Thursday, 28 February 2013

Winter Driving in the City

I just completed the first stage of another winter drive to the Big Smoke.  My mission is to see my doctor and get a physical and ask some questions; maybe get a quick cursory search for melanoma.  One of the dangers of a single life is that I only know the part of my body I can see.  

The drive took a about two and a half podcasts.  I cleared out my Skeptically Speaking and started my AstronomyCast.  The drive took a little longer with the snow.  I had been a little worried as the weather forecast had a storm that was going to start overnight and last through the morning.  So I was a bit anxious.  Anxiety meant that when I went to bed before 10pm I could not actually get any sleep despite being tired.  I usually always worry when I have a trip to Big Smoke because I am not a good driver.  That perception might actually make me a better driver than some of the people on the road.  

Being a poor driver means that I do not take many risks and I watch the road more and check my mirrors all they time; I do not get complacent.  Complacency leads to accidents for me, rather it leads nearly to accidents as I still have a completely clean record.  I am actually a Worse driver with other people in the car.  To near accidents with GardenerGuru in the car.  She alerted me to what she thought was a squirrel trying to cross the highway once and once I got distracted talking with her and did not comprehend that an aggressive driver was about to commit suicide by trying to squeeze his car between me and a transport.

Today the highways were not bone dry and I had to keep the wipers on more.  There was light traffic until within one hundred kilometers, but that is normal, still I am not used to driving in Big Smoke bound rush hour traffic, I thought it was all light, but there were a few slow downs and complete stops, mostly when trying to get on the 401.  I did have one laugh though, at the expense of one driver.  Typical aggressive male driver trying to weave and bob to get on place ahead in the line of cars.  Eventually he settled down and chose a lane, mine all his trying to get ahead earned him no better than he started with.  Later he changed lanes to get two car lengths ahead, and I passed him a minute later.  Patience is always the best policy.  

When driving in poor weather in the city, it is best to plan ahead, I left an hour early for example.  When I was in the supper highway I chose the left most lane, knowing that when the exit came I would be in the best place and when we merged, I would not have to change lanes for almost two kilometers.  Giving yourself a chance to relax in crappy stressful driving is a chance most people don't get.  Another benefit is that when you are early you can let people in a head of you and that gives you a good feeling as well, contributing to your now good feelings.  Good feelings while driving in the city in a snow storm, take advantage of that when ever you can.

I arrived early, despite the hassle of parking, which I planned ahead of time but had to change because the parking lot changed.  Oh well not a big deal, something had to go wrong.

Now I get to start my return trip, could be worse, all the people will be tired!

Monday, 25 February 2013

Arguments need facts

I hate fighting through text.  Every argument that I make is not the argument that I mean to make.  Passions always run high when I argue.  Usually I make a passionate argument, but because of my poor social skills I miss something or I overstep my argument, or I miss what the argument is over.  There are three people I am arguing with, one doesn't really matter so I don't really care.  

Seventh, the argument is about religion.  I tell her that she can't make make an argument based in religion, because religion has no basis in fact.  Faith is the antithesis of fact.  Arguments are about facts and being able to prove your point with the facts.  Religion is based on faith and faith cannot be proven because it is the opposite of fact, it is based in wishes.  

I know this and I have had the arguments all before with other people and I know there is only two solutions, agree to disagree or end the friendship.  With strong minds those are the only answers.  Seventh has the strongest mind I know, but she does not know how how to argue based on faith and it frustrates her.  It frustrates her because she is a genius at arguments.  The Bible is really great at making arguments because all the facts that of the religion are there for all to see, but every argument is easily countered in the Bible.  

The other problem is that the Bible birthed philosophy and philosophy which was based in religion but evolved away from it.  Religion birthed a way of thinking that killed it.  Philosophy is about taking one or two facts and arguing until one or the other fact is thoroughly proven or is destroyed, just through rational thought and since religion is not about rational anything it always loses.  No Christian theologian can form a valid argument against a properly armed rational person.  

It is because faith is not fact.  Fact can not prove faith.  They are not apples and oranges, they are absolute opposites.  I know this, but to a person raised in a rational world and newly indoctrinated to it may not realize that.  The trouble is that I love her and I am not willing to give up on her.  So there we see the problem, love is more closely related to faith than rational thought, but because we are on the opposite sides of this argument, that is not possible, ever.  So much that she fears to be around me.  

The other argument was with MagicEyes.  Not an argument precisely, more like I talk she responds and I talk again and she does not respond.  I don't know whether I went too far or whether my arguments are making her think.  I have made her think before so that might be it, but because all the talk has been not in person I don't know what she is thinking and she won't tell me.

I don't want to put the argument here, but I am not I am not getting any information and I don't know what to do.  It started with my perceptions of herself by me.  She wanted to really know what I thought of her, to be sure that I thought of her was not as how she perceived every other male thought of her.  She thought I did not think of her like other that, but wanted to be sure.  I confirmed that.  But then she told me that I would not care for her as she is now.  I just wanted to let here know that it did not matter, but I misunderstood.  

Did she mean that if I knew her now, as she is now that I would not care for her?  Or did she mean that if I knew her as she is now I would not care for any more?  Or did she mean that if I knew her now I would not be cap pile of caring for her?  I of course only thought of one and so I thought obsessively about it for a couple of hours and then wrote her a long e-mail not featured here.   

I tried to say that it did not matter, but I got no response.  And thus my confusion, because obviously I got it all wrong, as usual.  And I am confused.  

I feel that every move that I always make always ends in unhappiness.  MagicEyes, Seventh and all the past and all the future.  When ever I think I am moving forward I am moving backward.  It makes me want to not play, but I am addicted to the game.  Game is not the word it is just an analogy.  I can't play this game, this life.  Not playing is not an issue.

Sunday, 24 February 2013

Dreams

The dream always starts he same way.  The project has been completed early and in depth my whole mark for the year is resting on this one essay that had to be started within the first month of high school and handed in the last day of school.  The details are not important, but the project itself was the result of all my spare time for months and is equal to a masters thesis.  I hand it in and expect that I will only get 70% on it.  When I finish handing it in I start to panic.

The similar essay for history and math have not been completed and that means I am going to fail.

I wake up and tell myself that I can do it over Christmas.  Then when I calm down I tell myself it was just a dream, I have been out of high school for over twenty years, it was just a dream.

Almost as bad as the dream where I forget to go to math class for a whole semester and I am going to have to repeat my year because of it.

Evolution



I have felt with micro evolution and I have tackled how an eye could have developed and I have talked about Darwin and I have replied to Evolution Skeptics, but I do not think I have explained what it means.  I have been perusing what Right-wing American Christians believe, right wing is a good description because when they start talking about anything they start flying in circles.  

