tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55309825999580593792024-02-19T06:46:53.189-08:00Wayne Roseberry's BlogWayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-42872083068677604222012-07-23T09:15:00.001-07:002012-07-23T09:15:42.489-07:00Thoughts on Paris<br />
<strong>Hoping to See a Few Old Buildings</strong>As an American, I am used to tourist spots that have a cluster of 1-12 old buildings somewhere that have passed the 100 year mark. You make your way to the parking lot, stand inside or in front of the building, maybe take a tour and then buy a postcard with that building on it. You marvel at how well the building matches the styling of its time. Naturally, travelling to Paris, I was hoping to see some old buildings. A figured I would get a couple dozen, here or there, to look at. I knew they would be older, and I knew there would be more.<br />
What I didn't know is that every single building across almost the entire downtown area of Paris was going to be old. Everywhere, as far as I could see, everything thing was hundreds of years old. We started off in the Marais district (French for "Swamp" because that is what it was before one of the Louis's decided to build a palace there and had it drained). Up until a couple of decades a go it was apparently a bit seedy and low rent, but it has had an artsy SOHO transition and is quite an up and coming place. Further east, toward where the Bastille used to be located is where Louis placed his house, so all the other aristocrats decided that they were going to move there as well. Around that block specifically are aparently some insanely nice houses, although it is difficult to tell from the outside because for blocks in every direction the exteriors are using mostly the same motifs on the upper floors. The building we were staying in was probably six or seven blocks away in the progressively lower rent area, but when it was built several hundred years ago it was apparently quite the place to be. Looking out the window of the apartment I could see a great big puzzle set of stacks and rows of ancient French roofs.<br />
The rows and rows of old apartment buildings, though, are nothing compared to the major architectural works, some of which date back to the 1100's. The Hotel De Ville (city administration office, where the Mayor resides) was built in 1357, and its inside was burned out completely post revolution during the public Commune riots (stone exterior remained intact), before being rebuilt. Notre Dame cathedral construction started in 1163. The Louvre had been the palace of various lords and kings since the 12th century. The Concierge (where Marie Antionette was imprisoned prior to her beheading) was one of the earliest palace of the Kings of France as early as the 10th century.<br />
<br />
<strong>Fancy Stuff</strong>I remember watching the first couple seasons of The Apprentice. One episode they filmed inside Donald Trump's Manhattan apartment. I am sure Donald thought it looked "very classy" (a phrase he uses a lot - when you have to tell people over and over that something is classy you know you are compensating for something that secretly you worry might not be). I thought it looked like a Greek whorehouse. Mirrors and glass and gold and pillars and statues everywhere. It appears that with all of Donald's money, all he really was capable of in terms of style was making tacky look very expensive. I couldn't understand what he thought he was trying to achieve. What could he possibly have been aspiring to that he thought would make other people believe he was "classy"?<br />
Paris answered that question for me. Just looking at the major structures that adorn the exteriors of buildings like the Louvre or Hotel De Ville - or ten miles down the road in Versailles, or public squares I suddenly realized why Donald Trump thought he was accomplishing something by dumping tons of gaudy crap into his own apartment. It is because in his nouveau riche aspirations to be some sort of immortal icon of western culture, he is looking - like most of western culture has for centuries - to France as the model of what power and wealth looks like when manifest as conspicuous opulence. The problem is, Paris has somehow managed to do over the top, gaudy, audacious displays of ridiculous wealth and make it look good - impressive. The massive gold (I assumed it was gold...) fence bordering the front of Versaille, with all its filigrees and curls and details looks amazing. The gold statues that stand in the midst of Paris impress as they are meant to. The tangled mass of statues occupying the entire enormous front facade of Notre Dame make one marvel at the work and the time spent into creating it.<br />
There is a ton of tacky that comes into play, even when the work amazes. In the Louvre, there is an entire massive room displaying about a dozen HUGE paintings commissioned by Maria Medici from Peter Paul Rubens to celebrate her marriage to King Louis of France. Every single one of the paintings allegorically depicts madame Medici at some point in her social and political life, using motifs of Greek gods and mythology. The theme, as best I could summarize it, is meant to be "Hey, this Medici woman is just the best dang thing that happened since clean water and sliced bread, and aren't we all just so much the better for having decided to be here with us?" On the one hand, that sort of self-aggrandizement just turns the stomach, but on the other hand, you have to wonder at Rubens' delivery of it and say... "Yeah, but just LOOK at it!"<br />
I am wondering if maybe it requires one to be the "Ruler of just about everything that really matters right now for all the world that we know about, thank you very much" to pull off that kind of opulence. Maybe there is an extra necessary over the top boost in terms of expense and indifference to cost that can only come from the freedom of oppressing millions of starving surfs and peasants necessary to make such displays truly impressive and at the right scale. Maybe scale is all there is to it. Maybe tacky turns into "Oh My Dear God, will you look at that" when it dwarfs you. I don't know, but Paris sure does impress when it comes to fancy.<br />
<br />
<strong>In Paris you Eat</strong>My only other trip to Europe was a three day work trip to Germany. Put simply, you do not go to Germany to experience the wonders of Bavarian food.<br />
Paris, on the other hand, appears to be about eating as much as anything. There are multiple places to eat on every single block. The food seemed to be good almost everywhere we ate. The plates were pretty straightforward - steak and fries seemed to be one of the most pervasive offerings there. Salmon was very common as well - and served much better than I expected. Every corner had a cafe, every block has a deli (brasserie), a bakery (boulangerie), usually a butcher (trucaterie), or desert store (patisserie), periodically a cheese store (fromagerie). I discuss later this density of services, but as far as food goes, there was always a lot available.<br />
Food prices are a bit deceptive. On the one hand, the equivalent meal in a typical restaurant in the United States would be twice as much or more. For example, a steak in even a medium range restaurant in the United states is going to run you 23+, and in a more expensive restaurant easily 35+. In a typical Paris cafe, the steak was about 15 euros - which comes to just under 20 dollars. And it is not as if the steak was bad - it was good. They don't do much with their steak. I noticed that at least in the cafes we ate, the food was prepared in a pretty minimalist fashion, and as far as I could tell the steak tasted as if they had just cooked it up with little or nothing on it. But it tasted really good anyway. Same went for the salmon. The plate cost about 15 euros, and was always very good.<br />
At the same time, it was pretty difficult in a typical cafe in Paris to do dinner with five people without a bill of about 100 euros. While the price for the SAME THING in the United States would have been much more expensive, the menu options in the cafe were such that it was hard to spend less than about 15 euros for the plate. Add on that drinks, and... well, it is Paris... so the desserts, and you are right up at 100 euro territory. So, my take was, better value for what you get, but not as much option to go for less than what you are getting - in the cafes, anyway. The brasseries, with their walk-in, walk-out hot sandwich and pastry offerings were the far more economical choice - and also quite good.<br />
<br />
<strong>No, I Will not be Driving</strong>One of the most frightening things to watch is the cyclists in Paris trying to negotiate their way through traffic. I am not certain, do they teach Newton's laws of physics in French schools? Are they aware of the relationship between mass, force and what happens to a human body when several tons of a fast moving metal omnibus squish a cyclist between it and the garbage disposal truck that the cyclist is trying to zoom in between? Everybody in Paris is threading a needle at high speeds. Perhaps this is seizing the moment, but I consider it seizing your LAST moment much earlier than it needed to come, if you get my point.<br />
I have seen more aggressive driving elsewhere. Los Angeles does higher speeds. New York is all about casual indifference to actual lane markers or the actual meaning of traffic signals. Paris felt like something approaching New York. The drivers were all very opportunistic and extremely comfortable with tight spaces. There seemed to be only a casual relationship between a "Walk" signal being red or green and what pedestrians were doing. In a similar fashion, there was also a casual relationship between whether or not cars paid any attention to a walk signal being green - a pedestrian in the cross, with the green light on, seemed to have no impact on whether or not a car changed direction or speed. It wasn't exactly like New York - where as far as I could tell cars went at full speed with perfect timing toward the gap in the crowd of people jaywalking, nobody flinching as the careemed by inches from people's bodies. Instead, Paris seemed like the responsibility was on the pedestrian to mind the cars, who seemed to have no intent at all to accomodate.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Street Game</strong>The first person we met as we headed to Paris was on the train from Charles DeGaulle airport. The doors opened, and he looked out, saw us, and asked "Paris?", then nodded his head yes and ushered us to the doors. He stood in the door of the train, and helped load our bags. He was dressed casually, and I started scanning him for a uniform, or maybe a piece of equipment. Naively I thought that he might have been a transit employee... which seemed odd for a public train, but hotel shuttle drivers help people load their bags, so I was not sure. He appeared to be in his upper 30's, low 40's. Very strapping, healthy looking man.<br />
Soon after everyone was on, this man went walking down the aisle of the train placing small cards on the bags. The text of the card was in French on one side, and English on the other. The card started off. "I am homeless..." and went on from there. After completing his distribution of cards, this man made his way back aggressively shaking has palm under people's faces. When someone didn't pay, he would challenge them - with a smile, but persistently. He picked up all his cards and got off at the next station. I presume he got the next train back to CDG and started all over.<br />
There is a lot of this going on in Paris. At one point, I saw an old woman, bundled up heavily in clothes like some babushka, with a heavy scarf over her head. She was standing, leaned over perpendicular to her waist. She was leaning all her weight on a cane. She was holding a cup out from her hand, shaking it over and over. You could not see her face. She was so iconic old-world Europe looking in her clothes and appearance she could have been a cartoon. I found it interesting how such a character could have such a distinctive look. However, after two weeks in Paris, I saw that same "character" multiple times. Same type of clothing, exact same posture, exact same move with the cup. As sad and cynical as this conclusion was, I realized that this was a costume. It probably doesn't take away from the reality of the person's need for money, but the person is not wearing their actual every day clothing. You are not seeing a picture of their world as it really is. You are seeing their stage costume. Their work uniform.<br />
A more charming version of this are the musical street buskers, who seem to do their work mostly in the subway. I will start by saying that the Parisian street buskers are very, very good. I am used to Seattle street buskers who have a very good, raw sound, but are technically weak and undisciplined. The Parisian musicians were much different. Their musical chops were very well honed. Some of them just put up shop in the hallways, hat or instrument case open for money, and played. But I also noticed that on the touristy legs of the subways (e.g. first one or two stations near Versaille, the leg from the Tracadero to Eiffel Tower, and the RER stop between Chatelet and the first station stop on the route to Disneyland) musician buskers would work the actual cars. They plan one, maybe two songs, and then just like the luggage loader at CDG they walk up and down the aisles with a hat or bag and shake it under people's faces.<br />
