So I have an idea...

I read the one red paperclip page today. I'd heard about it shortly after it started... I don't remember exactly when. It's irrelevant. I didn't really follow the story until I heard recently that he'd met his goal - he got his house. Well done.

But reading his posts, I think he's missed the point of bartering a bit. He's all about the Funtential. Don't get me wrong, that's a great thing. But I think it misses a more fundamental point to the trades. The real point is that both parties benefit. I'm sure he's aware that this is happening, but focusing on the funtential diverts from the true purpose, which is to trade. Sure, trading is the point of bartering - that's a tautology. What I'm getting at is more nuanced than that, and it relies on the definition of a fair trade. For me, a fair trade means one where both parties give up something of slightly less value to them for something of slightly more value to them. The key to a fair trade is that the differences in the two values for both people is perceived to be roughly equal. That way, both parties benefit.

The last part is the key. Funtential is just an alternate way to try and quantify and compare what is being traded (money being the current favorite). Absolutely a wonderful idea - and worthy of much further investigation. But for me, the key is simply that both parties benefit. This is what I'd like to focus on and see if we can't explore.

Consider...

All in all, I'm pretty comfortable with my life right now. I've got a nice apartment in a good neighborhood, in a wonderful country. I've got a good job. I've got a car, paid for. I have no debts... just rent, and a credit card bill I pay off every month. I've saved up enough cash for a rainy day fund, and I'm well on my way to having a good nest egg. I have enough cash for occasional trips abroad, and I've recently hooked up with a wonderful friend. Life's just pretty darn good.

So much so that I feel I really should be sharing some of this good fortune.

I've been helping my family here and there, but really, what's next? Money only goes so far, and to be honest, I'm not so flush I can afford to keep dropping the same amount of cash on an ever expanding circle of family and friends.

So... what to do?

Plenty of charities exist that will gladly take the cash and redistribute it, but there's always concerns - which is the best? Which has the least overhead? How much of my donation actually goes to where I want it to go - the people in need? How can I be sure the people in the system won't just take the cash and run? Charities often become large corperations and we all know how popular those are these days. It's hard to have a lot of trust and faith in a large company. In charity, smaller, local organizations are better.

Last year, I donated to the Penny-Arcade Child's Play charity... but that was down in Seattle. Not bad, just outside my local area. I'm a big fan of the "Think Globally, Act Locally" philosophy. Too bad the guys over at PA don't have anything up here in the Great White North yet, eh?

So it occured to me... why not combine all this?

Why not start a red-paperclip/Child's Play donation fund?


The system I've come up with is:

• I start with an item I have and don't want - for example, a solid, but used, computer desk, or the entertainment stand collecting dust in the closet.


• I offer the item for trade on Craig's List (or possibly the red-paperclip page - or maybe get one thing going on each?)


• The rules of the trade:
  
  
  
  • I'll accept something of roughly the same value as what I'm trading
  
  
  • the recipient has to throw in a "sweetener" for the deal, in the form of a new, in box & shrink wrap:
    
    
    
    • video game
    
    
    • game system
    
    
    • game system peripheral

Bargin-bin games are ok, as long as they're new. Like the Playstation2 Greatest Hits series, Xbox Platinum series, etc. New because I understand charities prefer toys and such to be in that condition when they're redistributing them. I'll look into it - maybe we can do some donations with like new?

Anyway, at the end, I donate everything to the Vancouver Children's Hospital.

Though come to think of it, I may want to try and set up something like what PA has with Child's Play - when you donate you buy from Amazon.com and it ships directly to the hospital. A more direct connection which bolsters belief that the item you've donated gets where it needs to be. I've got a friend at the VCH, so I'll see what's involved.

Look for another post soon, hopefully with a couple links - one to Craig's List and one to Amazon.ca. ;)

Peace Out.

-Greg

That's it

I've had it.

My

president

sucks.

First, he lies, cheats and steals to get into office (admittedly, the democrats did too, they just weren't as good at it as Dubya'n'friends). Then he procedes to shut down the press (here here here) then he gets us into a pet war with no end in sight.

Now we find out he's had the NSA spying on innocent people, with no warrents?