The most common misconception is that humans evolved from Apes.  And this is not true.  Some also believe that humans are a more evolved species, which is also not true.  Some people also believe that there was an intelligent design in evolution, that if we were to start one hundred Earths we would get a hundred identical Earths, specieswise.  Also very untrue.  Please if you have a question, I will add to this posting or create a separate blog entry to answer your question.

1. Humans evolved from apes.  Wrong.  Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor that had most of all the traits that we all share.  The accepted time scale we are talking about is about eight or so million years ago. The most human like ape is the Chimpanzee and it's cousin the Bonobo, one might say that we three species are kissing cousins, evolutionarily.  About three million years ago, approximately, there was an ape that resembled neither and all of the three species, it was short and it was hairy (probably).  The population spread over different parts of Africa, then known as a really big place filled with many ecological niches but no actual name.  In these different places some of these Chimpmans or Hupanzees flourished or died out.  Some of them definitely survived though.  The species discovered quite by accident that light shaded furred Chimpmans living in jungles made tasty snacks for proto leopards and they did not reproduce.  Chimpman women thought smaller Chimpman Men were cuter and matted with them over the bigger and uglier ones and the species began to evolve.  At the same time the Hupanzees had different evolutionary pressures and Hupanzee Women liked other types of men, or maybe the Big Hupanzee Male forced Hupanzee females, it does not matter because they evolved differently that the others.  There were also other Hupanzees and Chimpmans that went off and got fossilized and did not leave anything genetically for the future.

The Chimpmans became a separate species called Proto Chimps, and the Hupanzees became a separate species called Australopithecus (they got the cool name because they are our ancestor species and therefore more important to us).  Proto Chimps and Australopithecus could still mate and have children, because they were still very similar and looked almost identical and shared many similar genes, just like a Beagle and a Great Dane can have puppies if they used a stepladder.  

The Australopithecus went through evolutionary pressures and a couple of different versions before resulting in a species that was different enough from where it started that it might be called a different species, say Homo Habilis.  The Proto chimp went through its own selection processes and resulted in its own distinct species that was different enough that we could call it a different species too, say Chimpobo or Bonpanzee.  Since humans are not as interested in Chimp ancestors if we have found this common ancestor, it is not known in the mainstream community, or we have not been looking for it, else-wise it is in some drawer in a university waiting to be classified.  Human archeology is sexy so we know more about it.  We know that Homo Erectus succeeded Habilis and that Homo Erectus journeyed out of Africa in to Asia in the least.  And our ancestors probably thought some proto Chimps were not enough to have sex with but nothing could come out of it.

The Chimpobos lived separately from the Bonpanzees and developed differently occasionally met at social mixers, but the one thought the others were prudes and went back to the Bonpanzee orgies and the Chimpobos were put off by the sexual handshake and just wanted to be friends first, so they went off on their own.  The Homo Erectus was succeeded by Homo Sapiens, actually a few of them, HS modern, HS neanderthal, HS hobbit (or whatever they will call it) and HS eludes-me-right-now.  And we know that they mated, the Africans of today are the pure blooded ones, the others share 10% Neanderthal DNA Filipinos have another bit of common DNA, and who knows if the Hobbit DNA entered some culture, we have yet to get DNA to get a comparison.

Just from three or so million years of sex selection, evolutionary pressures and world wide dispersal we get three distinct species, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans.  But altogether, we had a common ancestor and ten to twenty intermediary species or stages.  Evolution, it is a little messy.

2. Humans are a more evolved species.  From the above example, you could not conclude that.  All three species have three million or so years of evolutionary differences, we would be equally evolved.  On the other hand, since humans have a longer maturity rate, one might say that we are less evolved than a species that has a shorter maturity rate.  If humans produced new generations every 15-20 years and chimps and bonobos every 3-5 years, or however long it take for them to mature, they would be evolving that much faster than we are and would be more evolved.  If you want to look at it socially, bonobos might beat us out with their 'make love not war' social policies.  Either way, evolutionarily humans are not more evolved.  We are more technical.

3.  Intelligent design.  Even in that short example, three million years is very short when you consider life on this planet may be more than three billion years old, there were so many twists and turns that would not guarantee a Homo Sapiens modern result.  We could have been too curious and wanted to study the mating habits of the Protolion before inventing guns, jeeps and binoculars.and wound up as protolion shit.  Or we could go back even further and fur might never have accidentally evolved and the Proto Mammal froze to death in fall out of the Dinosaur extinction and a subspecies of Raven might be doing all the archeology.  There is too mush chance involved in the history of life on Earth for it to evolve the same way every time, unless there is a god, sorry God, controlling everything.  And then I would ask why all the false starts?  Homo Erectus had at least four successor species, of which we are only one, what would be the purpose of all of those, not to mention all the ones we have not found yet, if we would always evolve?

Any questions?  Post a comment below.

I Friended You!

It takes me awhile sometimes to come to some conclusions about things in life.  I blame some of it on my general hard headedness, but some of it is due to my Autistic traits.  Like my literal mindedness, I know I have talked about it before.  For those that have not caught that lecture or need a refresher, words have very specific meanings and I tend to treat them as static, but people use words very loosely and our culture often uses words to mean things that go beyond the static definition.  Due to my linguistic rigidity I often get the intent wrong.  Like when people say literally I did not think they meant literal, but literature so people would say literally, meaning the truth and I would think it mean fiction.

Lately there has been some cultural confusion over the word friend.  To me a friend is someone that you share with deeply and have a lot of mutual concern for both ends of the relationship for both parties.  Admittedly, as an introvert, my perception of what a friend is, is quite a bit deeper than the perception of what an extravert feels for the relationship: friend.  But it is basically the same, just a bit shallower, meaning the degree of depths is not as important.

The problem is, people through around the word friend around a lot and it can be confusing.  Friends are friends and acquaintances are acquaintances and they are not really the same thing.  If you read all my blog posts it does not make you either one.  I find Facebook to be a little confusing, because it uses the word "friend" to identify people that you know, all the people you know.

I recently went through a purge of my Facebook "friends."  I realized that I had three categories of "friends."  There were my friends and this was the smallest category.  I know these people, I know details about their lives that is not posted on Facebook and many of my Friends are not on Facebook.  The second category I call acquaintances.  These are people are people whom I have met and may have been friends or maybe not.  They are people that you know stuff about but mutually don't really care about their lives, or perhaps they are people who you have never met but have had a connection with and share some similarities; perhaps you could be friends if there was not twelve thousand kilometers of rock and magma between us. And then there is the third category, space fillers.  Space fillers are friends that you need to acquire to play games on Facebook.  When I had a farm on FarmVille, I had to have more friends.  When I played another game and reached vice president to a clan, I had to open myself up to the three hundred clan members so that I had a direct link and then I had to friend rival clan leaders for diplomatic purposes.  Soon I had five hundred friends.  I got rid of the spacers.  I got rid of a few acquaintances too.