I saw street con games play out several times. All the ones I saw were the shell game - one with little boxes, one with large round tiles (I am still trying to figure out the mechanism of how they cheat the switch on that) and of course 3 card monte. I got a chance, while waiting for a bus, to see the full game played out - even getting to observe the shills in action, accomplices of the performer pretending to win to sucker in the victim that promptly loses.<br />
<br />
<strong>Parks and Gardens</strong>Parks and gardens in Paris are plentiful, quiet, formally trimmed, and just plain comfortable and relaxing. I get it. You go there as often as possible and you just sit. And sit. And then maybe sit some more.<br />
<br />
<strong>Using English</strong>Using English in Paris is not much of a problem at all. I encountered a few places where people got impatient or frustrated, but for the most part people in Paris were very good at understanding and speaking English. I did observe something that seemed to indicate a predictor of how likely it was the person you were dealing with would speak English well. First were the places where the employer probably required fluent English anyway (museum staff, etc.) - in those places, speaking English with the staff was like speaking English at home. Next were places where the job required a bit of an intellectual challenge and entrepreneurism - like working in or operating a bakery, cafe or pharamacy. In these places, the people could at least understand the English you were speaking and use enough English to get by. Then there were places where the intellectual demands were not as high - taxi driver, metro ticket booth employee, etc. - in these cases, the chance the person would know any English seemed like a coin toss. Still, if you could point at a map, or write something down, or use a few words in French you can probably make it work.<br />
I tried to use French words where needed. Everybody I met professionally always started the conversation with "Bon Jour", or "Bon Soir" (if evening), and closed with "Merci". So I would do likewise... but inevitably once they heard me say "Bon Jour", they immediately switch the the English equivalent as best they could. My accent and pronunciation gave me away immediately... and despite their reputation, the French to me seemed very politely accomodating.<br />
<br />
<strong>Service is Politely... Not Service</strong>I exaggerate for humor sake, and truthfully the TRUE honor for lack of service probably goes to the Germans. What I noticed with French service is the following:<br />
- formalities of "good day", "please", and "thank you" are always there<br />
- the French want the transaction to happen as quickly as possible<br />
- the French seem to want to appear as unsolicitous as possible... from an American sense of service this seems distant, but somehow I think I see how the French see it as more polite<br />
- if you ask them for help, they will try very hard to help... but they will try to get you to help yourself first if it seems possible<br />
For example, in America, if you need something from a waiter, you motion to them and they will usually visually make a very demonstative acknowlegement and then come right away to see what you want. I noticed that hosts in Paris would instead give you a quick, short head nod or glance - but they were ALWAYS in the middle of doing something else that they were going to finish first. However, they also ALWAYS came to check see what you needed. This is different than in America. In America, if that waiter doesn't come to you right away but does something else first, there is a high chance they are going to forget that you called them over. And the overt acknowlegement in America seems to be needed to establish some sort of friendly protocol - whereas in Paris, it is kind of a "yes, I saw you".<br />
Another example... metro ticket booth employees. They want you to use the vending machines to buy tickets. If you go to the counter, they will point you to the machine. If you say what you want, they will tell you they cannot get it for you and point you to the machine. HOWEVER - if you try the machine and cannot figure it out, they will leave their booth and operate the machine for you. This is different in America because for America, service is kind of a binary state. Once a booth operator has told you they cannot help you, they just are not going to help you. If an American booth operator is going to help you, chances are on the first encounter they have already started gushing all over you - but when an American presents indifference, dammit, we mean it. The French presentation of indifference instead seems like a thin shell - make your case, and they seem pretty accomodating.<br />
<br />
<strong>Big City, Little City</strong>Every block in Paris is a tiny little town. I never expected this because I have never lived in the urban center of a city before. When I first saw our apartment, I could not figure out with such a small refrigerator, and such little storage how one could keep around the various daily necessities. But after my first one minute walk down the stairs (almost all of Paris is six stories high or shorter) to the grocery store, bakery or pharmacy I suddenly realized that the only reason I need such a large refrigerator at home, with a large pantry, is because a trip to the grocery store is multiple hour ordeal. In our apartments in Paris, if we needed something, it was less than five minutes to walk downstairs and buy it.<br />
I noticed that other than the small number of large streets (Rue du Rivoli - for example, runs the length of Paris and has all the big stores) every block face had the following: 1 bakery, 1 delicatessan, 1 pharamacy, 1 cafe, 1 grocery store, 1 produce store. Add to that the frequent other restaurants, cheese stores, fish stores, butchers, dessert stores and occassional clothing stores and you suddenly have a small town every 300 feet. Add to this that the business offices occupy the same buildings as residential apartments. Lawyers, doctors, dentitsts all work from the same buildings that people eat, sleep and watch TV in. We visited a doctor - we walked down the street two short blocks, and rang the bell on at a non-descript door. We were buzzed into a tiny hallway in an old building, and found ourselves sitting in a waiting room that must have been about 8 by 12 feet at the most... and it was stuffed with tons of personal affects. I suspect the facility served as both office and home to this doctor.<br />
It was after a week of this that I realized living in an apartment in Paris presented more of the small town conveniences than a small town. These businesses service the same small group of people at the same times every day. They know each other. Everything they need for daily life is less than a 30 second walk away. Yet, in less than a minute, they can be on the Metro or a bus and be at the other end of town in ten minutes. Paris is built of thousands of tiny little towns, one street front at a time. It is modular.<br />
<br />
<strong>Seattle Weather... Paris Weather</strong>If you are from Seattle, the weather in Paris is going to feel very, very, very familiar.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Metro, oh Dear Lord The Metro</strong><br />
I am not going to romanticize the Metro, or subway system, in Paris. It is filthy and bustled and busy.<br />
But it is also unbelievably convenient. Get a ticket, go anywhere in Paris. The stations open everywhere. There is a city under the city of tunnels, shops, conveyor belts, escalators - all for getting people on and off the trains that traverse underground Paris. The trains are fast and frequent. At first the maps are bewildering and confusing, but if you learn a few simple rules, you can get from anywhere to anywhere:<br />
1. the trains are named based on where they start and end, and the labelling on signs use this to indicate direction<br />
2. stops on the map with an open circle on them are junctions, and the map indicates which lines have stops at the junction<br />
3. signs and arrows all through the underground direct you toward you train - signs with just a number mean you get to both directions by following it, signs with a number and an endpoint means following the arrow takes you to a train going a specific direction<br />
4. you have 3 seconds after the beep before the doors close - this is a firm rule<br />
5. keep your ticket until you get to the street - you need to use it when Metro lines cross areas that juncture with RER lines - there will be booths that require the ticket for you to get through<br />
<br />
<strong>Holy Crap - PICKPOCKETS!!</strong><br />
What the hell is this, Oliver Twist? Really? Pickpockets? I mean, is Faggen really somewhere in the alley coaching a group of filthy urchins to watch the Artful Dodger pinch the wallet off some rich bloke (I apologize for mixing metaphors... wrong city and country, I know... but I couldn't recall any pickpockets from French literature)? Everywhere you go, there are warning signs to beware of pickpockets. Rick Steve's travel store employees in Washington state will preach you into a puddle if you leave the store without purchasing a money belt. Really?<br />
Yep. We were on the Metro. The train was the type of crowded where you really cannot move because everybody is pressing in so close. While we were there, Tanya felt vibrations coming from her purse - the some sort that the zipper makes when it is moved. She was so pinched in that she couldn't move, wheel about or reach out. Instead, she just clutched her shoulders and arms in tighter, bringing the purse closer to her body. She managed to check the purse, and someone had it halfway open.<br />
We think we escaped unharmed... but I don't know. Everything is expensive enough in Paris that the Euros seem to disappear faster than you expected. It is just as likely a 20 or two got unknowingly pinched from our pockets while on a train or looking at a statue or something.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-39921689177345667782012-07-22T15:25:00.003-07:002012-07-22T15:25:34.360-07:00Thoughts about Disneyland ParisWe visited Disneyland while in Paris. Here are some thoughts regarding that experience.<br />
<br />
<strong>Getting There from Paris is Convenient... But Comes With a Few Tricks Required!</strong>Paris' underground train system - the Metro - is so conveniently planned you can find a nearby Metro system from nearly every possible location in Paris. The city system is called the Metro, and the suburban system is called the RER. Both connect easily at various terminals throughout the city. The best strategy is to find your way via Metro to the massive junction at Chatelet (in the center of Paris, right by Forum Des Halles - apparently the largest subway station in the world) and get on the RER that runs east to Disneyland. The train stops right at the entry to the park, so once you are on the correct train you having nothing to do but wait. The ride takes about half an hour.<br />There are two tricky parts. <br />The first is purchasing the correct tickets. You can use a Metro ticket to get onto the Disneyland train, but you will find that the turnstyles at the Disneyland station will refuse to let you out. That is because the exit styles only accept the RER tickets. We were among many baffled passengers who relentlessly tried feeding their tickets into the machines, only to have them rejected before we forced our bodies through the gap in the gate.<br />The second is getting on the correct trains. The train that heads to Disneyland forks, one heading northest to Disneyland, the other heading southeast to.. well, NOT Disneyland. You have to read the boards carefully by the track. A sign at the station states all destinations for the next train coming, with a light next to the ones the next train serves. If the light for "Disneyland parc" is not illuminated, then the next train is the WRONG train.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Entry to Disneyland Paris is Much Cooler</strong>The Disneyland hotel sits right on top of the ticket gates to Disneyland. You have to walk through - er, under - the hotel to get in. The building is gorgeous, and really makes walking into the park a lot more fun than at Disneyland California.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Castle is Better in Disneyland Paris</strong>The castle exterior is much more stylized, much more fantasy looking than in California Disneyland. There are more in and outs getting around or through it to Fantasyland. The "Sleeping Beauty" storybook walkthrough on the second story is a very large, open space that is far more comfortable than the claustrophobic, overly hot narrow passageway in the California castle. But, best of all, the castle has a full sized dragon in the dungeon. The dungeon is kind of fun, as there are entries into it from the back of one of the stores, as well as from the exterior front and back of the castle. And this is no small, what is that thing over there kind of dragon. The dragon is big, very animated, and close up to the viewing walkway. Definitely a big plus.<br />
<br />