That's it. The line has been crossed. Dubya must go.

The View

Thought I'd share the view from my new place.

Sorry. Can't help it. I know it's gloat-tacular. I know I'm bragging. But it's just too nice not to share. I really wish I could find a way to share it and not feel like I'm shoving it in your faces that the view is better at my place.

But see, even that sentence makes me into a braggart. *sigh*

Know what? You're all invited over, pretty much any time you want. Just, you know, send me email. We'll work out when. No, really. I mean it.

Just let me know when is good for you. I do work, so evenings and weekends are better. I mean, I trust you, but really... a view like this needs to be shared, and enjoyed together.

I've got wine too. Quite a selection of local wines, and a few from California still. I can't guarantee it'll always be the best vintage I have, but it will be drinkable, that's for sure.

And you definitely want to plan your trip for when the weather is mostly clear. Sunsets are ... well ... worth it:

On Spam

We are all shucksters. Even though there are consequences. We all cross the line from time to time, through either a deliberate march toward the precipice, or a gradual, almost unconscious process. Everyone has taken advantage of some situation for their gain, when they knew the right thing to do was not. Jumped a queue? Cut someone off in traffic that you could just have easily let go through? Not complained when a server left a drink off a tab? Or gave you the wrong change back?

Every one of those is a small form of shucksterism, some more passive than others. Some easier to justify than others (it's their fault for miscalculating the tab... service was miserable, so I'll just take it out of their tip... that jerk I cut off cut someone else off earlier).

Taking advantage of a situation is as much a part of our genetic heritage as the desire to help others. Modern religious thinking (and I'm using "modern" in the evolutionary sense of time) has us believing that only the later is worthy, and the former is a mark of evil. Altruism to the point of self sacrifice is the hallmark of most modern religions. Other religions that take a more balanced view tend to be called hedonistic, even when they really are more balanced.

The point of all this? Acknowledge who and what we are, keep the excesses of greed under control (I'm looking at you, libertarians), and try to maintain balance, perched on the shoulders of giants as we are. Try to spend as much time reaching for the stars and seeing further than others as you do reaching down to others who've not managed to scale quite as far as you have.

And whatever you do, never end a blog with a preachy, self-righteous statement about what others should do.

Never.

;)

extended abscence

There is one, and only one correct way to eat Peeps. Anyone that tells you otherwise lies. Like a dog. Lying.

The thing about peeps is that they come to you, packaged, in a raw form. Much like eggs. Sure, they're neetly packaged, and you could eat one raw, but who'd want to? Never mind the possible nasty texture, you can get nasty-sick from it. Ok, raw Peeps won't get you sick, but they are fluffy, sugar-coated marshmallow, which will basically disintigrate into sickly-sweet goo in a matter of seconds upon contact with your mouth. The consistency is all wrong, the duration too short, and the whole experience is just wrong. Peeps require preperation.

Unlike eggs, proper Peep prep is actually quite simple. No cooking. No worrying about yolks either having too much cholestorol or being semi-formed chicks (gah - nastiest thing ever). Peep prep consists in perforating the plastic. That's it. Perforate and let it sit for 5-7 days, depending on local humidity and temp. A lot like bananas. You buy the bunch green, and let it sit for a couple days, and nature takes it's course, perfecting the food for you.

After the proper amount of aging time, a Peep will be quite firm (but not rock hard) and chewy. It requires some effort (but not too much) to chew them... much like fresh gum, but minus the consistency. Properly aged Peeps will still disolve, but it will take considerably longer. The texture is much more pleasing, and the duration of the joy that a Peep brings will be significantly protracted.

So go forth and purchase your Peeps with pride. Practice proper Peep protocol, and pleasure awaits. Preach the Peep Word, and may all your easter baskets contain well aged peeps.

epiphanies

Ever had one of those moments where you realize something? Specifically, when you notice something that was previously going on in the background, unnoticed, that suddenly and rather unrelentingly jumps to the foreground?

Like, a bass-line in your favorite song that you never noticed before. I mean, it was always there, and sure, you may have heard parts of it, but you were never conscious of it until that one time you listened to the song. And for whatever reason, it stood out. And now, you can't listen to the song without hearing that bass line as the dominant line.

