the equation: where should gays fit into the societal boundaries of gender when they seem Hell-bent on pushing the envelope for what it means to be a man or a woman? Ladies in flannel and men in eyeliner and go-go boots seem to challenge both the stereotypes and sexual roles of males and females in our society. It would seem neither necessary nor sufficient to argue that males and females should be defined merely by sexual and gender roles, unless we would also like to make the case that gays are the "exception to the rules" we hold for everyone else. Since I seek a unified perspective on sexism, I will work towards a perspective with as few exceptions as possible.

Also, I am gay. I don't want to be an exception; I just want to be who I am. It would not be fair to hold myself apart from being equal to other men, as I so not believe that the stereotype of a man should necessarily include his reproductive role.

I don't want to become too specific here, since this is a first, broad-brush overview of the problem our society faces when considering the feminist movement and the reaction to it from members of a society. So I leave you to chew on some brain food for the next time I address this topic: what gender roles should men and women serve, and are they dictated more by society or sexual necessity?

Next time: The Rise of the Feministas and the Fall of Machismo.

I have decided that I will be moving back to Houston after all. I just don't think I can deal with the stress of living in a town without many friends and no family while I chase after money that may never come. I've hit my threshold of pain on this one. So, I'll go back to Houston and take what I have learned with me to make a success out of myself.

Also, I will be analyzing sexism and whether or not I am a sexist, due to my little confrontation on my favorite blog not too long ago. I don't really believe I am a sexist, but I think the situation is worth a little analysis for clarity. Besides, I could be wrong. Remember, I found out not too long ago that I can be somewhat racist at times. I think it's better to be honest with myself if I find parts of me that I don't like.

And yes, I will actually be doing this series. It's time we (and I) confront this issue head-on.

I am really glad I am going on vacation for an extended period this Friday. I've noticed for some time now that the stress I have been under has been affecting my behavior: my moods have been erratic, I've been waspish, and I have tended to ignore the personal details that matter because I have trouble seeing past my own nose. It's something I've coped with many years now; it's the primary reason I am led to believe I have Asperger's Syndrome, as my difficulty in interacting with people is a primary stressor in and of itself.

As if I needed any evidence, I just behaved like a perfect ass in the comments section of my favorite blog, Pharyngula. And it was in the comments section of Ted Kennedy's eulogy, no less. You'd think I had a complete lack of class by reading it.

What happened is that I called a woman a bitch (because she had made some very ugly and irrelevant comments), and I was called down for the gender-based insult. It wasn't that to me, but rather than calmly explain it and apologize for the misperception I had created, I decided to be snarky and insulting in return. Granted, I wasn't being helped in my behavior by people arguing that I should be censored for the use of one fucking word because it was somehow an inherently sexist remark, but I can only blame myself for continuing the problem and becoming more insulting and disgusting as the thread progressed. All the while, I had not addressed the original problem of the insult in question, and I thereby allowed other people to form their own misbegotten opinions of me.

I created the problem and I encouraged it. I won't blame anyone else for myself for what happened because I always had the ability to stop it. I'm not sure why I didn't. All I know is that this vacation could not come soon enough. I need the time to retrain myself and tame the attack dog within me again. I really, really need to do something about this sometime.

I don't really have anything to say today. I don't know why.

So just in case you haven't seen it already, why not get grossed out (in very hilarious fashion) by "Steve, Don't Eat It!". My favorite line: "Actually, the little pile inside looked kinda like baked beans. It also smelled kinda like baked beans. If they were baked in the filthy heat of Satan's asshole." Classic!

With any luck, you will be as relieved and saddened as I am that Steve no longer subjects himself to torture for our entertainment. It was fun while it lasted, though.

#riff_hauntedhill

Here's a good riffing of the House on Haunted Hill, a Vincent Price movie from 1959. I've never seen it before, so this should be fun. I'm seeing the movie with my friend Donna, so some of these comments are inspired by her. Let the show begin!
( Read more... )

Relax; I'm not talking about my love life. I'm talking about the man-crush I've had on Keith Olbermann for some time now.

Understand, I don't suddenly dislike Keith. On the contrary, I actually admire him a great deal. But I have also become disillusioned with his style of "journalism" (a thing which it is not). No, Keith is a showman the same way Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are; the difference is that Keith is at least honest about his intentions, presents what facts he bases his opinions upon, and genuinely positions himself as a debunker-of-lies. He's very good at what he does. He also misses covering significant events in favor of ones that bring the most ratings.