<strong>Phantom Manor Has Plusses and Minuses</strong>The exterior of the Haunted Mansion - or rather, Phantom Manor - is victorian, and looks almost identical to the house from the movie Psycho. It sits on a crest pretty high above Frontierland. This contrasts greatly with the house in California, whose exterior is antebellum (which makes it fit in with New Orleans Square - post civil war mansions had more roman pillars and such), or with the Haunted Mansion in Florida, whose exterior is gothic. The exterior of Phantom Manor is much more worn and dilapidated, making it feel really creepy. It fits in well with the Frontierland theme, and is meant to be part of a story involving the Thunder Mountain Railroad ride. The inside of the first part of the ride is almost identical with the California ride. The interiors of both are Victorian, with mostly the same illusions and gags. However, these gags have a story more solidly woven into them with the Paris park, involving a ghostly bride, and a phantom character that appear consistently throughout. In spite of that, those parts of both rides feel like essentially the same thing with minor adjustments.<br />The end of the Paris ride is completely different than the California ride. In California, you descend out the back window of the mansion and into the graveyard, where ghosts dance and sing around the tombstones. The effect is largely comical and light hearted. In Paris, you descend into the grave and underground, where you wind up in a "Boot Hill" nightmare land below ground. There is mockup western ghost town with ghouls and spooks all over. The effect is not nearly as whimsical. It is downright creepy. It fits the western theme really well, but I wouldn't say it has the same charm as the California ride. It is fun, but it is also most certainly different.<br />
<br />
<strong>Alice in Wonderland is a Hedge Maze</strong>In a park like Disneyland, you would think a hedge maze would get so little room that it couldn't possibly be entertaining or amusing. I was very pleasantly surprised with the Alice in Wonderland hedge maze. It was marvellous. It felt like we were walking through it forever, and the various little gimmicks and such were fun to see. The castle of the Queen of Hearts in the middle was fun to climb up, and you get a really good view of Fantasyland from up there. The view was good enough that I spotted the storybook canal boats in a location I didn't even know was available.<br />
<br />
<strong>Pirates Uses its Space More Efficiently</strong>The California version of the ride has a lot of dead air time while the boats float through the caves. The Paris version of the ride has pretty much the same gags and gimmicks (in different order), but packed more closely together. It is a pretty good ride. What it does not have is the bayou entry point, which has always been one of my most favorite immersive experiences at the California park. I always felt that the "you are in a swamp" illusion there was so complete that by the time you had entered the remainder of the ride all disbelief had been tossed overboard and dumped in Davy Jones locker.<br />
<br />
<strong>Critter Country and New Orleans Square are Gone...</strong>The space for these two lands is added to Frontierland and Adventureland, both of which are much larger than their California counterparts. Adventureland is very large, making for a better walking and getting around experience. The "Tom Sawyer Island" (which I think now in California is "Pirate Island" or something) idea has been turned into a much larger space and pretty much 50% of the navigation through Adventureland requires traversing various mountains, going through caves or crossing suspension bridges. I think this was a brilliant idea, because stuck on the island as they are in California the really are only accessible to those willing to get on the keel boats to get there. Given how dry and hot that island gets, it becomes pretty undesirable for most adults, and the island shuts down at night for Fantasmic. In Paris, the Island is where Thunder Mountain Railroad is. That was a brilliant swap.<br />
<br />
<strong>Spaceplanning in Disneyland Paris is Mostly Much Better</strong>I am not sure if it would be capable of accomodating the same sized crowds that California Disneyland has on a regular basis (Disneyland Paris feels smaller... not sure if it is), but something about the way the laid out the streets, walkways, rides and thoroughfares seems much, much smarter. For example, running parallel to Main Street, on the interior, is a long wide hallway that runs completely uninterrupted from the start of Main Street to the circle at its end in front of the castle. The hallway is decorated in 1900 styling, with artwork and display cabinets all up and down - so the theming remains strong, consistent with Main Street overall and still attractive. There are wide doors on the side toward Main Street which open up to interior facades that back the stores and cafes along the street. This results in a fast, high capacity way to exit or enter the park without having to deal with congestion on Main Street itself (crowds, parades, fireworks).<br />In general it felt as if there were fewer impassable chokepoints in the park. That horrendous train wreck of space planning that happens in Adventureland in California just doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
<strong>Space Mountain Surprises</strong>Space Mountain is all cyberpunk and Jules Verne. The external theming is gorgeous. The ride interior theming could be stronger (I think they lost some great opportunities for decoration and ornamentation). The ride cars have rivets and bolts on them. They look like they were constructed in 1900, not 2300. The ride has a giant gun on the exterior of Space Mountain from which the riders are launched up to the top and down into the mountain. This is reminiscent of Jules Verne's "From Earth to Moon", as well as George Melies' movie of the same title, where the first manned moon vehicle is essentially a giant shell launched from a massive gun.<br />The ride itself surprises, especially if you have ridden its California counterpart. In California, the cars descend slowly up the hill, and slowly pick up speed as the come around the first corner, and then commit to going faster as the begin steeper descent. In Paris, the cars are launched from the bottom at high speed, just like being shot out of a gun. The inside has more visual effects in terms of planets and celestial objects and such. The car feels faster (and more shaky, so if you have neck issues I would avoid the ride). But, above all, the biggest surprise was the loop. A loop is a very bizarre thing to encounter in the dark on a roller coaster when you don't expect it. Your only awareness of it is the sudden change in G forces. To add to that, soon after the loop, the ride does a corkscrew, which, again, your only hint is the sideways turn and inversion. The ride was a blast, but I was walking sideways by the time I was done.<br />
<br />
<strong>There is a Lot More Food</strong>It felt like Disneyland Paris has many more food service facilities than Disneyland California. Then again, it seems like Paris in general has many more food service facilities per square meter than anywhere else I have ever been, so maybe that is just a requirement of doing business in France.<br />
<br />
<strong>People Don't Wear as Much Merch</strong>Tanya noticed this. In California, every other child is wearing Micky ears. The guests are all adorned and decked out in Disney themed merchandise. We didn't seem the same thing in Paris. There were a lot of little girls in princess dress costumes, but otherwise, we just didn't see the people walking around with Disney product swinging from their bodies and perched on their heads.<br />
<br />
<strong>Disney Studios</strong>We didn't really get what we should have out of Disney Studios. There was a Toy Story themed area that was pretty cute. There was a flying carpet ride (think Dumbo ride, but with carpets). There was an inside roller coaster with a "Finding Nemo" theme (spinning cars, on a roller coaster, in the dark - I got slightly nauseous). But overall, there didn't seem to be that much of interest as rides went. The facades were also all mostly flat painted building structures, and they did a poor job giving the guests a preview of exactly what the ride or attraction actually had to offer. That said, Tower of Terror is located there, as is an Aerosmith themed roller coaster, which both serve as a pretty big draw.<br />
<br />
<strong>Noteworthy Disappointment - Backlot Tram Ride</strong>I normally don't harsh on rides for being less than expected, but this one in particular had to be the most miserable, dreadful waste of park space, and my own time, that I have ever seen. The ride is presented much like the Universal Studios tram ride, but doesn't even come close to comparing. You get driven past a couple of props, which, as far as I can tell, all came from the following movies: 1> Dinotopia, 2> Pearl Harbor (the one with Ben Affleck...), 3> 101 Dalmations. I had to explain to my children what the movie Dinotopia even was. The tram cars had a video on them with an actress I did not recognize and Jeremy Irons delivering what I believe was meant to be humorous and ironic commentary on the ride's offerings. "Phoning it in" would have been a un-deserved complement to Jeremy Iron's performance on this video. A better term might have been "Self-loathing, depressed, bitterness filled daze". There are two special effects sequences on this tram ride. One is "calamity canyon", which I would summarize as "fake canyon, some fire, and then a lot of water". The <br />
next sequence went something like this "And now we are travelling into London, but not any London YOU MAY HAVE SEEN, but instead a London as if it were ATTACKED BY DRAGONS". Okay, so this was an outdoor set of a crumbling London street scene, as if it had been hit with an earthquake. The tram curves through the set, and then pauses by a big circular structure. Steam starts coming out of the circular structure. I think "Oh... cool... dragons! They are going to have a dragon!!! A big, cool looking mechanical dragon". I turn to my kids and smile and I can see they think the same thing. I turn back to the circular structure, because, you know, where else do you hide a giant hydraulically powered robotic dragon? The steam increases, a loud rumbling sound starts, you feel the heat building. Flame starts coming out of the structure, and you just know <br />
the dragon is going to pop out any second. Then the tram starts up and leaves and goes back to the start of the ride where, dizzy from the earth-shattering disappointment of NOT getting to see a dragon, you get off.<br />
<br />
<strong>Is it Worth It?</strong>I have a hard time answering this in a way that I think might appeal to most people. For myself and my family, we have visited Disneyland so often that we are very sensitive to small changes and differences. We can tell when something in the California park has been moved, altered or painted differently. Just looking for differences from visit to visit is fun for us. So in a lot of ways what I really wanted to see was how different the Paris version of the park was. I have heard people say "Disneyland Paris is the same as Disneyland California, except that Mickey speaks French". To that, I think this is someone who really just doesn't LIKE Disneyland all that much. So if you are the sort of person whose plans for someday going to Disneyland are "Let's spend half a day, put the kid on Dumbo, and then leave", then I guess Disneyland Paris is not for you. But if you are the type of person who has the words to "Grim Grinning Ghosts" memorized, and taps the person next to you in your Doom Buggy on the shoulder and says "Hey, check it out! The Grave Digger's dog is missing!!!", then Disneyland Paris is going to seem as if it has hundreds of differences. So, if you are in the "Disney indifferent" crowd, and don't have little kids, I would say skip Disneyland Paris. If, however, you are a Disneyland fan, and you wind up in Paris with at least a day or two available, I say jump on the subway and take the relatively pain free ride out to the park. I wouldn't even bother with booking one of the hotels near the park - the train ride back really is easy enough to do if you have a place in Paris close to a Metro station.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-47522000788897149592011-08-10T20:56:00.000-07:002011-08-10T20:56:10.864-07:00Economy in rhymeOne of my Facebook friends posted a "Dr. Suess 2011" status. I am not sure if they wrote it, or if it was rolling around the viral-sphere. It was pretty funny. It was right-wing slanted, but that did not diminish from how funny it was, and in this climate, well, everyone has a point.<br />
<br />
From my perspective, though, it was too difficult to read that poem and not react. To me it was a challenge. Frame the current economic debate in rhyme. The result is below. My own liberal bias shows through a bit, despite my attempt to play both sides as being the problem. Still, I think it is more about the meter and rhyme than being fair-minded...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><no title...="" yet=""></no></span><br />
by Wayne Roseberry<br />
<br />
<em>The budget was monstrous<br />
the deficit growing<br />
taxes were low and<br />
spending was flowing</em><br />
<br />
<em>the economy was stuck<br />
way down in the gutter<br />
jobs in the toilet<br />
no bucks to buy butter</em><br />
<br />
<em>when congressmen<br />
senators all gathered and fought<br />
to put the blame on each<br />
what all of them wrought</em><br />
<br />
<em>With axes to taxes<br />
the Republicans sought<br />
to cut spending on those<br />
who really had nought</em><br />
<br />
<em>They protected the rich<br />
who had money galore<br />
"To make us more jobs<br />
the rich will need more!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>with eyes on the poor<br />
the Democrats moaned<br />