I had a moment like that today. I was listening to a recorded interview with Betty Fredan, and for whatever reason, I focused not on what she was saying, but the way she'd draw in a breath between phrases. That little gasp that everyone does, has to do. And from then on, I couldn't hear a word of what she said without counting the seconds until she gave another little gasp. And after the interview was over, all I could hear from the host was the gasps. Like a little munchkin, waiting with baited breath, to jump out and slap me in the face every few words.

The interesting part is now when I listen to radio interviews, I can tell where they've edited those little gasps out. This moment has torn the facade off another aspect of the media, revealing another of their little tricks to string together a compelling interview.

Funny how life does that some times, no?

Oz, Bleach

Been watching Oz lately. Good stuff, if a bit brief. Only 8 shows per season? Bummer. But hey, you take what you can get, no?

It's definitely high-quality writing. The characters are all good, if slightly caricature-ish. And I wonder about the point of it all. I mean, are they trying to say that people can change? Or that they can't? Or is it rather that all they're trying to capture is the conversation about whether or not people can? I suppose it's not written that conversations have to have a point. I mean, you can take a trip where the journey is the destination. Why can't you have a show where the discussion is the point?

I've also been splitting my time watching Bleach. Pretty good stuff, if a bit goofy at times. It does a decent job of flipping the goofy on at just the right time and in just the right doses to keep the show watch-able. Though the constant struggling of Ichigo with his whole Death God powers is a bit annoying. Seems like every major fight he's in, he's gotta go through the same sequence of getting beat up, frantically struggling to find the way to win, then eventually winning, but only just barely, and getting beat to piss in the process.

Ah well. I guess they're just trying to build the tension. ;)

(Thought I'd take a page from their playbook and toss out a more normal sized, non-introspective entry... mix things up a bit. Provide a bit of tension release. ;) )

Later.

impaired

Sometimes, I have a hard time expressing myself in spoken word. Writing gives me the chance to sit back and think, reword, and rework. I can alter my thinking as I'm writing and hone what it is I have to say to an articulate point. Speaking doesn't offer the same opportunity to self-edit. Sure, I could try to backpedal and reword, but I've found that more often than not leads to confusion. People aren't sure what it is I'm saying, because I'm not sure myself. Figuring out a concept during and because of a conversation is not something most people are used to.

On the one hand, I suppose that is reassuring - I can at least communicate well enough that even when I lack a point, the fact that I lack a point comes through clearly. On the other hand, it's frustrating, as it means I spend most of my time conversing about trivialities like the weather, to avoid confusing people as I try to clarify my own thinking.

To be sure that's not the only issue. Some of the problem comes from not always thinking well on my feet. A conversation is, by nature, free flowing and can move quickly. Silences drag. Even though the perception of passing time is certainly worse than the reality, the feeling of flailing around, trying to find something interesting to talk about is pure agony.

I have no practical experience to compare against, but I have the feeling trying to talk to someone and not finding anything to talk about is akin to being a stand-up comedian and dieing on stage. Or an actor and forgetting your line. The silence is deafening, and the seconds are an eternity.

When the pressure is on, my mind chokes. The flood of possible conversation topics seems to dry up and I'm left with a very slight trickle, locked into the channels of the paths the conversation has already taken. And when those topics are dried up, or the other person just doesn't want to discuss them any more... well, I can hear every tick of the clock, and agonize over what to speak about. Conversation becomes an anxiety of halting missteps and blundering charges down already well-trod avenues.

Sometimes I (unfairly) blame this lack of conversational breadth on the rather rarefied world I live in at work. I'm a computer programmer, working in the entertainment industry. On top of that, I have a rather specialized skill set, so even within a company of thousands, there are perhaps a dozen people I can have an in-depth, work related discussion with.

What I spend most of my day thinking about, the vast majority of people don't even have the language to converse on. Of those that do, only a small percentage are either interested or in a position to go into depth. It's not like what I do is that hard... it's just very specialized. Taking the time to explain all the background is so rarely worth it. Too often I've watched as some one's eyes glaze over as I waxed rhapsodical about something that occupies my thoughts.