I'm not going to fault Keith for what he does. In fact, I appreciate what Keith does very much, and I think he should keep on doing it. I do not, however, depend on Keith for my news; that I leave to NPR and BBC World Service these days.

But Keith's style has become a bit tiresome for me as well. I'm just not so interested in the outrage and drama he sells anymore. It's worthwhile knowing that some outrageous things are happening in politics, sure, but how many times to I need to be told that Bill O'Reilly is a bigoted dumbass, that Michelle Malkin is a crazy psycho-bitch, and that Rush Limbaugh is a fat, drug-crazed bastard with diarrhea coming from the wrong end of his anatomy? I know all these things. And, other than the occasional giggle at someone's wild stupidity meeting my cruel schadenfreude, I just can't get excited about the various bits of craziness floating around the political arena. I would rather know what the facts are, who is telling what lies, and how I can make sure I know the difference.

Which brings me to Rachel Maddow, a very bright woman who now has her own show right after Keith Olbermann. Her style, in contrast to Keith's, is to educate her viewers on how to detect political bullshit and what to do about it. I also like the fact that she works very hard to make sure her viewers understand fully what is presented on her show, to the point of using maps and experts to explain in detail the political layout of Iraq simply to show why a small town in that country is so important. I also like the fact that she keeps the drama to a minimum, which helps us all when she can have conservative politicians appear on her show to present their points of view. It is very nice to see a reasonable and rational political argument on television for a change.

Yes, Rachel is still an entertainer, but I hope that she becomes the template for news entertainment in the future. We can only hope that by educating the masses on how to use the massive store of information on the Internets to find the facts for themselves, we can reduce the dogmatic strength of the ideologies screaming about the political arena these days.

So, while I will continue to watch Keith's show (especially for his Special Comments), I think I will start paying more attention to Rachel's show from now on. Keep it up, Rachel - you now have one more loyal viewer.

I am not a very good reader; I recognize that readily. I'm truly only average or possibly above-average in my reading skills, and I use my strengths to counter this weakness when I can, such as an ability to understand a thing without having to know much about it. Similarly, my writing skills are informed more by my own thinking skills than the language skills one normally develops as a well-read person.

For that matter, I should point out that I am not a very good book reviewer. Most of my recommendations for a book consist of well-said but ultimately generic pronouncements of its readability; my denouncements aren't much better.

So it is with great pleasure and weak skill that I heartily recommend How To Read A Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles van Doren. I'm not very far along in it, but I can already tell what a great help this book is going to be for one quotation:

"...the very [modern communications] media we have mentioned are so designed as to make thinking seem unnecessary (though only in appearance). The packaging of intellectual positions and views is one of the most active enterprises of some of the best minds of our day. The viewer of television, the listener of radio, the reader of magazines, is presented with a whole complex of elements - all the way from ingenious rhetoric to carefully selected data and statistics - to make it easy for him to 'make up his own mind' with the minimum of difficulty and effort. But the packaging is often done so effectively that the viewer, listener, or reader does not make up his own mind at all. Instead, he inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat like inserting a cassette into a cassette player. He then pushes a button and 'plays back' the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. He has performed acceptable without having had to think."

I have to wonder how many of these "packaged opinions" I have playing in my head, though I do try to reason things out before accepting intellectual propositions. Still, I am sure I have some in there, as most likely does nearly everyone else. It's hard not to listen to a "packaged opinion" with which I agree without truly examining the wrapping and what wasn't included in the shipment - such as the dissenting opinion or the contradictory facts. There are some things about which I have "made up my own mind", such as atheism, but of other things, like certain books or movies, I am sure I simply accept the arguments others present before exploring on my own. Is it true that Herman Melville is a wonderful read but also overwrought and overweening? I would not know. Some opinions I have heard from others - better readers - suggest that this is so, but I have never read Moby Dick and I have no intention of doing so any time soon.

Here we find the intellectual laxity evident in the current generation of Internet dwellers, but in reverse. The problem here is that, while I and others accept the opinions of our acknowledged betters, the current generation of "point, click, know" youth persist in what I call "knowing without understanding". Just because Google found an article on economics for you doesn't mean you understand economics nearly as well as an economist. Similarly, theoretical physics is hard for physicists to understand; what makes someone think that one article pitched for the masses is going to give the same level of understanding on that topic that someone with many years of theoretical background has? I am willing to question an expert based on my understanding (however small) of a subject, but I won't say an expert is wrong before I understand the subject well enough.