"What will they all do,<br />
with their entitlements gone?"</em><br />
<br />
<em>"The poor are all whiners,"<br />
Republicans snorted<br />
"They're much better off<br />
with taxes aborted!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>The Democrats shrieked<br />
and uttered a cry<br />
"My mother's on welfare,<br />
she's going to die!!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>"Meanwhile the fatcats,<br />
are sitting on cashes,<br />
instead of making us jobs<br />
they're fattening their asses!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>"The whole game is rigged<br />
to keep rich growing richer<br />
while the poor grow much poorer<br />
and keep getting sicker."</em><br />
<br />
<em>when off on the side<br />
of this mud slinging fest<br />
the banks all chuckled<br />
and put their feet up to rest</em><br />
<br />
<em>"We screwed them coming in<br />
We'll screw them coming out<br />
They're both far too stupid<br />
To know what its about"</em><br />
<br />
<em>"We've got them convinced<br />
we're absolutely essential<br />
to keep feeding us money<br />
so we can foreclose on your rental"</em><br />
<br />
<em>Meanwhile in the sands<br />
of a far distant war<br />
they kept burning up money<br />
and who knows what for?</em><br />
<br />
<em>"Enemies surround us!"<br />
They shouted and and roared<br />
Dropping bombs on enemies<br />
until they made more</em><br />
<br />
<em>The problem of course<br />
is to difficult for any one side<br />
to be all right or all wrong<br />
we have to agree to decide</em><br />
<br />
<em>But instead of aggreeing<br />
in a compromising way<br />
the Republicans held hostage<br />
the debt ceiling that day</em><br />
<br />
<em>"Give us all that we asked,<br />
and nothing you wish.<br />
Or we the blow this whole thing up<br />
Won't that be de-lish?"</em><br />
<br />
<em>And the Democrats rather<br />
than admit that the cuts<br />
might just be needed<br />
all went crazy and nuts.</em><br />
<br />
<em>"Tax on the rich!<br />
Hang those old geezers!<br />
Its righteous and right!<br />
Use their money to make cheeses!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>The problem is teams<br />
whose in yours and whose not<br />
While seeking to win<br />
Everyone forgot</em><br />
<br />
<em>That politicians have<br />
a job to be done<br />
Far more important than which side<br />
is elected and won</em><br />
<br />
<em>So I say vote them all out<br />
Let's wipe the slate fresh<br />
Find folks that can compromise<br />
And not make such a mess</em>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-40997391819715753692010-11-28T12:42:00.000-08:002010-11-28T12:42:58.441-08:00Now that the second book is out...I published my second novel, "Millicent Marbleroller and the Bear Monster Army" back in October. The story is a sequel to the first book, and picks up the action right where the last book ended.<br />
<br />
It took quite a lot longer to publish the book than I anticipated. That is ironic, given that I self-publish and the schedule is completely under my control. However, I got stuck on some creative choices for a while. I also made the original version of the book far too long and had to spend a lot of time trimming the story back. Story trimming is somewhat like changing software. Sometimes you remove parts that other parts were dependent on, and you never notice it until you try to make everything work together. The cutting was necessary, though, as there was way too much action that had very little to do with the plot and rather than add excitement and interest it really just slowed things down and made them less interesting.<br />
<br />
The other part of the process that took a long time was editing and review. With the first book, I most relied just on myself, with a little bit of a review by family. The result was some rather scathing comments from readers of the book regarding need for proofreading. So, this time I decided to have somebody proof-read it beforehand. I found a friend, Jen Kinard, who had done proof reading professionally before.<br />
<br />
The book really benefited from the review. I actually had her do both the first book and the new book (I re-released the first book with illustrations, a popular request). In addition to correct my horrific abuse of commas, Jen also found lots of inconsistencies in the story. There were also scenes that I had put in arbitrarily to do nothing other than initiate conversations that allowed for character development, and Jen was much better at pointing out to me how pointless and flat the action seemed. I had become attached to the character development, and in doing that had ignored the "what is she doing THAT for?" moments the reader was experiencing when reading the story. I had to let go of my attachments and cut some very awkward material. The book was much better for it.<br />
<br />
But commiting myself to review of the book before publishing really pushed out the publishing timeline. I am not a patient person, but in the end I believe the patience was necessary.<br />
<br />
So, the book has been getting slow sales since its October 26th, 2010 release. That doesn't bother me so much, as the first book had slow sales as well, especially during the first year. I am hoping the Christmas season sees an increase during the first two or three weeks of December. Last year was particularly good for the first book.<br />
<br />
I have a box of the books on order so I can take them to book signings. My sister-in-law Theresa manages a Border's down in Tukwila, so I plan on getting there around the middle of December. I am preparing a bunch of bookmarks to give away. I learned that trick from another author who I was sitting next to the last time I was at Theresa's store. She would say "would you like a free bookmark?" and stick it in people's hands as they walked by the front of the store. That was the ice breaker for talking about the book. It worked amazingly well. Much better than my own "Sit at the table and let the book self itself" strategy ;-)<br />
<br />
You aren't supposed to say these things until you are done (says who? I think it's some crap I picked up off a Wayne Dwyer show that was polluting the channels as I was flipping around the TV dial one night - some crazy junk about "releasing the energy and losing it"), but I have started the third book. <small -="" alert="" caution="" continue="" spoiler="" with="">If anybody has finished the second book yet you know by now that a third book is necessary. The first book ended with a nice clean conclusion and only hinted at more possibilities, but the second book ends on a cliffhanger, literally, there's an honest to goodness cliff involved. I was obligated to get started on the third book. One of the things I want to avoid is letting the original audience get so old they wouldn't want to finish the series, so I am trying to get this third one out as soon as I can.</small><br />
<br />
My problem is I don't exactly know what happens in the third book yet. I have the ending figured out, and certainly the beginning, but the middle right now is pretty much "stuff happens until they get to the ending". If you were to ask me right now how it all ends, I would say "well, the ending is obvious, don't you think?", but I have the advantage of controlling the ending, so that statement might not be fair. Still, I have a suspicion that once the book is done and people read it they are going to agree that, of course, the book had to end that way.<br />
<br />
There is an over-arching theme in Millicent Marbleroller that should be apparent even from the first book. It has to do with realizing things about yourself and how you approach life. It's not a big heavy handed moral ethic of any sort, but there is a lesson that Millicent is learning. I didn't realize the lesson was there until I was nearly done with the first book. Millicent struggles with certain inner conflicts, and how she resolves those conflicts are key to the lesson of the story. The second book takes this same theme even farther. Like the first book, I did not realize that I was introducing psychological symbols into the stories until after I had written them. The bear monsters, in their misshapen form and uncontrollable behavior, are a physical manifestation of Millicent's inner struggle with herself. The robot box and the black vans are symbolic of pressures and expectations that Millicent hasn't figured out how to confront. These themes of struggle, learning and growth will continue into the final book.<br />
<br />
Of course, if I think about stuff like THAT while I write I am probably going to kill the story, so now is the time for me to shove it all into the back of my skull where the ghosts of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell lurk. The real thing to do is see to it that the story moves along, the action is fun and the jokes funnier.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-61006329596621269892010-03-07T22:28:00.000-08:002010-03-07T22:28:13.429-08:00Sorry Avatar... you were fun, but not Oscar stuffI have a rule for stories that teach a moral. Base the moral on principals that actually match the situation, not some fantasy concoction that is contrived to appeal to people's emotions. It is my contention that if the moral's point is really important enough to push that it will stand on its own merits.<br />
<br />
Some examples of such morals:<br />
<br />
<strong>Fatal Attraction</strong>: moral - don't have extramarital affairs<br />
Why - movie reason: because the person you have an affair with might be a psychopath and might try to kill yiou<br />
Why - real reason: because you are married, you dumb-ass!<br />
<br />
<strong>Happy Feet</strong>: moral - we should preserve habitat of species like penguins<br />
Why - movie reason: because maybe they do something cool like tap dance<br />
Why - real reason: numerous, but for starters because the ecosystem is complex and if we ruin it so much penguins cannot live in it, who knows what it will do to us<br />
<br />
<strong>Avatar</strong>: moral - we should not destroy nature and should respect the homelands of people we meet<br />
Why - movie reason: because those people might just have a super cool biological ethernet with persisted storage shoved away inside all those trees and plants<br />
Why - real reason: let's start at injustice and then make our way through the same list I used for Happy Feet<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I loved the biological neural network, persisted memory concept. That was one of the better science fiction ideas I have seen in a long time. I just hated how contrived the morality of it all was. The storyline of Avatar was incredibly contrived. The writing layered so many "and then..." conitions necessary to carry off the script (I resist saying plot) that it felt very deus ex in the end. All we are waiting for is the mighty power of the word processor to declare victory for our heroes.<br />
<br />
Plop this all on top of an incredibly obvious re-hashing of very heavy handed cliche's. The noble savage. The greedy corporation. Hudson's Bay Company meets Jungle Planet X in search of unobtanium!!! The symbolism is layered thicker than cheese on a Godfather's Pizza, so thick that Cameron didn't even bother to give unobtainium a name (FWIW: as per wikipedia, unobtainium is a word used by chemists, physicists and their ilk to refer to something that has properties necessary to accomplish some goal, which might POSSIBLY exist, which we have not established exists, but which we are pretending exists for sake of argument). I refuse to give someone credit for writing a script when they don't even replace the boilerplate text.<br />
<br />
I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar (once I got over the motion sickness), and would recommend it as a good way to enjoy an afternoon. The science fiction concepts were cool, the characters were fun, the visuals were astounding and the action was exciting. All that said, though, I just don't feel as if something that contrived, obvious and heavy handed really deserves an Oscar.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-49209695778067230872009-11-26T09:37:00.000-08:002009-11-26T09:37:51.735-08:00On Presidents and the RaptureIs it morally correct for a person who believes that the end of the world is at hand, who believes in the apocalypse, who believes in armageddon, who believes in the rapture, and more importantly, believes they will be called up to Heaven during the rapture, to run for President?<br />
<br />
Think about that. Makes you really want to cruise through the chain of command and assess the first unwashed heathen that person chose. Here is the official list of the chain of Presidential succession:<br />
<ol><li>Vice President </li>
<li></li>
<li>Speaker of the House </li>
<li>President Pro Tempore of the Senate </li>
<li>Secretary of State </li>
<li>Secretary of the Treasury </li>
<li>Secretary of Defense </li>
<li>Attorney General </li>
<li>Secretary of the Interior </li>
<li>Secretary of Agriculture </li>
<li>Secretary of Commerce </li>
<li>Secretary of Labor </li>
<li>Secretary of Health and Human Services </li>
<li>Secretary of Housing and Urban Development </li>
<li>Secretary of Transportation </li>
<li>Secretary of Energy </li>
<li>Secretary of Education </li>
<li>Secretary of Veterans Affairs </li>
<li>Secretary of Homeland Security </li>