Trying to politely smile and nod while not understanding what someone is passionately speaking about is, well, a social necessity, but also painful for the speaker when they observe it. The only way out I've found is to stop mid-sentence and self-deprecatingly ask "I'm boring you to tears, aren't I?", followed by a quick change in subject.

Ok, what about topics outside work, you ask? Again, my hobbies don't always lend themselves well to casual conversations. On top of my rather narrow field of work, I choose to Fence. Not exactly a sport most people have much experience with. And there's only so many "Oh really? What's that like?" conversations I can have.

I choose to listen to a wide variety of different music, ranging from speed and death metal to new age, classical western and classical eastern to classic rock, a bit of country and rap, and just a sprinkling of jazz. Finding people with even a subset of my musical tastes is difficult.

Movies are equally problematic. My tastes are likewise across the board and what I get out of movies and music is, based on the conversations I've had, quite a bit different than what most people do.

My tastes in books are also rather specific.

The only sport I really watch is Soccer. British Soccer.

Add in playing a lot of video games, and well, all of these rather odd hobbies combine to make difficult conversations on what I do and think about outside of work.

Another issue is, well... I'm a geek. Geeks have this problem. We like to identify problems (in whatever area of geekery we focus on) and we like to solve them. This mentality is a large part of what makes us geeks. Our unflagging interest in and the ability to focus our attention on a problem and it's possible solutions is our strength. It's what makes us good at what we do.

The problem is, well, we can't solve every problem. Conversations often involve problems people are having. We all like to complain. There's nothing wrong about it. But complaining to a geek is just tossing wood on the fire. We just pick that up as a topic and attempt to understand the problem.

I focus a lot of conversational attention on problems and solutions, and can often feel at a loss for topics to discuss when not trying to solve problems. I think part of the issue here is that, well, conversations not about problems and solutions feel like fluff. "Wow, nice weather, eh?" Great conversation that... been going on for probably as long as homo sapiens sapiens has been aware of the weather. As a geek, and a problem solver, the conversation seems a bit ... trivial.

The final, and possibly worst issue I have with conversations also has to do with my nature. I have the habit of trying very hard to put myself in other people's shoes, of seeing the world from their perspective. This can be an amazing thing, but it can also be a curse.

On the one hand, it can grant me amazing insight into how other people are thinking and feeling, and how best to interact with them. On the other hand, I very often catch myself defending a point of view I don't have, of tossing out myriad possible reasons for some strange behavior my conversant is puzzling over.

I get frustrated that sometimes it seems like conversations with me end up with me just tossing out reason after reason, offering up one explanation after another for a point of view I don't hold. I sometimes wonder if people don't think I'm a strange person as a result of this. I know it frustrates some folks.



Ah well. What can I do? Not much, really. Except for learning to accept myself for what I am, learn what my limits are, and learn how best to operate within what I've been given. I guess that, if few people can understand me, then few people will. If the time it takes to explain to others what I'm on about is too much for them to keep their attention on me, well then so be it.

The best I can do is try to find and hang on to the people that can keep a conversation flowing. Every once in a while I do meet someone that I can just talk with. They seem to pick up the conversation and open new doors where I'm faltering. They have the patience to let me have and explain my thoughts. They get that a lot of the time I'm sorting out my opinion as I talk about it.

I shouldn't attempt to change the way I am to suit others. I can maybe sand the roughest edges down a bit, but ultimately if a square I am, then never a wheel will I be. Rounding the edges a bit and learning to look for the right terrain are all I can do. Cutting away enough of the square to make a circle would cripple me, and trying to hold a rim or chords of a circle in place around the perimeter of my square is but a lie.

The Bard said it best - To Thy Own Self Be True. I always read that as Be who you will be, and ALWAYS tell the whole truth to yourself. These are two of the core tenants I attempt to hold. It's just sometimes painful to realize that whom I am is a lonely intellectual with a bit of a problem with social skills.

insecurity

Some things we want to do.
Some things others want us to do.
Some things we want to do to other people.
Some things other people want us to do to them.
Some things we want to do to them, but they don't want.

The last category is the sticky one.