The problem with the use in Facebook and e word friend is that it is devaluing the meaning of friend and if it does not devalue it means that you are treating people as friends who do not share that feeling.  I get status updates from people all the time and beneath the update there is an open box asking me to make a comment and I don't know if they would appreciate me commenting or should I hit the like button and does hitting like mean that you like what they said or is it about acknowledging that I have seen their update; letting them know that I see what they said.  

The trouble is, the real trouble, seeing updates from acquaintances, is letting people see into their lives and is forming connections with my life; I feel like a friend, for real, in their life, but at the same time I feel like a voyeur or a peeping tom, looking in on a life that I would not normally be allowed to.  Some acquaintances I would love to be friends with, but I am not really their friend just because I am their friend on Facebook.  

It comes down and back to my laws of friendship.

I.  There shall be regular communication.
II.  There shall be common interests.
III.  Thy shall participate in multiple venues or aspects of life.
IV.  Thy shall like each other.
V.  There shall be mutual respect.
VI.  I, II, IV, and V determine if you are acquaintances,  III determines if you are friends and how strong the friendship is.

The trouble is that it is true.  It throws me into despair when I think about it.  I recently met MagicEyes, about a year ago, and I mentioned the laws.  She disagreed, but it IS true.  She read my blogs, I read hers and we talked mutually conversing, in person, on Facebook, by texting.  She is not my friend anymore because we don't talk anymore, we only text.  She can read my blog until her eyes burn, but she is not really a friend anymore.  She is an acquaintance.  GardenerGuru and a friend in BigSmoke do not have Facebook, but we regularly communicate in person and have all the rest.  It is different.

I wish that you could friend friends on Facebook, have acquaintances and have space holders.  It would be simple, friends you would see all their posts and be free to comment on them.  Acquaintances would have some posts and you could look at only some of their pictures, but no comments unless posts are open.  Space holders have a blank page with a picture to look at and you can talk via mail.  Friends are a special relationship that needs to be recast, after the Facebook experience, back into what it was.

Saturday, 23 February 2013

Vegetarian


People who know me in person know that I am a vegetarian. I have been a vegetarian for many years. Technically I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian, which means I eat milk products and eggs on occasion. It also means it makes me less of a picky eater as I can eat most things made with flour without looking to see if they have milk or eggs in them. 

Vegetarianism is an infectious life style. In my first year of university I meet two women that were vegetarians and they had an impact on my life, obviously, but I had an impact on other people too. There is not too much fuss being a vegetarian if you are cooking food for yourself exclusively, there is more of a fuss if you eat out regularly. When people see you easily going through life without eating meat, they begin to see it as easy and give it a spin.
 

There is history in those veggies. Carnivores and omnivores like to trot out that we invented fire to char meat, which makes it taste better supposedly, and that is why we have fire. But how many people do you know who have tested that idea? I only know one person who eats Steak Tartare, uncooked ground beef mixed with salt and other spices, most other people think it is disgusting. Truthfully properly prepared beef has no dangerous bacteria when raw, but people have grown so used to cooking it that they find raw meat unpalatable, with the possible exception of Sushi. Most people I know love sushi a lot; they love the taste, so I guess that means raw fish tastes better than cooked fish. The Inuit, in the extreme north, (some people) claim that cooking meat ruins the taste, so there is a culture that eats raw meat and has had cooked meat and knows the difference. Additionally, food scientists would tell you that cooking meat destroys a lot of the beneficial nutrient content of meat. So cooking meat may destroy the taste, it destroys the nutritional quality. The only good thing that cooking does is kill harmful bacteria, but then most people do not cook their meats long enough to do this anyway.

What food scientists will tell you, however, is that a lot of the calorie content of vegetable matter that we regularly eat is inaccessible to humans until we cook it. Certainly a lot of the vegetables and fruit we eat are good for us in their raw states, but it you want to tap into the calorie content of many of them; you have to cook them first, like all the grains and some legumes. Don't believe me? Try eating raw rice or crowing down on uncooked maize (corn-on-the-cob) and see how far you get. Raw potatoes as bland while cooked taste fine. Trust your tongue, the tongue knows, after all we evolved with the tongue and it can tell you if something is good to eat. So fire was invented not for meat, but for vegetables and grain.

The truth of the matter is that most people are lazy; they don't want to work a bit when they eat a meal. I know people who come home after a day at work and drop a steak onto the grill and then eat it and are done. Plants are not that simple. First thing to dispel is that only meat has protein. The truth is everything has protein; well everything that grows has it. Protein is made up of 20+ amino acids which our body forms into chains that range in lengths from no less than three to many millions in length. They together make everything that the body needs to live and function. It is really about the cells. Every structure in every cell is composed of protein structures. Muscle cells contain more protein because their function is different than all the others and plant cells have less, because plant cell walls are made of cellulose, which is fibre to us. Fungus cell walls are made of chitin, which is pure protein, but is mostly indigestible to us. What meat has is a complete protein, meaning all the amino acids that we use on a day to day time period in one source, so that makes eating meat easy. Not that eating plants is difficult, mind you, one just has to use variety over simplicity. Some foods have a complete protein, mushrooms, potato skins, quinoa and a few others, but mostly plants have a more limited variety of amino acids. Eating two different vegetables solves this concern but a variety is always best.

More history. When people picture ancient humans they picture and hunter gatherer society. Should probably be called a gatherer hunter society because most of the food that the society ate was gathered and there were only occasional spikes of animal protein, unless the people lived on a coast. The wealthiest American Native peoples, meaning North and South America, we're the ones that got most of their food from the sea, picking up clams, seaweed, critters and spawning fish like salmon. An hour’s work would supply food for a day and a day’s work in spawning time for many months. Agricultural societies were the next most wealthy and the rest were poor. Wealth being measured by free time to create decadent cultural artifacts. Those that relied on hunting were the most poor, always moving looking for game and often starving. Gathering means for most cultures though picking the food off the land, picking seasonal fruit, berries and vegetables. Planting and growing vegetables is a natural offshoot of gatherer societies and occurred many times and many places across the world. Raising live stock took longer to develop but is also similar as raising meat animals, means meat more regularly. But it should be noted that meat was never a regular part of the human diet, until recently, unless the humans in question lived by the seashore.
 