</ol>I am predicting someone on the evangelical far right is going to lock up buddies of salvation all the way to "Secretary of Health and Human Services". After that, there are too many "good things done by government", and I am sure all the folks there your typical righty would be happy to see perish leading the faithless in a battle against the forces of darkness during Armageddon.<br />
<br />
Isn't that just the height of responsibility? What if, two seconds after "So help me God." the newly elected is sucked to heaven, leaving the rest of us to cope with a thousand years of hellfire and warfare?Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-19155783713692355772009-10-07T20:44:00.000-07:002009-10-07T21:46:47.224-07:00The website that flipped my brainI personally believe that most people never really change their minds about how the world works. This became an apparent phenomenon in communication and rhetorical theory when supposed "silver bullet" theories of persuasion were demonstrated ineffective when they bounced off the walls of people's disposition and existing beliefs.<br /><br />Which is why it is always surprising to find something that changes your mind on a topic completely in ways you never expected. It is also surprising when changing your mind forces you to admit things you did not want to admit about what you used to believe. Sometimes these admissions make you feel guilty.<br /><br />The following website did this to me a few years ago: <a href="http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/">http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org</a>. I was led to this website by the following video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc</a><br /><br />Okay, so here is the mind flip. Previous to watching this video, and then following to the website, my belief system was as follows:<br /><ul><li>people who are so impaired that they uncontrollably moan and hand flap (or other behaviors we would consider odd) are so impaired that their intellect is also impaired</li><li>likewise, people who are so impaired that even though they can hear and can vocalize but they still cannot talk are also intellectually impaired</li><li>the level of intellectual impairment is strong enough that they really don't have the level of self-awareness to appreciate what is happening around them</li><li>as sad as their existence seems, it is not as if they are really missing anything - as if life is kind of a blur to them - almost a sub-intelligent madness of sorts</li></ul><p>So, I see this video (you have to watch it to see what I mean), and then I follow to the website. In just a few minutes, the entire belief construct had to come tumbling down. This isn't something that comes crashing down without pain - because you have to admit that you are participating in a belief construct that has led to cruel isolation, institutionalization, ridicule, patronization, etc. for a group of people that are just as intellectually capable of perceiving the world around them as anybody.</p><p>The crash came from reading the writings of the website author. She is the individual in the video - she cannot speak. She flaps her hands uncontrollably. She emits a humming "language" that is a sensory interaction between herself and the elements in her environment (the water from the faucet, etc.). Every single bit of behavior in the video appears odd, strange. Most people (myself included) would have looked at her and just thought she was an invalid - incapable of formulating real thought.</p><p>But contrast that, then, to her writing on the website. As she explains in some of her posts, the writing comes with extreme effort. It is taxing for her to do it. But she forces herself to because she is an activist. The quality of the material, of the arguments and the writing is incredibly high - and not high in a "oh, how cute... the cripple is saying something" way you might get on some sort of Oprah show. This is high quality as in "Geezus, I wish the folks at Newsweek wrote this well once in a while". This is hard hitting, unapologetic, unsentimental hyper-opinionated stuff with lots of edge and incredibly well constructed arguments.</p><p>So, my reaction. Frankly - horror. The best analogy I could think of was premature burial, maybe waking up in surgery. I suddenly thought to myself - "Oh my god, what must it be like to be tossed away in institutions, or to be treated as badly as these people have been, and to be fully aware and awake and able to fully feel all the pain and emotions?" I imagined what it would be like if I were suddenly stripped of all ability to communicate, and then had some weird movement quirks tossed on top, but otherwise still the same... and then to be handed over to a bunch of people who didn't know there was a "me" inside. I suddenly realized that for hundreds - thousands - of years, this is what we had been doing to autistic people.</p><p>I excused myself from the guilt. I blamed it on ignorance, product of my times and all that. Fact is, though, I still feel bad. I also have to wonder if I ever would have bothered to watch the video if my own son were not autistic, or if my oldest daughter had not had so many developmental issues growing up. There is a part of me that wants to call me a hypocrite for letting my mind be changed... "You wouldn't if it wasn't impacting you directly." - that's what the little voice says.</p><p>But I guess the only important question is, what do you do with the information?</p><p>For me, it has meant a lot to how I interact with my son, Ethan. My gut reaction is to assume that if he isn't behaving the same way I expect that he isn't "getting it" - frankly, my gut reaction is to give him about as much credit as I might give a dog. I have to fight this gut reaction, though, and force myself to act as if he "gets it" just as much as all the other kids. It is so difficult, because all the cues for getting it (looking in the eye, acknowledging with the correct verbal response, etc. - its hard to describe the gap) are missing and are replaced with every indication that the kid is just somewhere else. But still, I pretend I am not seeing it and talk to him like I would talk to a kid that isn't acting autistic.</p><p>What I find is that he actually does get it. As far as I can tell, he gets things on a level consistent with other kids his age - he just has all these autistic issues that get in the way. I can say something to him like "Ethan, go find the remote control" and he will go around the house looking for the remote control. If I ask him "Ethan, where is the remote control", however, I will get a nonsense response like "Ethan not remote control"... if I get a response at all.</p><p>He even makes jokes. Almost all our conversations are scripted. For example, he might ask "Daddy, do you want to eat an apple?", and then "Daddy, do you want to eat waffle?" and then back to apple, and then waffle. He does this because he has the script for it memorized - these are not extemporaneously composed sentences. But then, in the middle of it, he looks at me and said "Daddy, do you want to eat Chewbacca?", and he gets this big snarky grin on his face and starts laughing his ass off.</p><p>So, now, pretend I had never suppressed my gut instinct. Suppose I never commited to communicating with him like he knows what I am saying. Suppose that his therapists never believed that he was capable of this level of understanding.</p><p>When he was younger, he made zero eye contact. He wouldn't turn his head if you called his name. If he wanted something, he would grab your hand, and put it on the thing he wanted - he saw you, and your hand, as a tool - not as a human being. We had to put weeks and weeks of training in to teach him to say "Daddy, I want <thing>". It was incredibly difficult.</p><p>The fact is, he would far more easily just sit and play by himself and never interact with another human at all. In lots of ways, it really was easier to treat him like a dog. It would have been so much easier to leave him that way, and just assume that is all there really was with him. That is what society has been doing with autistic people all along. At some point, though, they get too big and too old to just let sit around - their desires and needs get more sophisticated - and they become physically strong enough that their actions can hurt themselves or the people around them. At that point, this person who nobody has learned how to talk to, and that has not been taught how to talk to other people, is put away somewhere. Maybe they are left on the street, maybe they are locked in the basement, maybe they are put in an institution. Society rejects them.</p><p>But I realize now that Ethan just needs help. How much help is hard to forsee, but he is a fully intelligent, thinking, feeling individual that is capable of realizing what is going on around him. The possibility exists that the amount of help he needs may someday exceed our capacities as parents (there are gut-wrenching horror stories out there) - but knowing that being autistic, even when the symptoms are very overt and seemingly disabling, does not equate to some sort of below-conscious state has been an important tool in my belt as a parent.</p><p>That is the most important way the website and video affected me. Not many things do that to me.</p><p>There are other ways I was affected - more mildly. I was impressed, for example, that a person could be so eloquent when they had spent so much of their life unable to talk to other people. Most people I know have a very difficult time writing anything coherently. I was impressed, even more so, by the viewpoints and arguments in the blog postings, all of which were so novel and new to me. It is rare that you get to hear a totally new idea tossed about, and BallastExistenz has plenty of them.</p>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-74993238671597538572009-09-12T13:38:00.001-07:002009-09-12T14:15:13.199-07:00How I would prefer this health plan thing was doneI have said to lots of people that I support a public health care option of some sort. I am not too particular about its shape, so long as there is an insurance net that protects people who cannot afford health insurance. I also favor overall health care reform that gets costs under control and prevents the case where people's lives can be utterly destroyed by one massive medical bill.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean I like how things are going in the current health care proposal - and my discontent is aimed at Democrats, Republicans and Mr. Obama. Here is my breakdown of things that I wish we would change.<br /><br /><strong>1. Lose the antagonism</strong><br />I agree with Obama's statement that the time for bickering is over. I wish that people would stop playing party wars and just work on the problem at hand.<br />I was quite upset, then, when in the middle of the speech Obama pulled out the "we said/you said" guns. He ripped at the Republicans for trying to privatize Medicare. He ripped at congress people, senators and a governor for promoting the death panel argument. He ripped at the previous administration for its spending practices.<br />And in the same speech he tries to position himself as the father figure coming in to tell the troops to behave. You lose a lot credibility on that stance when you immediately afterward: 1> pick a side, 2> start throwing the same tomatos.<br />I assume it is Obama's inner litigator getting the better of him. I get it - I do the same thing. When someone throws a line of bullcrap at you, bury them. In some venues it is almost a moral obligation to demonstrate that you don't take that sort of crap. In some venues.<br />The venue where it does not work is the one where you need the other guy to help solve the problem. If you just finished telling them they are liars, connivers, plotters and schemers (even if it is true) and then jump in and hurl jabs back, then you are going to lose them. It doesn't matter how reasonable your points are because you didn't lose on rationality. You lost by pure alienation and insult.<br />The President should have legitimately risen above the fray. Yes, he should have acknowledged the opposition, the attacks - but only so much as to give context to explain the counter argument. He should have ignored the insults like a bear ignoring bees. He should have focused more on laying out the mechanics of the plan, the options on the table and the means to solve the impasse so that the people in the room would be able to get to work. He should have left nobody any room to cry "foul" for him taking a partisan stance. I wish that had happened.<br /><br /><strong>2. Lose the timeline urgency</strong><br />I do not buy the argument that we need a full-packaged solution in place now. Human kind has lived for millenia with dreadful healthcare. Our healthcare has only reached humane proportions in the last century at best. The species knows how to continue its existence with misery, suffering and pain. I want a solution, but I would rather work on it slowly and get it right than rush it in. I believe rushing it in and getting it wrong will have worse impact than if we had not done it at all.<br />I am very cynical about the reason for the urgency. I believe the real reason for the urgency is because nobody wants "I voted yes on public health care" on the minds of the voters come next election. I suspect Obama knows this, and knows he won't get nearly as much participation from Democrat candidates if this goes on longer. They want this over and done with so they can put something else in recent memory to talk to their voters about. If this thing is all they have they are doomed at the polls and they know it.