Well, now I have gone fairly far afield in this review - see what I mean about being a poor book reviewer? I suppose I should just do what I know for now and say I am looking forward to finishing this book. I hope to understand many more of the intellectually dishonest practices used to pitch ideas to the public, and how to counteract them, after finishing this book. But at the least I am interested in its premise.

How many times have you been told that God is a loving god, then in the next breath that you were going to Hell for not believing in Him? What about God's morality - does it change or remain static throughout creation? I can't count how many times people have told me that God is unchanging and yet our relationship with God has changed. But if God is unchanging, how can any relationship with that God do anything but remain static? If God started out as an authoritarian paternal figure, then God should remain an authoritarian paternal figure regardless.

I think I have finally begun to understand why some Christians do not seem to be able to form a consistent conception of their god: they don't know him at all. Let's start at the beginning, with Adam and Eve.

So, Adam and Eve are walking around the Garden of Eden at the dawn of time (disregard all previous contradictions to get here, please), and God tells Adam (not Eve) that all the fruit of the Garden are fair game, but that he shall not eat the Apple (not specified in the Bible)* from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Note very carefully that God did not tell Eve that the Apple (not an apple) was off-limits; we can instead infer from later events that Adam told Eve this detail.

Please be very clear at this point that Adam and Eve have no knowledge of Good and Evil because they have not yet eaten the (non-)Apple. In fact, there are lots of things they do not know, such as the fact that they are naked. Dim bulbs, eh?

So, of course, the kids are left to their own devices and one of them gets into trouble. A serpent notices Eve walking around for food (we suppose) and suggests that the (anti-)Apple would be good to eat. When Eve objects, the Serpent merely tells the truth by saying that Adam and Eve will not die and will instead gain knowledge.

Again, I must emphasize that the serpent told the truth and that God lied about the outcome of Eve's actions. Remember this.

Eve bites into the Apple(?), and when the Serpent's testimony bears out, she decides to take the Apple(--) to Adam, who also bites into it - again, the Serpent's version of the story remains the truth, and Adam does not die. Naturally, they realize that they are naked - wait, what does this have to do with morality? How does nakedness in any way suggest evil? Oh, never mind.

Understand now that Adam and Eve can reliably (if we believe the story) be said to have knowledge of Good and Evil. Before either of them bit into the Apple, there was no possibility of either Adam nor Eve knowing that their actions were wrong. No, wait, that's not quite correct: in the span between Eve having bitten into the (quasi-)Apple and then offering it to Adam, Eve may have knowingly committed an evil act. Or she may have realized that God had lied to her and the Serpent had not and that she was better off trusting the Serpent.

In any case, God finds out (because Adam and Eve are hiding from the lying bastard) and God punishes them for having disobeyed him. Then he punishes the serpent for having turned Adam and Eve against him.

And now I am going to end this silly narrative because you should already be able to realize what is wrong with the story. Adam and Eve were punished for something for which they could not have had any responsibility; regardless of the fact that they had disobeyed God, there is no means by which they could have understood that to be evil. Also, the Serpent was punished for having told the truth about God and the Tree. True, the Serpent could have known that disobeying God was Evil, but that's hardly relevant considering that the supposed manifestation of all that is Good had not only lied to his creations but had punished them for his own mistakes.

Need I continue? I thought not. I think you can read the rest of the silly book on your own.

* Look it up. There is no Apple in this story.

I'm going to keep my previous post up, but I just wanted you all to know that I am not actually going to follow through. The person who threatened me was willing to admit that he pushed me to my anger, and that's all I was really looking for.

This is not to say I made an idle threat. I was, in fact, ready to move home immediately. The only reason I hesitated is because the person in question is my friend and I decided to give him a chance to redeem himself. He simply could not understand my anger. I don't blame him - I don't either.

Thing is, my temper is a bit unusual. When I am merely pissed off or upset, my temper will flare up and burn itself out within seconds or minutes at the outside. In some very rare instances, though, my temper will flare and then stay for half an hour or more. It's at these times when I am not just extremely pissed but irrational and unreasonable. When I am so very angry that it doesn't immediately burn itself out, that is just about the only time you will actually hear me yell at someone - not just raise my voice but shout - stridently and with barely-controlled rage.

Well, the anger is now gone. Just know that in nearly any other instance I would already be on my way home.