Preindustrial peasants were mostly vegetarian too. Granted they did have some meat, but far less meat that what people picture. If they had chickens they would be used for egg production more than cooking. Cows would be used for milk production and as heavy labourers, field needed to be tilled and carts needed to be pulled. European farmers learned that horses were more efficient at these tasks than cows, but Europeans never developed a wide spread taste for horse milk or meat so it would be difficult to justify the expense of owning horses, but not cattle. Sheep provided wool, goats: milk, cattle: milk and labour, pigs eat anything from spoiled food to roughage and all can be eaten too. But, the peasants mostly ate vegetable stuffs throughout the year. They grew four or more varieties of grain in the same field, wheat, barley, rye, millet and others, hoping one would do well in any given year along with split peas. Pease porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old; everyday every meal. The grains would be harvested and milled to flour altogether and because flour storage was so difficult, made into bread right away and stored to grow hard and stale within a few days, to be eaten with the peas porridge through the year. Meat was eaten very rarely or sold to the wealthy or as rent for the land. Yup, being a peasant sucked, but it would have been a common occurrence in any agricultural society from China through India, all the way to Europe and even Central America; any place that had a high population to feed. You just have to substitute the grain crop, rice in Asia, maize in the Americas. Possible exception was the Andes who grew potatoes and quinoa.
 

We live in more modern times though, so why vegetarianism? Every time people ask me I come up with more reasons:

1) Health: eating a variety of vegetables with every meal means that I get a complete protein and the mineral and vitamins that the variety of foods brings with it. Steak and potatoes gives you protein and carbohydrates but misses out on the rest of the vitamins and minerals one needs and often the ones that exist in the meat are cooked out of them. I am lazy; being vegetarian forces me to eat healthier.

2) Being vegetarian means it is not easy for me to eat out and almost impossible to eat fast food. This makes me healthier. Go to McDonalds, pick from their vegetarian meal selection only. There are some choices like at Harvey's or Burger King which have a palatable veggie burger, but mostly fast food is out, so I don't get to dine on all that salt and empty calories, yum. Restaurants usually have a vegetarian option and some restaurants are mostly vegetarian, like Indian food, extra yummy. Generally the food is better for you. I love a good Buddhist Chinese restaurant too.

3) The Environment. Really, for me this is number one through ten, but it is not a big concern for most people. Today, most food animals live in buildings and never see the light of day until they are slaughtered. They do not room free like in children's picture books. Food is brought to them from fields far away. The waste is taken far away. The animals are shipped to abattoirs far afield. Every step of the process involves burning fossil fuels. Then the meat is packaged with fossil fuels (Styrofoam and plastic wrap) and shipped around the country, around the world.
 

4) Land use also Environment. To grow enough food for one person for a year on some land you will need x land units. To grow enough fish or chicken to feed a person for a year you need 2x land units and fish and chicken are the most efficient food animal. The least efficient is beef cattle where you need 30x land units to feed one person for a year. People are starving so you can eat a Big Mac and it is not good for you to boot. Seven billion people are on the planet right now, expected to crest at ten billion. Growing meat will mean starvation.
 

5) 3+4=Environment. To grow all this meat we learned in the Eighties, beef farmers were pushing Brazilian farmers off their land to grow cattle. They farmers had to survive and went to farm on cleared rainforest land, which became unusable quickly; whereupon it was bought up as pastureland for beef farmers and the farmers moved to newly cleared rainforest lands. I suspect that this might not be true anymore, because it sounds utterly horrid, but that also makes it seem all to true too.
 

6) The kicker is that in the West, this does not matter. We grow nutrient intensive crops on the best land year in and year out to feed livestock. The crops have to be fertilized heavily which uses a lot of fossil fuels, so we are mining the land and the environment to produce crops that feed a fraction of the people the land could feed to feed people with meat.

7) When is the last time that you heard a food recall for vegetable product? I heard of one recently, the food was contaminated by nuts. When was the last time that you have heard a meat recall? All…the…time. Processed meats that have deadly bacteria, deadly prions in meats and let us not forget mislabelled food stuffs, horse served as beef and cheap fish sold as expensive fish. Nuts can be deadly too, you say. And I agree, but only to someone who has a strong allergy and strong allergies are very rare for nuts; milk allergies are far more common. Meat is recalled because prions and bacteria will kill whoever eats them. Meat is processed in bacteria friendly environments, that it does not happen more frequently is amazing. Prion diseases like 'Mad Cow Disease' are passed on to humans when a diseased brain of a cow is eaten by other cows. If you did not know already, we feed our cows processed cow to make them grow faster. We eat cannibals.

8) Because most of our meat is grown in factory farm: close quarters, massive populations and sedentary lifestyle, with little circulation, disease can be rampant. To keep animals alive, antibiotics were proscribed. It was then noticed that animals on antibiotics grew bigger and faster, so all animals were given antibiotics in their food every day. The result was larger animals, more profits and antibiotic immune bacteria and diseases, which have jumped to humans in the past.

I know, vegetarianism may not be the solution that you will choose, but you can see that it is a better choice for the planet. Granted some people who are raised on farms that allow their livestock to go to pasture and range free will say that a lot of my points do not apply to their farms, but you will also know that I am not really directing my gaze there as I believe that the most productive vegetable farm has a more symbiotic relationship with animals. I would however point out that productive land used to grow cattle is misuse of the land unless the land is currently in fallow rotation.

We should, as a species, farm the arable land responsibly and use the marginal land for animal production, for milk and eggs and other meat products, because it makes sense and damages the world less. There is another reason to be a vegetarian, the most common reason:

9) Cruelty to animals. Meat production hurts animals. I do not see this as a valid reason, but I am a cruel heartless man. I know that there is pain in the world and that when we die; we die in pain, unless we are drowned or suffocated. We die in distress in any case. I know that the veal industry and the milk industry are tied; sometimes newborn calves are harvested for veal so that their mothers produce milk for longer, not always, but sometimes. Life is death, to live something must die, it is the only truth in the world. Plants die for me. Plants and animals die for you too.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Beautiful Alloy Creatures Law

I went to see a movie yesterday with my friend GardenerGuru.  There was not much of a choice, such is the lag between Christmas and the Summer blockbuster rush.  The choice was between a geriatric with a walker trying to stop terrorist who like to play Beethoven's ninth symphony and a movie called Beautiful Creatures.

Really there was no choice, but when two friends go see a movie they inevitably try to pick a movie that the other would like most.  So my friend tried to suggest the former and I tried to suggest the latter, but for me, I did not want to see Die Harder, unless it was the name of a weird porno.  It was not, though.  Why would anyone wasn't to see an action flick brought to you by someone who has grandchildren pretending to be a young sturdily man.  