<br />This really makes me upset, because I believe we are going to lose the possibility of getting anything because of the rush. I want this to slow down. I want us to take longer thinking about how it should be done. I want us to... well... read the next section<br /><br /><strong>3. Break the monolith into miniliths</strong><br />Fixing health care actually has support from both sides. Disagreement is on exactly what to do and exactly what needs fixing. Maybe I think the wrong way for Congress, but that to me sounds like the type of thing you break into multiple bills which you vote on separately. Just a layman look, I would propose a couple: 1> health care insurance policy reform bill: this would cover all the "no pre-existing condition clause, no maximum lifetime cap... etc" stuff, 2> health care cost control reform bill: okay, I have no ideas on this, but the current bill seems to be rolling a bunch of stuff into it that proposes to reduce costs - so let's put those together, 3> public health care coverage bill: this is the one everyone is pissing in the wind about, so let's isolate it and have the vote on it so that it doesn't do collateral damage to other stuff people actually want...<br />Something like that. I am sure there are smarter ways.<br />I hear a lot of "If you don't keep clause <blah>, this all comes crashing down! You have to do <blah>!!!" I don't do economics, but I have been doing software testing for almost twenty years now, and I always cry "bullshit" on that. I hear it every time - some person become passionately enamored with a feature, and once they hear it is going to be cut declare the entire product unshippable without it. They have amazingly sound arguments... so compelling. Well, I have seen many features cut on a product line that makes billions of dollars a year... and I have seen many "critical" features kept (at high cost with added bugginess) that didn't matter two ounces to the customer. I suspect strongly the same thing goes with different aspects of any legislation - health care proposal included.<br />What I have learned from shipping software, though, is that you have to ship SOMETHING. Shipping late is bad, but not as bad as never shipping, and not nearly as bad as shipping something so dreadful and improperly built that you cannot sell or support it. It is better to cut in order to save the product. Yes, cutting is a risk - but let's remember what we are trying to accomplish here and not get so tied to our individual fixations.<br />And that is my proposal on the health care bill. One giant monolith, it is likely to die. Cut into pieces, the individual chunks may make it through. You also take the heat and controversy off the whole item - which means that you are far more likely to get comprose and less partisan bickering once people see parts of the problem they can actually work with.<br /><br />Maybe I am naive, but I actually believe that if antagonism is dropped, the urgency removed, the timeline relaxed and the problem broken up into more workable chunks we would see both sides actually working on this issue in healthy debate. I wish Obama had seized the opportunity to work this way.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-65929351454611090132009-09-03T20:53:00.001-07:002009-09-03T21:43:47.854-07:00I've got your death panel right here...<em><span style="font-family:arial;"><author></span></em><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">We shouldn't have publicly funded health care.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Why?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Because, if we do, the government will need to manage the costs paid out to recipients. This will motivate them to adopt policies that will restrict care which could save people's lives. For example, they could have end of life counseling sessions where they recommend inexpensive pain treatments rather than more expensive life-sustaining treatment.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">So, because of this possibility, we should not offer publicly funded health care?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Right.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">What happens to people that need health care, then?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">They get it covered by private insurance companies.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">What if they cannot afford private insurance?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">They will get it from their employer.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">What if their employer doesn't offer it?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">They will have to buy it themselves.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">No... we already asserted they couldn't afford private insurance.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Oh, well they will pay for medical costs out of pocket, then.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">The main purpose of insurance is to cover medical costs you cannot afford out of pocket, or at even at all. Yes, some plans offer more than that, but the primary service is to address the affordability problem by spreading the cost around. So, we are talking about expenses, which by definition, this person cannot pay for out of pocket - and in many cases could not pay for without completely losing everything in terms of their home, house, etc. Also, many medical situations make a person unable to work, further decreasing their ability to pay. How will they pay for the medical care then?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Um... well... you see because the taxpayers aren't paying for a public option...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">You cannot use that because it hasn't happened yet, and we are talking about a realistic hypothetical example that happens now. If the taxpayer burden for public health care has not been imposed yet you cannot suddenly give all that money to our person needing care at this moment.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well, I mean, isn't that their fault for not getting a better job?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Let's ignore the culpability of this individual for the moment. We'll get back to it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Do you promise, because I really wanted to...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I know you did. I promise. But let's ask the question, what is going to happen to them?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I guess they just don't get the medical care they need.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Correct. Then what happens?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well, I guess it depends on what they have.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay, so if you had Leukemia, what would probably happen if you didn't get treatment.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">You would die.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay. So, a likely result is death, correct?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">All right, and this death happened because why?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">The Leukemia.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well, yes, you are correct, but why wasn't the Leukemia treated?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Really, isn't that their fault for not getting a better job?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Hold on. We aren't talking about culpability of the individual yet. I know you want to talk about that, but I promised we would get back to it. So, why didn't the Leukemia get treated?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Because the person didn't have the money.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay, and why didn't they have the money?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well, their job... you see... and...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay, I know what you want to say. We will get to that. But, when they didn't have enough money on their own, did the government give them the money?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">No.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Right. And would it be correct to say that the government didn't give them the money because, as policy, the government doesn't have a public health plan?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">So, in effect, this was a decision. This decision was that people are on their own to provide for their own medical insurance. If they cannot, the government will not help. Is it fair to say that this decision was driven by cost reasons?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes! Yes! Oh... yeah, now you get it!! You see, taxpayers people cannot be expected to pay for the health care of others who cannot afford it!!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Right. So cost reasons.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Oh, I am so glad we agree on that point! Now you are getting it!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I am glad too. Now, what was wrong with death panels? Why wouldn't they offer treatment to peopled needing health care?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">It was because they would be motivated to control costs... um...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">You said "Motivated to control costs...", in other words because of cost reasons, correct?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Hey, um...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">So, in effect, the decision not to provide publicly funded health care is really providing the same functional purpose as a death panel. It is making decisions, as a matter of policy, and independent of the decisions that a doctor and a patient make together in the best interests of the patient, what medicine to provide and what not to provide. All of these decisions are motivated purely by cost interests. So, by matter of definition, we have a death panel in place right now. Please remind me, is a death panel a good thing, or a bad thing?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Hey, wait - but this person... it's their fault! They should have worked harder, studied harder, got a better job, saved more money instead of spending it all on beer and donuts and getting a big fat ass and making me, a responsible taxpayer, cover their expenses.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Ah. You talk as if you know this person very well. Do you?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Well, no, but come on, look at most people, see how they behave! They don't deserve it! They're all a bunch of whiners.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Oh, statistics! You want to work with statistics!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes! I mean, it isn't morally right to have a bunch of lazy bums sap money from people who work hard.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay, so we should use statistics to determine who deserves health care.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Yes, let's be scientific.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Guess who else uses statistics to decide who deserves health care.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Rush Limbaugh?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I don't know. But I know who else. A death panel.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Hubba... wha?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">A death panel looks at demographics, behavior, cost of success of procedure and other factors and decides who gets treatment and who does not. You seem pretty ready to whip out statistics right now. How do you feel about a death panel telling you that you are a good person or a bad person, or that you deserve to die because the medical condition you have is something you brought on yourself.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I would be really upset... but...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">So, if we have defacto implemented a death panel by not providing public health care, and if the proponents are justifying this decision, as you just did, by suggesting that people cannot afford medical coverage because of something they brought on themselves and therefore do not deserve it, well, it seems that the death panel is indeed doing that very thing. How does this make you feel.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">You're a Liberal!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">I am confused. Is that an actual response to the question?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Communist! You are a socialist pinko.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">No, I don't think that was an actual answer. I think that was a personal attack. Our conversation is still incomplete without your answer...</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">You're a Nazi! You want to suck the pocket books of the people dry!!!!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Now you are confused. The Nazi movement was anti-Communist, so accusing me of being both doesn't really make sense.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">His birth certificate is a fake!!!!</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;">Okay, now you are just getting weird.