Funny thing, though: most times I get that angry, I turn into a bawling basketcase afterward. There's not really any emotion there, but I can't stop crying and talking like I am depressed. Well, maybe that's just it - the lack of emotion is a signal that I am getting depressed and that my cathartic release is akin to triggering a downswing in my emotional state after the "high" of enraged furor.

This time, I just cried a little when talking to my mother about it. After that, nothing but a faint, shivering sense of release and the ghost disappointment with myself. Weird.

When I am working around other people, I have realized that I have to be able to tolerate a little bit of what I perceive as verbal abuse. That's natural; most people just don't realize when they are being abrasive, and that's fine because I have the same problem. What I distinctly do not expect is to be threatened when I express frustration at the direction in which someone is pushing me. Heated arguments I can understand; threats are never, in any way ever, and by no means acceptable. Worse, I have found that people who tend to make threats will themselves refuse to take responsibility for them.

Simple fact: when I am threatened, I will immediately take steps to neutralize that threat. I don't care what that threat may be. If some guy tells me he's going to cut my balls off and stuff them down my throat, I will simply act to remove that person's influence from my life. I don't care if it's just a joke. I have been threatened so many times in my life that I absolutely cannot tolerate it.

Similarly, if someone tries to tell me that he is going to pull the plug on a lucrative and fun project just because I am becoming frustrated with the never-ending series of drafts on a simple executive summary, then I do not care what reasoning he gives me for caring about how detailed the paper should be; I will very quickly act to remove the threat I have been given.

I am done with this. My business partner keeps making threats every time he doesn't get his way, and I can't tolerate it. I simply will not deal with this level of negativity in my life all the damned time. In fact, I am very surprised I have tolerated it for so long, all things considered. So I am going home to my loving husband, family and friends.

Of course I care what I am leaving behind, but the simple fact is that what I was going through was killing me a little inside every time I had to hear some man's temper tantrum every time he didn't get his way. I tried very hard to work through it, but at some point you have to realize when you have to walk away and take what you have learned home with you. Some of my friends may be surprised at my actions, given that I do not have a tendency to give up, but that only means that they hadn't seen the side of me that tells me when the mountain really is too high and might end up killing me if I try to reach the summit.

Whatever you do, don't feel sorry for the things I am losing in this. We all lose something when we move on to something else. What matters is what we are leaving behind. I have done good work here, and what I am leaving behind I do not want in my life at all. I will just take the lessons I have learned here and make myself successful by them.

What?! Barack Obama might have been born in Kenya? In Australia? On Mars? His birth might have been a secret long-term plot by his parents to put a non-American in office as President?



Sorry, I couldn't resist.
(And yes, I am completely responsible for the creation of this abomination. The other one is on Encyclopedia Dramatica.)

And I miss you.

All too often, we get ourselves worked up about things that seem so very important, but then, later on, we find out how unimportant most things turn out to be. Wars are like this. But I could not say it better than Moxy Fruvous:

As it turns out, a member of Moxy Fruvous has released this song for public consumption. You can download the mp3 from this site if you really liked it.

I mentioned in an earlier post the pentonic (or pentatonic) scale and implied that the general public doesn't know what it is. That's not quite correct - the general public does know the pentatonic scale, even if they could not name it. It's fundamental to music, wherever you go, regardless of the culture you find yourself in. The difference between the snob in the music hall and the slob on the street is that the snob knows the significance of the scale, can identify it, and if he or she possesses the talent, can use it to stunning effect. If you don't believe me, here's the great snob Bobby McFerrin (::snortle::) demonstrating the pentonic scale:


World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival on Vimeo.

Just remember that what you don't know makes all the difference. Despite the fact that you could probably have followed Bobby through all the notes, that doesn't mean you know as much as Bobby does in using it. I hope this gives you a bit of insight into the music you love and helps you to appreciate it all the more.

I know we've all heard about the Birther movement - those crazy people who want to believe that Barack Obama is not an American Citizen so we don't have to have a nigger for president. (Please note I use that word without insult intended. IIf you're a pearl-clutching pansy or someone who is racist enough to believe that a single word taken out of context can be a racial slur, get stuffed.)

Well, now we have a few idiots in Congress who want to try and make it a law that proof of birth be presented before swearing in as President. Never mind the fact that citizenship is established before a person can announce candidacy. Of course, we must do something to protect our precious pearls! And the stupid and overly-wrought people who keep making these ludicrous claims in the face of the very evidence they claim does not exist!