If it had been about a new actor who was in their sixties or seventies who was playing someone in their sixties or seventies it would have been different.  Bruce Willis, you are old are old and that is not a bad thing.  You might be a good actor and if you are, take a role that can show your thespian skills; I might even watch it.  If you don't have any acting skills, go and make an action film with plenty of CGI graphic explosions and lots of brainless shoot out scenes…oh.

So we went and watched Beautiful Creatures, which is a sappy sounding movie about teenage love, where wet works means it is a tear jerker and not a blood bath.  Let me be clear, it was not a brainless movie.  It was a Chick Flick, but I am a chick flick fan, I cried, my friend did not.  It was my type of film, there was magic and there was PG-11 love scenes, kissing only.  Fantasy yes, Capitol "R" for Romance.  It was something like the Twilight movies, something I have never seen, not will I, but it had that feel.  

It was based in an exotic location, an isolated rural town in the deep south, with people who tried to relive the the past that they had never lived, but a better time, in their minds, cloaked by the passage of over a century.  It looks like my town, the past was it's heyday and the people are filled with dreams that they will never act upon.  In this mix of deep southern velleity and righting religious fever, drops the new girl who has a reputation based on speculation and fear of new things from old money.  And a hint of magic…

Destiny draws nastily down upon the local boy who falls in love with the young damsel and in pseudo-Shakespearian Romeo and Juliet, the two worlds fight to keep them apart.  Barriers placed between them, no one with a lesser passion could fight, but because they do not have a lesser passion they cut through those roadblocks.

I knew all the actors, but I could not place them, any of them.  If any had been cast in roles from previous flicks, they were not in my mind.  My friend could only identify one, but the rest felt familiar too.  Such were that in this movie that they felt as part of the tableau presented.

The graphics were pushed the art to the maximum.  The magic was great and oddly more plausible in how it was presented with the computer magic.  Everything flowed.  The ending was a twist.

I then went home and picked up a book that I had need caressing for a week and guzzled the words down in a few quick draughts.  Alloy Law, by Brandon Sanderson, was a continuation of another series he wrote called the Mistborn trilogy.  It was a stand alone and clearly the first book in a new trilogy, based in the same world but in a different time that was no longer medieval in nature and more early twentieth century, but with the same magic, burning metals internally to create specific effects.  Gone is the fight to end the millennium of oppressive rule and in comes a detective slash western gunfighter.  

It was awesome.

It had a twist different from the original series combining two different magic styles together in a complementary fashion.  Adding technology, guns, automobiles, trains and early skyscraper technology.  The setting had the feel of the Nineteen Twenties with race to build the tallest building in New York City, in the Wild West, with magic.  There was romance, but with a twist.  Characters were complex, strong male and female characters.  Strangely, the main character was my age, which really helped draw me into the character.  Most characters in books are young people and he was not.  Nice.

Sanderson is clearly improving his writing as he ages and writes.  He has not fallen into the trap that most, if not all writers fall into, one setting, one group of laws that govern the world.  He, Sanderson, has managed to write many different series with their different magic styles, proof of the fecundity of his mind; how I idolize him.

I do believe that while reading the previous series, Mistborn, would help, one need not invest in them to enjoy this book.

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Lies I Tell Myself

Age perception is a weird thing.  Your own perception of age and other peoples perception of age can be radically different.  Just like your body image is often  completely different than how others view yourself.  I have had to face how both these perceptions about myself have have been wrong  for years recently.  Also I have come to realize exactly how my perceptions of people has changed.

I have recently been trying to date people, mostly because, counter to public opinion, my sex drive has been going up and not down.  Also, I have gotten over certain people and I want to try again.  I may talk about my experiences later here and in other posts.  Part of dating has to do with how you view yourself and this is as much a self discovery process as expectations.  First, it will come to no one who reads this regularly, I am a guy and most men view themselves differently than women.  Actually that is an assumption, because I have no clue, so perhaps I should just stick to the facts.

When I wake up, a seventeen or eighteen year old boy is waking up, not me.  I don't have a good perception of what I look like.  In my mind I do not see who I am.  I see a tall person with a little extra weight around the middle with a full head of hair none of which is grey.  I see myself as muscular and I think if I got on my bicycle, if there was no snow on the ground, I could cycle ninety kilometers in two and a half hours.  Sexually I think I could go for hours non-stop.  That is how I think I look.  Those people who know me and are reading this, please stop laughing; I assure you one day, if not today, you will suffer similar delusions.

How I actually am.  Warning, I am about to hurt my ego.  Currently there is a pain in my left knee, it is very slight, my lower back is ever so slightly sore.  So I am clearly not seventeen.  A few years ago I felt better than I had at seventeen, but that had mostly to do with my mood.  Mood improves everything.  I do not have grey hair, I am supremely lucky that I have hair that will never go grey, but one day it will go white, but not yet.  On they other hand, when you are carrying and extra fifty or so pounds of fat, is not a few extra pounds.  I am muscular, those muscles are hard muscles too, but that might be more due to a genetic gift, because I don't work out.  My ideal weight is 220 pounds, which doesn't make me muscular either.  I am strong, very strong, in high school I could squeeze 70 kg on the squeeze calipers, either hand.  I have gotten bigger since then and a bit stronger.  At work I can life small trees by myself, still being strong does not make you muscular.  I am going bald.  My dad says I am going bald faster than he did, but I have contrary photographic evidence.  Thin spot for sure…. If I cycle everywhere this spring and summer and do extra cycling after work, I might be able to cycle the distance mentioned and the time.  The last time I did so was thirty months ago, so I can probably do it again.  That said, it shows I am vain too.  Sexually, I still want a lot, but the last couple times nearly killed me, not my heart, but I was sore for a day afterwards, what am I bragging again?

What this does prove, is that I do not look like I think I do and so I should scrap the photo that I put up and get a new one.  I also have a higher opinion of myself than I should, which is funny in a way, because I tend to have a poorer opinion of myself generally.  Other perceptions that I have had recently shattered is my wittiness factor.  I have deluded myself recently is that I am not really a guys guy.  I thought that I was not, but it turns out that I am.  Part of the problem is that I feel that I have to be aggressive to date online.  Aggressive messaging means that I am contacting new people every day and when I don't hear from people, I re-message them again.  Part of it was I was not sure that that they were not interested, see above and my poor self perceptions, but also is that women tend to date passively; they respond to the ones they are interested in and not the ones they are not, not even a note to say, "not interested."  All the men are messaging aggressively and the women have already in there first day online received one hundred messages, most of whom sport a picture flexing their chest muscles or holding their cock.  Most of them are from out of area are not what they are looking for.  What I am saying is that I had it thrown back at me by some people and I had toe reassess.  That is a difficult thing.  It is more difficult to then realize that they are correct.