</span>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-48829418507817808642009-09-03T19:08:00.000-07:002009-09-03T20:08:03.351-07:00I don't think this is about health care...The anger seems way out of proportion.<br /><br />To every person I have had an argument with that has calmly present balanced, and well supported reasons and facts against the health care bill... this is not directed at you. But if you showed up at an Obama speech with an automatic rifle, or if you are in league with the birthers, or if you cannot talk about health care without passing out in fear from anxiety over death panels... you are it.<br /><br />If this was really about where to put the tax dollars, then I would expect the debate to be far more reasoned. People may demonstrate some passion, and some excitement, but the anger seems far beyond just discussing budget allocations.<br /><br />The debate seems to be about something far deeper. This debate is, I believe, showing something about our inner personality as a nation that we don't even consciously realize ourselves.<br /><br />I believe that what is happening is that this debate is actually destabilizing things people very closely associate with their personal identity. I believe that people create a set of rules about how the world ought to be and look, and tie that in to their identity. To challenge the veracity of those rules is to invite an irrational debate, because they rules are not defended as a matter of a series of points and counter points to be considered, but instead are defended as a personal matter, because giving up on those rules means giving up on yourself - you have to become a different person to accept the challenge, and human beings do not like to give up on their definition of self.<br /><br />I don't believe, however, that we clearly understand the rules we entangle with identity. I believe the rules are expressed at a subconscious level and that we post-hoc rationalize them with more palatable explanations.<br /><br />Case in point - a couple of the individuals in my church that I attended as a child were racist. They would have never considered themselves racist, but just the fact that they tried to teach the kids in our Sunday school class that interracial couples should not marry was pretty solid proof to me. Their justification - "There are enough challenges keeping a marriage together and raising children without adding the extra burden that mixing the races will introduce" My suspicion of their inner reason that they wouldn't admit to was likely "Mixing white and black people is wrong because the one group is better than the other". Of course I don't know that, but come on. I am asserting, though, that for these specific people, they proposed a really weak argument against interracial marriage because they needed to supply something that sounded rational to explain a highly irrational position that their personal identity had been attached to a long time ago. It was part of their world order that white and black were different classes of species and they could not stand to see their world tossed out and redefined.<br /><br />Back to health care... I completely respect the suggestion that a publicly provided health care option might not fix the problem. I completely respect the suggestion that there are better ways to use the money. I disagree, and in my disagreement admit that this is too complex for anybody to really be certain about - but still respect the opposing opinion when it is clear that the person is really just offering the counter proposal.<br /><br />But there appears to be something else here. Shouting out town hall meetings? Death panel suggestions? Making up falsehoods about what the proposal suggests? No, there is more baggage here, and it is being driven by a highly irrational need to preserve personal identity.<br /><br />I have my suspicions. I actually don't believe racism is the dominant motivation (although when I see more violent expression... like guns, Nazi references, etc. I start to suspect a deeper hatred because of race). My bigger suspicion is in an innate American hatred for poor people.<br /><br />American tradition, American work ethic, as good as it is, is based largely on Calvinist doctrine. One of the aspects of Calvanism is the basic assertion that rich people are rich because they are good and industrious (hence God rewarded them) and poor people are poor because they are bad and lazy (hence God punishes). This definitely has some positive impact on society - it creates a culture that respects hard work, self-sufficiency, cleverness, etc. But it also releases people, and society at large, from an obligation to do anything about people that need help. It removes, completely, the possibility that people are victims of circumstances. It re-inforces the "this is mine, and you cannot have it!" not as selfishness, but as a virtue to be exalted and rewarded. This philosophy is wired deeply into the American ethic such that it defines a piece of personal identity for many people in America.<br /><br />To admit that this view is wrong would mean admitting that you really ought not to get every last stitch of value from your hard work. It means that having more is not as good as giving more. It means admitting that you are no better than someone who is unable to pay for their home, their food, their health care. If you grew up believing to the contrary, then changing this means literally replacing your entire self-image with another. The walls will come up.<br /><br />I believe there are other forces at work. Humans generally have a need to identify themselves as part of a group. Makes sense. Gorillas do it to, and we have continued it all the way through our evolution. Most of our existence was spent in village culture. It is only a small sliver of human existence where we have to exist in a non-village lifestyle, and it is no surprise that some part of ourselves has not really adapted to it.<br /><br />I believe the same part of the brain that makes us need family, clan, village, etc. also makes us seek out other groupings of identity. Church. Club. Social peers. Work. Political party. Mobs. Protest rallies. Street gangs.<br /><br />Once a person strongly ties themself to a group, it gets wired into personal identity. At that point, our protection of that association supercedes rationality. We almost don't care why, anymore, we are associated with a particular group - we just preserve that association.<br /><br />This leads to actions in bulk. Democrats opposed Bush (1 & 2) for being Republican. Republicans opposed Clinton, and Obama for being Democrat. Most members of society even really understand the issues the different parties stand for, cannot articulate the goals or agenda of a given politician. People are really voting for the club. Why do they do that? They do it because the club they belong to is part of them.<br /><br />It is the people who are very strongly tied to their party that will go nuts. Death panels freaks. Birthers. Swift boaters. People who assert the Pentagon wasn't struck by a plane.<br /><br />There are other deeply rooted ethics. There is an American ethic of suppressed pride replaced with outer humility. Sounding "high and mighty" is frowned on in older, traditional American ethics. In the Puritan ethic, people were respected more for keeping their mouth shut than for speaking out. "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and prove the point." I love that quote, and probably should pay more attention to its advice, but in this case it leads a prejudice.<br /><br />The prejudice is basically to distrust anybody who sounds smart. Use big words? You are an elitist. Use subtle arguments? You are shifty. You have an ivy league education with outstanding grades and a stellar reputation as a scholar? You are too big for your britches. Have a "C" in college, booze it up, speak with a limited vocabulary and make references that indicate you really don't understand anything about other nations and cultures - you are a "regular guy". People trust you.<br /><br />This prejudice likewise ties in with identity. For one thing, it excuses the regular person for not being that very smart person. It provides justification for their envy and allows them to ignore their own feelings of insecurity. So what if they didn't get good grades, go to college? The guys that did - they cannot be trusted. They are unethical. There is something suspicious about them. This type of support and defense against personal insecurity is all wired in with who a person believes they are. The wiring is subconscious, because to be consciously aware of it would necessitate admitting that the person is really just covering up a sense of self doubt.<br /><br />And, again, this sort of thing is defended with weak, strange, non-sequitir positions because the person cannot connect with their real reason. So many people say they don't trust Obama because he comes off as smug, too smart, elitist. What is wrong with elitist? We are talking running the most powerful country in the world! Heck yes, we need an elite leadership - so long as that elitism is based on intelligence, which is precisely the type of elitism that people seem to be complaining about. The fact is the only thing wrong with elitism is that it forces people to recognize that they are not that elite person, and that they feel inadequate about it.<br /><br />I am offering my specific suspicions here - and I may be way off on the details. However, I am absolutely convinced that the notion of supporting inner subconscious motives that are intertwined with personal identity are really what is going on. All my examples have been about the current right wing attack on the health care proposal - but I believe that we have seen lots the same thing in the left movement as well. I believe the WTO riots (not necessarily the protests... the labor folks, for example, I think had a sensible statement to make) were really because there were people who had an inner need to throw rocks at the establishment because that was how they had identified themselves. This is a human phenomenon that hits us on all sides.<br /><br />So, what to do? Will the problem ever go away? Can one propose controversial change without a public freakshow on the other side.<br /><br />I am very skeptical and cynical about this. I had a discussion with someone once about gay rights. I suggested that the opposition was not going to come around with discussion. I suggested that what really needed to happen was for the opposition to get old and die. I personally believe that this is the heart of social change. New generations come about and their personal identity is molded based on the times that surround them. You don't get change by changing people's minds. You get change because the population supporting the previous opinion diminishes in size and is replaced by a population that supports the change. Young people are the only true hope of social change. Those in the generation ahead of them will always fight an uphill battle with their predecessors and peers. It is the young people, watching that battle, that eventually embrace the change and make it happen.<br /><br />This means that the battle must always be waged. One must likely still strive for the dialogs as if minds would be changed, but this is for sake of showing the example to minds still forming. Racial acceptance, acceptance of gay lifestyle - to previous generations this was not just odd, it was morally wrong. To the young that are growing up today, most of them cannot even comprehend racial inequality (as opposed to my peers when I was young - I still remember the kids on my block telling me you had to hide whenever a car full of black people drove by - they used the N word, of course), and a growing number of them now and in the future will not understand inequality against gay people. This is in spite of a population of adults now who still do not see it this way.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-58143246275223288012009-08-26T07:58:00.000-07:002009-08-26T08:28:44.624-07:00Mass phenomenon in popular mediaMarshall McLuhan coined the term "global village" in response to the rise of widespread mass media. I have always taken that to mean that when media was slow (word of mouth, could only travel as fast as someone on foot or horse) our area of interesting information extended about as far as the ground local villages covered. If something happened to someone 100 miles away, you probably never heard about it.<br /><br />Or cared. Because it was not relevant to you. Or important.<br /><br />Consider numbers and proportions and statistics for just a second. A village has at most a couple hundred people. Often less. If something happens to 1% of those people, you will know about it. If something happens to .01% of those people, you probably will never hear about it. Further, that number is so small, that the significance of it happening at all is fairly unimportant. Logically, you probably shouldn't even care.<br /><br />But now, our "village" is defined by the boundaries of a much larger communication range. We can cover the entire planet, but let's forget about that and think of just the United States. If something happens in Plunketvilleport, Maine (yes, I made that up - but doesn't it just sound like all the little puny towns on the east coast?) then we can hear about it within minutes on the west coast. Consider the visibility of small statistical probabilities now. We are talking about things that can occur to .000001% of the people, because the possible population we are talking about is the size of the entire United States.