Not to fear - even some conservatives have joined the movement against the Birthers, to include:

• Michael Steele
• Rudy Giuliani
• Bill O'Reilly
• John Boehner
• Anne Coulter

Wait. There has to be something wrong with that list. We have Billo and Coultergeist on a list of people taking the sane side in a silly debate? Any of you theists know what the temperature in Hell might be? I'm considering converting back to Christianity now.

Seriously, if you have the likes of Billo and Coultergeist against you in a debate like this one, you might just need to wonder whether your government isn't lying to you.

**irony meter a splode**

Run around anywhere on the Internets, and you will find that "instant experts" abound. For those of you who don't know, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect; basically, people tend to think of themselves as more knowledgeable than they are the less they actually know. One of the more annoying behaviors of the "instant expert" is derision for things of high quality and the espousal of the mediocre.

I'll get this off my chest now: JK Rowling is not the best author who ever lived by far, and Stephanie Meyer is an unqualified hack. I can't be nice about this. Yes, I enjoy the occasional Harry Potter experience, but it isn't because the books are written well; I consider them to be mental junk food, good for the occasional guilty binge. I won't read Stephanie Meyer's books at all because they don't even have the semblance of quality about them - and they're not even fun enough to call them pulp.

Now watch as some of my friends and family defend their choice of books to read. These people know me well, but I can almost guarantee they would try at once to defend Dear Ms. Rowling or their favorite angsty vampire. Or try posting a rant about poor quality in literature on a forum and you're going to have Dan Brown fanatics proclaiming "plot complexity" and "suspense" all the day long while at the same time trying to tell you that you don't like The Davinci Code simply because you "didn't read it right." Or something. Why?

It is, of course, your new friends Dunning and Kruger visiting again. You may be a Literature major, but nobody knows more about good books than the average Joe on the street. And Burger King has the best burgers - who needs the fancy stuff you can get for ten bucks when you can get three burgers for that price? Twister was a wonderful movie; it was certainly better than that Darren Aronofsky flick I couldn't wrap my head around. Oh and by the way, your favorite band sucks; Metallica rules!

I bet Dunning and Kruger had friends who thought they were assholes for pointing out how little people really know about their favorite things.

There is a large difference between quality and taste in wines, for instance. It is certainly not the case that a top-shelf Bordeaux is on a comparable level with a $5 jar of Burgundy at Wal-Mart. You might like neither one, but at least the Bordeaux doesn't leave you gagging after the first sip. Hell, you might even enjoy the Burgundy more because it has some heat to it - but nobody anywhere with experience in wines is going to say it's better than the Bordeaux, only that they want to get drunk off it. (Your God help you if this is the case.)

Wine enthusiasts will find a good, inexpensive wine that is a higher quality than the price suggests. Foodies don't like to eat at Burger King very often because they know they could eat inexpensively at home and then make going out to eat more enjoyable at a good restaurant when they have the money. Book lovers are constantly finding new and old books that should be on the bestseller shelf. Music lovers are constantly out looking for bands that don't have the money to "make it big." Movie buffs keep finding directors that challenge the medium of film - and consequently don't get funding from Hollywood because their movies don't sell.

Quality does exist, but the words to describe how one book is better than the other is lacking; or, where the words are plenty, the understanding of them only comes after years of experience with a hobby. What is the main difference between a fry and a sauté? Do you know what a cheat is and when it isn't done correctly? What about a pentonic scale - do you know how it's used? Fine, use Google to help you; but can even Wikipedia hope to put you on par with someone who has a lifetime of experience with the subject? Seriously?

Even in the cases where the experts agree that a thing is of high quality, such as a wine, they may have differing perceptions of it. One may describe a rosé as airy and sweet, while another may describe it as soft and contemplative. Imagine if both experts liked the wine but disliked the other's description! But still, the wine is of high quality, and a familiarity with wines in general helps you to know the difference. Even Google can't help you tell the difference between wines on the wine list at a restaurant if you have never tasted one before.

It's time for people to recognize their limitations - this Information Age we live in has become a knowledge overload for many young people these days. Ready access to information has killed the desire for exploration and experimentation in us. We choose political leaders for looks and friendliness because we don't care to take the time and discover more about people than we can find in the first three hits on Google. Slow down and take a while to appreciate what you don't know; have fun discovering for a change.

I can't tell you what's just made me so happy quite yet - if you know the details of my life personally, you might be able to take some guesses (hint: it's not about a grant) - but I promise that when I can, I will divulge some details. Short version: money's back!