So my perceptions of myself had to change.

People I know perceive me, but I perceive them too.  I am not going to tell you how I perceive them but to tell you how I perceive myself towards them.  So if you see your name and don't want to know, skip to the next paragraph.

WaifGirl.  She is almost twenty years my junior, but in my head I see her as a peer and around the same age, but I think she sees me as the same age as her parents and that means there is a cognitive dissonance between us, I am not sure who is wrong.  Everytime I see a Facebook update I feel it.  Maybe her head is screwed on correctly; I have already proven in this post that my perceptions are off.

GardenerGuru.  She sees me as a long lost younger brother, I know this, but I see her as my peer and even though she is nearly twenty years my senior, I am attracted to her.  I do not tell her this and I have accepted that it will never be, so instead I am her best friend and in many ways she is mine.  She sees me as someone who will soon feel old.  She sees me as older than I am.  I see her as younger than she is.

MPTR.  She views me as a friend.  I am still angry most of the time when I think about her, but I am her friend.  I understand her and I can make her happy, but because of certain things that I can divulge here, she won't let me.  But still she keeps me on.  I have stopped loving her and I can be cold towards her, but I know that will pass in time.

MagicEyes.  I am a jerk.  She could have been something extra special but I am not only a jerk, I entered her life at the wrong time.  She saw me as an ally, but I am not a part of her life and I will never be a part of her life again, so I don't try.  I could be her greatest friend, but I can't because I am still strongly attracted to her and she is not interested at all; I can't get past that.

Seventh. I understand her at the deepest level, she is a younger female me.  She sees me as a friend and a danger.  She is afraid to be around me alone, not because I will do anything to her, but because she will do something to me.  I won't let her, but she thinks I am weak willed.  She would be right normally, except I love her so much that I would not risk a premature end of our friendship.  I am afraid for her; we are both self destructive, but she can do more damage because she is a girl.
 
People have funny perceptions.  My parents see me as who I was when I left them for school and stopped living with them., even though that was over twenty years ago.  My sister doubly so.  I told Seventh how old I was when I first met her years ago, but she still thinks of me as that age, I guess one day she will think I am her age.  She is not the only one, many people thing that way. I know how old people are if I ever knew how old they are.  I am conscious of it.  While I lie to myself about how old I am when I wake up, I know how old I am and birthdays mean nothing to me.  I have never been concerned that the world was ending when I hit thirty or forty even.

Perceptions of maturity are funny and constantly change as you age, but you never notice the change.  I think of people having their puppy years.  Puppies look like puppies, there heads are bigger than their body, paws are too big and they have softer curves on tier head.  People also have their puppy features.  I am not sure what they are but I can point to someone and say "Puppy!"

I never saw it as a puppy.  Growing up with other puppies I never saw the change.  Being slightly older I never noticed.  Then one day, poof!, I saw puppies.  The first time I met WaifGirl, she was a puppy.  When I first go to know her, she was not.  Looking at Facebook photos is an easy way to see it.

Well I learned.  I have updated my profile with a more recent photo.  But I am not the only one.  I see many profiles that have a half dozen photos half of them  much younger than one, all minus that piercings and the tattoos, thinner, matching their inner perceptions of self.

Saturday, 16 February 2013

Environmental Feedback


The Earth has plenty of negative and positive feedback loops. A positive feedback loop is when a situation causes something to happen in another system that increases the first effect, which I turn impacts the second, which causes the first effect to get bigger and so on. A negative feedback loop has the opposite effect. The something has an effect on a second system which then has an effect on the first system, which is now smaller and it in turn has a smaller effect the second, which causes the first to be smaller and so on.

There that was confusing; how about some examples? Luckily the Earth has quite a few of these systems.

The Mountain Pine Beetle in Northern Canada: Normally this little critter lives in trees in northern Canada, on the slopes of British Colombia's mountains. The life cycle of this critter is kept in check by cold temperatures which kill off most of the larvae over wintering in the trees, very cold weather. The climate has been getting warmer, which reduces the number of larvae killed each winter. The larvae infest more trees and kill the trees. The trees die and the sun reaches the ground evaporating all the water and heating the ground and air. This increases climate change, minor changes first, but the more larvae that survive affect more trees the next year. The tinder dry dead trees are more likely to burn and the needle litter on the forest floor is much drier and when forest fires occur they are larger and burn more forest increasing climate change, killing less larvae which kill even more trees. At times in the northern boreal forests the mature flying beetle blots out the sky as it moves across the northern forests, no longer confined to the slopes of mountains in northern British Columbia.

They get more complex than that and more simple too, here is a simple one: As climate gets warmer in the north the permafrost in the north melts more. Permafrost is when the ground freezes and never thaws in the short summer. In the muskeg, any northern areas that are made of watery, boggy moss. It is a saturated mess of dead, decaying moss soaked in water that descends deep into the earth, most of which is permanently frozen. Anyone who has spent time in a marsh or swamp knows that it smells bad; vegetation that decays in water produces methane gas instead of carbon dioxide. Methane gas is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; water vapor is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The positive feedback loop is that as temperatures in the north rise, more water in the ground evaporates, releasing the methane into the atmosphere and melting the permafrost allowing more muskeg to decay, increasing methane production. The release of powerful greenhouse gasses, water vapor and methane gas accelerates climate change which increases the temperature of the north, which melts more permafrost and increases greenhouse gas production.

A more complex positive feedback loop can contain a negative feedback loop: Climate change in the tropics heats the air which does a number of things. The first process is that it evaporates more water from the ground and the water. The second is that warm air can hold more water than cold air. As the air warms more water can be stored in the air, it is an exponential rate of increase, so any increase of temperature means a lot more water being absorbed by the air. Everyone knows that warm air rises, that is why hot air balloons work, but moist air rises faster than dry air, which is counter intuitive. Water is heavier than air right? Air is made of oxygen and nitrogen, which have an atomic mass of 16 and 14 respectively, but they occur paired as N2 and O2, so masses of 32 and 28. Water vapor (H2O) has and atomic mass of 18, so moist air rises. As the air rises, the air cools and as it cools it becomes saturated and condenses out as cloud material, suspended water droplets or much higher suspended ice particles.

Clouds are white, at least from the top, and reflect light from the sun, less light reaches the ground so less heating occurs. That is a negative feedback loop and it does indeed work, but it is a weak feedback loop. The amount of extra cloud cover is marginal, a few percent, so the reduction is also marginal, but on the other hand, climate change is dependent on slight overbalances exaggerated by positive feedback loops, so it might be significant.