If we act upon those desires in spite of the other person's lack of desire, we're breaking their trust. We're insulting them. We're hurting them. In the worst cases, it's called rape. The ultimate betrayal of trust.

Why is it then that we want these things some times?

Even though we know these facts?

Were the greeks right? Are the heart and the mind, the desires for our selves and the desire to understand others, separate entities? Are we fundamentally dichotomous?

Or is that simply a construction. A phantom. Smoke and Mirrors, designed to be one more brick in the pillar that upholds all of culture. All of civilization. All of everything we feel separates us from "the animals".

Or is that smoke and mirrors trick what the greeks had in mind? Who cares if it's real, if we get people to believe this dichotomous nature thought, we can build something magnificent!

Is that why religion, another brick in that pillar, so strongly emphasizes the difference between the two. Is that why all religions deny and divide. This is good, that is bad. This is hard, that is easy. Do this, not that. Even though you want that. Even though you feel you need "That". "That" belongs to the heart, to the desire for the self, to the Ego. "This" belongs to the rational mind. The SuperEgo. Civilization.

If that's the case, then the divine (call it what you will) is a fundamental part of human civilization. Humanity itself. Why then is religion, the divine, so adept at destroying that which it is? How can religion be the foundation of most, if not all, of the evil perpetrated upon humanity**?

Or do we believe that religion is not to blame. It's the evil of human nature rearing it's head again, twisting the truth that is religion, using it to better the ends of one group over another. Using religion as an excuse to perpetrate evil. But how can anything consider itself the truth if it leaves out Human Nature?

Or is that why most religions are founded on a contradiction? The holy trinity. The non-nature of nature. Immortal beings that fall prey to the worst of humanities basest instincts. Religion is the truth, but it leaves out human nature, it divides us against ourselves. Religion is the way to salvation, but only at the cost of destroying part of ourselves. How can we save ourselves if we have to destroy part of ourselves? How can anyone attempt to explain one contradiction without bringing another into play?

And is this where the idea of original sin comes from? All of this reasoning, all of religion, exists to stem the tide of chaos brought about by this fundamental flaw in ourselves - this desire to do things to others that they don't want done. That fundamental flaw is the fundamental sin. The original sin. Eve ate the apple at the behest of the serpent. She didn't want to, but the serpent, a representative symbol of that fundamental evil, wanted to do get her to do it. She then got Adam to eat the apple, in spite of his desires not to.

Not a perfect fit for my thought... both actions were chosen by the two people who are supposedly being forced into them. But then it's a naive point of view to think people only ever choose to do things they want to do.


Unwinding back to why it is we want these things some times... well, realisitically, we live in a world of limited resources. In the most strict sense, sometimes there will be situations where two people's desires MUST conflict with eachother. One life jacket and 2 drowning people. One apple and too many starving people. One woman, two men. One man, two women. Evolution dictates that we have this selfish gene (if we're not alive, we can't reproduce). The problem in the more modern world comes from our mis-identifying scaresities of resources. No longer do we live in a world where there is only one apple. No longer are we stuck in situations with only one person to turn to.

In that regard, our genes ... that which drives our very selves to occasional greed and infrequent evil (we're leaving out those broken few we call psychopaths here) ... are outdated. Out moded. Obsolete. We're the walking, talking solution to a problem that doesn't exist any more.

But that's ok. We're working hard on sending our world back to the state it was in before. Destroying the resources we do have, reproducing out of control, growth without bounds. All are components in a recipie for disaster, and we're reaching an arm up and out of the pot to stir ourselves into our own destruction.


Oh... almost forgot. Gung hay fat choy, to all those cantonese readers... and Xin nian yu kuai to the mandarins. ;)

** - I first wrote that sentance as, "How can religion be the foundation of most, if not all, of the evil perpetrated upon the World?" Which struck me as rather egotistical. Since when is the entirety of the world, this little speck of dirt, of which we are a much, much smaller speck of dirt, defined entirely by our actions? I mean, we're not even anywhere near the largest percentage of biomass on the planet. Algae or Krill, or heck, some species of trees probably hold that honor. We're not even the highest percentage of animal biomass. Ants have us cold. So I changed the word.