But, the problem with that idea is that when the water condenses into the air as clouds, it releases a fantastic amount of heat dealt with in a previous post. In pre-climate change Earth, most of the energy would have bled off into space, but an increase in carbon dioxide reflected more or the energy back to earth, increasing the temperature of the planet and increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses are always clear to visible light, like glass in a greenhouse, but opaque to heat energy also like glass in a greenhouse, so more of the heat radiation is contained. The extra latent heat excites that air molecules causing the particles to move more, it also means more evaporation, more convection in the clouds, and more suspended water in the clouds and more water vapor reflecting more energy back to earth. A truly powerful positive feedback loop system.

There are a lot of positive feedback and negative feedback loops in the Earth's climate. Tropical rainforests transpire a lot of water, which goes back into the air which falls as rain and is in turn transpired. It has been found that as the rainforests are harvested; the area receives less rain than when there were more trees. Less rain harms the trees, decreasing rainfall as the trees die or dries out reducing the rain more. This is a negative feedback loop. 

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Driving in Winter



I have been thinking of this for a while as I have been driving a lot in winter weather.  I have been driving on unplowed roads, ice covered roads, thick snow squalls, night driving in snow falls and bright sun on new snow.  It is important for you to know how to drive in these conditions in places that receive a lot of snow and places that only occasionally get snow.  

Snow tires.  I am poor, so I don't have them.  Snow tires have softer rubber in colder temperatures and they have wider tread to grip the snow better and it gives you confidence, false confidence.  I say false confidence because if you don't drive cautiously in snow and continue to drive as if it were summer, having snow tires won't help you.  What snow tires will help you with is climbing hills covered with snow and getting better acceleration, but better acceleration can be bad.  It will also give you better braking power in some conditions in winter, but not all and if you are not driving cautiously, you will be in for a surprise.

Four-wheel drive splits the wheel moving power to four wheels instead of two.  It allows your vehicle to gain purchase in four potential good locations instead of two potential locations, but you still only have two wheels used for steering.  It allows you to get purchase in difficult locations like ditches and on normal roads it can give you a false sense of confidence.

Many are the stories that involve a traffic accident and a driver with winter tires and four-wheel drive.  The road is snow or ice covered and there is a corner coming up and the car winds up in the opposite ditch or on top of another vehicle.  Just because you have winter tires and four-wheel drive, does not mean you can drive without a care.  The two most important winter driving safety measures are caution and reduced speeds.

Speed limits posted on roadways are maximum velocities, not minimums.  You are supposed to be driving to the conditions that exist.  When your visibility drops to almost nothing you need to slow down to appropriate speeds.  Slower speeds means that you can slow and stop better no matter what type of surface you are driving on, because if you are called to stop suddenly, you can stop.  When driving at faster speed and trying to brake suddenly will cause you to spin out or end up in the ditch; or wrapped around a tree.

Caution is the biggest, it is lower velocities but it is preparing for possible horrible situations.  I don't use my brakes, even in the summer.  I stop accelerating early and let the air and the road slow me down.  When you apply your breaks hard, your wheels are slowed down or stopped.  If the surface is not ideal, the wheel will stop, but the tire will slide and if one wheel has better purchase than the other, you will start to spin or slide through your stopping goal.  I had this happen to me.  I was driving on an ice covered road way, a snow fall that was driven on and not plowed in temperatures where salt was not working and a fire truck started to pull out of and adjoining road.  Normally one pulls over and let's the fire engine get to its emergency.  I tried to brake, but I was going too fast for the surface and I started to spin.  I stopped braking and the spin stopped.  My options we're to go into a ditch or breeze past the emergency vehicle.  I breezed past it and pulled over when I could.  If I hit the ditch the emergency response vehicle would have been required to lend assistance to me before going to the real emergency.  

When traveling to Big Smoke, one day I encountered a sudden snow squall.  It only covered about twenty kilometers, but was blinding and was dropping a lot of snow.  The two south bound lanes where not getting cleared and all traffic slowed from one hundred kilometers per hour down to fifty to twenty kilometers per hour, depending on the situation.  All the cars moved into a single line and we put our emergency signals on, that button that looks like a red triangle that you don't know what it is used for, so that cars were more visible to the one behind.  If I had not needed to be in the city, I would have looked for a way to stop and turn around.

Cultivating an attitude that getting to your destination late is okay also helps, as is leaving earlier than necessary.  Remember being late to an even is always better than being the late insert your name here.

Where sunglasses while driving in sunny weather in the snow.

Spend the time to clear the snow from your roof and car.  It increases fuel mileage and flying snow coming off cars can blind people, off transport truck it can kill.  

Headlight on even in the day increases visibility.  At night driving in a snow fall, keep your lights on low beams and off high beams.  The light going into the falling snow will reflect into your eyes and obscure your vision with high beams.  Reduce your speed.  

Accelerate slowly.  Rapid acceleration on snow or ice can cause tire spinning. Accelerating from stop to go up a hill can be a fruitless endeavor, no matter who you are and how your your car is outfitted; I watched a police car fail and chose a different route.

Truthfully I could have used four-wheel drive and snow tires a dozen times this winter, but by reducing my speed and using more caution, I did not need to because I was cautious and did not travel as if it were summer.

Monday, 11 February 2013

Non-sequitur interlude

I have been fixated and obsessed recently.  I have about five to ten blog posts in my head but I have been so fixated that they remain there in my head.  Tomorrow I will get a couple of them down.

Bacigalupi, Gaimen, MiƩville and Sherwood

I have been reading a lot recently.  Un Lun Dun by China MiĆ©ville, Banner of the Damned by Sherwood Smith, Anansi Boys by Neil Gaimen and Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi.

The first one was  Un Lun Dun by China MiĆ©ville.  UnLondon is a shadow London the flip side of the real London.  Broken things and obsolete technology slips through the veil between the worlds where they gain life and possibly sentience.  Concepts pass through the void between the worlds and people pass between the worlds.  Years ago there were two employees on on each double decker bus, the driver and a conductor.   The conductor was declared redundant and half the employees were let go, they filtered into UnLondon and live there.  Conductors work on buses again and they protect the passengers, because conductors contact electricity!  This is a story about two girls who slip into UnLondon who are prophesied as the saviors of the city from the evil Smog, who is the 1950s death fog, made sentient.  The book initially is a slog.  The first 70 pages dragged on and on and I kept dropping the book until suddenly it took off and the sidekick did what all sidekicks do, kick ass.  Well sidekicks in UnLondon anyways, except the sidekick broke all the prophesies.  The next 300 pages just zipped by until the enemy was defeated and his government backers in London were disciplined.  Slow start, good ending, but made me not want to pick up China's Railsea that I have in my possession.

Banner of the Damned by Sherwood Smith, or a first person narrative if the life story of a servant.  Sounds boring, but if you are the person who is the manages the correspondence of royalty it gets more interesting.  But still it is not enough.  In this world, the Notaries all come from a University.  Everyone who attends this University does not end up as a Notary for royalty, some of them become Heralds, messengers who carry swords, bookmakers and Mages.  For some reason Royal notaries are the pinnacle vocation for graduates.   They have to have major memory skills; they have to be able to parrot conversations of up to twenty thousand words from languages they don't even know and they have to be the person that their employee wants them to be and the role that they are asked to perform.  This notary rises to one of the top roles a notary can perform, notary of the Princess and potential heir to the throne.  Things develop and the Queen of the Empire gives her a Herculean task to determine if the rumours that a foreign government has mages using evil magic.    

Really I was surprised, I liked the book.  It was enjoyable narrative, a style that has not been over done.  I could do a summary, but you can go to Goodreads to get one of those.

I read The Windup Girl next.  This was my third book that I have read by Paolo Bacigalupi and it predates the other two, but it is in the same world, a future dystopia where climate change has gone unchecked and GMOs have had to compete with super diseases and super blights; the world little resembles the world of today.  The setting is Thailand, a setting that I have never read about before.  A kingdom that has never been conquered and it's people fiercely Independent, steeped in a Buddhist tradition.  It is a world where these two things strangely work for e novel.  The tradition of independence has lead the nation to push away the world's calorie merchants and become self reliant, but the mega-corporations are beating on the door to get the foods and fruits that appear to be resistant to all the bugs and viruses.  One of e characters is the Windup girl, a GMO human, made to service the CEOs of Japan.  The natives despise these creations and one faction within the state is bent on destroying all non-pure abominations, the White Shirts, and quasi political paramilitary group that polices agriculture and disease.  Add that the political nature of the society was all pro monarchy, but that political coupes seem like a common occurrence and the the book is constantly on edge, between riot and full blown war.

I found this book to be unpredictable and the end a complete surprise, what I thought might be the ending was not; I was left shocked.

Anansi Boys, by Neil Gaimen, is the not exactly sequel to American Gods.  It is in the same universe, but has only one of the characters, but he only has a bit part; he dies in the second chapter.  The single most revolutionary part of this book is that race is never stated, for any character.  To me Race does not matter and I feel that it should never be important, but it is a vital part of a setting or a character description.  Not having it there creates a discordant feel throughout the book and pushes the reader to examine there own racial prejudices.  If you are white like me, you will assume that e main character is white.  If you hear the audiobook version, spoken with a Jamaican accent, you would assume that a character is black.  You would have to know who Anansi is to have a clue what race and what colour his skin is.  When ever a character is introduced you are asking yourself what they look like and it is not important but our own prejudices become clear.

The story itself was fabulous, a surprising easy read.  I finished the book in one day and I am a self admitted slow reader.  It is humorous and informative, giving the readers an insight into a series of myths that are unknown to people raised in a European culture.  Sure I know a bit of the Norse, and a bit of the Celt mythologies, but I know the Greco-Roman mythology inside and out.  Me I also know some of the Hindu mythology, but that is because I have an interest. Anansi stories are similar to Native American myths but different.  

Overall I found the story good, and at one point I stopped reading and laughed a full belly laugh for over a minute.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Nineteen Years



A lot has happened in nineteen years.  I think it was February 4th 1994, my day of stupidity, that I tried to kill myself.  It was about a girl.  Funny how that seems so stupid, but for me at that time social relationships was the only important thing in my life.  I was trying to keep a mistake from being a total loss.  I had told a girl that I loved her a month ago and she had rejected me and told me not to talk to her and I was trying to cajole her into still being friends and February 4th was when it collapsed completely.  My mental collapse was probably due to my obsessive factor.  I first thought she was a little fat boy and that is how I dismissed her as a person of interest from my mind, always a danger for me, because it lets me relax around them and get to know them.  I have always found if I share anything with a woman and get to know them in depth, I am doomed.  I don't believe in soul-mates because I know that any woman is a potential…

Anyways, I am still alive so I must not have died.  I got help, actually I tried to get the girl to talk to me by telling her what I did and she contacted the authorities.  I got help, psychiatric help, years worth of therapy.  I have never tried again, I have gotten close; a couple summers ago I had my suicide planned out. 

One of the things that I did after that week was take some time off.  I took two weeks off school.  I went to classes, but I did not do the homework or the readings, but I did do the labs.  And I read.  I read a bunch of books that I had kicking around.  I think in my slow plodding reading of the time I read three books.  I still read slowly, but I do excel at intensive reading.

I read The Eye of the World, which was the first book in the Wheel of Time series.  It was clearly a one shot book.  I remember the story quite well, the battle at the start and the run from one side of the world to the other.  The three main characters and quite a few secondary characters, some of whom became primary characters in subsequent books.  Many of the themes in the books were established in that first book.  As I said it was a one shot, there was a beginning middle and and end.

The only problem was that it was a very successful book and the publishers waved money under Robert Jordan's nose and it turns out that the end was not the end and he had many more books to write.  The second and the third and the fourth books were very good and came out quite frequently once a year or so, but then he started to flag and the quality of the books then began to drop.  Eventually they to get bad even.  The length of time between books got wider and wider apart and the books when they did come out plodded the plot along more slowly; loose ends started breeding.  At one point he wrote a prologue that was seventy pages along that described the motivations and goals of a new antagonist, fleshing him out how he was planning to disrupt his allies' plans and further his own; a real badass, only to have him killed off in the opening pages of the first chapter.

Then it came out that Robert Jordan was ill and dying; series incomplete.  Some of us cursed his other projects, Conan the Barbarian books, but really just writing one series is really bad for one's imagination.  Then he died.  And people were upset.  Most people did not know him and were upset that the series would remain incomplete.  Then another author, who I was following, was announced as being asked by the family to finish the story: Brandon Sanderson.  

Robert Jordan died in 2007.  Brandon Sanderson started publishing the last books in 2010 and the last book hit the stores last month, January 8th, 2013.  I got my copy last weekend and I finished it yesterday.  Sanderson managed to bring the story back up to the quality that it once had and did a good job cutting off all those loose ends in the three books.  Sanderson told the world that Jordan had left over 32,000 pages of notes for the series, so the three last books were Jordan's words and ideas forged and smithed by another writer.  

Now I have other book series to live for, other things to live for in anticipation.  Maybe one day I won't need anything to live for.