<br /><br />"But wait," one might say "if it is that small a proportion of the population, why would it make it on the popular media?"<br /><br />Because the media lives for spectacle. It makes more money, and the more unusual and the more bizarre something is, the more it rubs against people's sense of right and wrong or curiosity, the more the media desperately wants to pick it up.<br /><br />Add to this another important factor. Consider the TYPES of people who work in popular media creation. These are people interested in popular media. It is just like computer software - the people that make it are into computers, and think EVERYBODY should be into computers as much as they are. Likewise, the people who film, write and report the stories think everybody should be fascinated with the same things they are. And what are they fascinated with? Well, just take a look. They are fascinated with Octomom, Jon and Kate, Britney, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, Oprah, Angelina Jolie, Madonna.<br /><br />The end result of this is that the bulk of popular media fills up with an increasingly larger quantity of trivial material. These are events and occurences that 1> occur with very low levels of statistical significance, 2> are so far and distant from the people consuming the media to have any real impact on them, 3> are selected from a set of fetish topics chosen by the people who happen to be into those fetishes.<br /><br />We are inundated with material that is unimportant and does not matter. Really - ask yourself the following:<br /><br /><ul><li>Is it important to me, and society in general, what Octomom does? If she makes any decision, will it actually affect me or society?</li><li>Is it important to me, and society in general, whether Jon and Kate split up, or work it out and get their act together?</li><li>If Oprah ever manages to get total control over her weight will society be the better for it? Will I be the better for it? What if Oprah continues to have weight issues, will that actually affect my personal health and well-being?</li><li>Will my life change if it turns out Michael Jackson was murdered?</li><li>Will my life change if Madonna adopts another baby from Africa? Will my life change if Angelina Jolie's lips grow wings and fly to Mars?</li></ul>The questions above are rhetorical - the answer to all of them is "No". Increasingly, though, the media is portraying these events not as novel trivialities for sake of amusement, but as if they are somehow important. Somehow, Octomom's behavior raises issues that we need answers for. This is all just posturing by the media in an attempt to get more eyeballs - invent a bit of controversy and you get people watching.<br /><br />I write all this knowing it will not change anytime soon. This like this happen when humans have built-in desires and proclivities that someone figures out how to exploit. It's like sugar, we have a built-in drive to consume it that developed during the 99% of human existence when food was incredibly scarce and hard to acquire. Now that sugar is easy to get, it's nearly killing us and as a population we cannot seem to stop consuming it. There is something about human behavior that clues into these things that did not develop when information could spread as quickly as it does now. In order for this sort of thing to change it must introduce an evolutionary disadvantage to those with the proclivity versus those without it. That disadvantage must impact successful propagation and continuation of the species. So, if worrying about Octomom's behavior means you never leave your house and therefore mate, well then maybe those who don't care will be the ones who lead us into the future. Or maybe fixating on Jon & Kate will cause a culture to ignore an invasion from a media adverse third world country that storms in and kills us all. I don't see those outcomes as very likely. I keep thinking of the movie "Idiocracy" that asserted the stupid people just have more kids and edge out the smart people, so in a couple thousand years we are inevitably headed toward a world of TV-addicted morons (dumb movie, but some of the humor in it is pretty funny).Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-72109381811373936422009-08-09T08:55:00.000-07:002009-08-09T09:53:40.532-07:00What would Jesus do? taxes and freedomThere is a popular phrase among Christians today. "What would Jesus do?" While the phrase has some ludicrous implications that don't extend to the expectations placed upon Christians (such as establishing yourself at the right hand of God and declaring yourself to be the authority by which all humankind is saved, for example - although there so do seem to be a lot of Christians who act is if they were given that charter), it is often a good guiding compass for regular moral behavior. Say, when you want to spraypaint "jerk" on your neighbor's garage door because they play loud music at midnight, you think "What would Jesus do?" and put the can of red enamel back on the shelf.<br /><br />So, the question: Should we fight to the death (other people's death and ours, both on the table) to ensure our own freedoms? - and the rhetorical response, "What would Jesus do?"<br /><br />I love rhetorical responses, because you are implying the answer is obvious without actually giving the answer. In truth the answer is ambiguous, but the person offering the rhetorical response really only has one point in mind, and if you don't know what it is then you apparently aren't smart or informed enough to know, which immediately puts you on the losing side of the debate without even offering a position, because from here on out we can remind you that we demonstrated early on that your capacities for intelling argument are in question anyway, so anything you say from here on out is really just - well cute, but not worth considering.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't know what Jesus would do. I can only guess. But my guess is that Jesus, when faced with his own lack of freedom, would not have killed anybody to secure it. We are talking about a man who in his own trial for acts of sedition against the state of Rome offered no defense. We are talking about a man who was the member of an oppressed population under Roman occupation, during a time when virtually every religious movement was about the return of a Messiah to throw off the Roman hold and re-establish the nation of Israel. This is what Jesus' apostles all thought was going to happen. You can imagine that Peter, when he grabbed the sword from the Roman gaurd and cut off the ear of one of the soldiers was thinking "This is it! This is the moment it starts!" And Jesus is the man who at that moment offered no resistance and healed the ear of the man Peter struck.<br /><br />Now, today, when we talk about freedom in America, we are usually talking about far more trivial issues than occupation by a foreign empirical force. "Freedom" is frequently described in terms of "freedom to use my money without paying taxes..." So, when faced with the oppressive occupation of his native people by the Roman empire, Jesus didn't take up one sword, lead any riots or throw one stone. He did not instruct his people to do likewise. If under those conditions he did virtually nothing about freedom, then what would he say about the things that people get fired up about now?<br /><br />Would Jesus get all fired up about higher taxes? Would Jesus get mad about a publicly offered health care plan?<br />Again, I don't know. I can only guess. I don't believe Jesus would care one bit about taxes either way. When asked whether or not people should pay taxes to Ceasar, his response was "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give unto God what is God's" Now, there is a lot of baggage associated with this statement, and you can read it many ways. Previous to this response, he had asked whose image was on the coin (hint: Ceasar's...) - so someone being really literal (don't get me started on literalism...) would say "Oh, so it is because Ceasar's face is on it... and since George Washington is dead we don't have to give our dollar to him anymore..." - but that obviously misses the point. Others might indicate that Ceasar had declared himself a god, and the people were asking Jesus if paying taxes was like a tithe, and that Jesus was only indicating that it was not. My personal take on this - Jesus was telling people "Just pay your taxes. Your concerns need to be of matters of a spiritual nature, and taxes are not among them." I believe Jesus would have paid his taxes without getting all worked up over it.<br /><br />Regarding publicly funded health care, I am assuming he would be in favor of it. There was a popular religious belief at the time that people's misfortunes were based on misdeeds of their ancestors. Jesus' apostles even asked him concerning this once during one of his healings. This is not much different than popular American Christian post-Calvinist beliefs that rich people are well enough because they deserve it (higher virtue and such) and that poor people bring their problems on themselves and thus deserve their disadvantages. Jesus' response to his apostles was that the man being healed was that way to give evidence of the glory of God (I paraphrase). Remember that Jesus spent a lot of time hanging out with people that were considered the bottom of society - people of a criminal element. Think about that. That completely nullifies any idea of blame, or guilt, or why the person needs help. They just need help, and their plight is there to demonstrate that they can be helped. In modern Christianity, the glory of God, among other ways, is meant to be demonstrated through charity and love. So, regarding a publicly funded program, I think Jesus would say "Why are you fighting it? You should have faith and be glad that you live in a country where the government wants to use its money to help people instead of just building bigger palaces for its kings and heavier yokes for its slaves." But I am filling in the blanks here.<br /><br />The stance I am trying to get to is that American values (I know, there is a mixed bag there) are not the same as Christianity. So many Christians in American try to smash the two together. Freedom to assemble. Democracy. How much/how little to tax people. Freedom of speech. Socialized versus privatized social services. None of these, as well as many other common American values, are really pertinent to Christianity. You could have a 100% communist society, sharing all labors, no private land ownership, all earned income going back to the government, and be a completely Christian nation (read the Bible, the first Christian churches were communes). You could have a total monarchy, with all land and possessions owned by the king, the labors of the royal subjects supporting the aristocracy, and still be a completely Christian nation. You could have a total libertarian anarchy (let's ignore the "anarchy degrades into might makes right quickly, which by definition is no longer anarchy " argument for a second) with everybody doing only what they want and perceive as right and be completely Christian. You could live as a slave in an atheist society, and still live a completely Christian life.<br /><br />If we believe in God, then we have to look at history and acknowledge that God permitted every form of government so far to exist, often for millenia. Democracy has had the minority of time in human history. Whatever the "right" form of government is, God hasn't imparted on us exactly what it is, so it sure isn't our place to dictate its terms in context of Christianity (the closest God ever comes to this is in the Old Testament when God advises against appointing King Saul because he wanted the Isrealites to be a nation led by priests - but it is difficult to tell if that is meant for all people, or just the nation of Israel, and one also has to remember that the Old Testament written record was kept by the priests... so the point may be a bit skewed by the record keepers).<br /><br />My belief - God doesn't care what government we live under. I believe God expects us to live the right and proper life no matter what context we are in. Getting fired up about taxes, how much to support poor people, whether or not to fund public education - none of this should be tied into religious discussions, and is not worth fighting over. Going to war and killing people to establish democracy elsewhere and fight other forms of government - I believe Jesus would call such acts dispicable and horrible.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-82922572324199069012009-07-12T20:57:00.000-07:002009-07-12T21:07:30.401-07:00Read aloud, the unnecessary stands outI am reading my book to my daughters. They seem to enjoy it, particularly the parts where I poke fun at seemingly invulnerable adult characters. Seeing a gruff adult turn all sappy, or a scary villain trip all over himself is funny to them. They like hearing the story and beg for more. I enjoy reading it to them.<br /><br />As part of the writing process, reading it aloud to them really helps out. The grammatical errors become glaringly obvious as my mouth trips over trying to say the sentences out loud. Even more glaring, though, are the writing indulgences which prove completely unnecessary to the book. In order to keep myself going, I force a free form "write whatever hits your head" approach. If I get an idea, I write it down on paper the way the words form in my head. If I think something is funny, amusing or interesting I just go for it right away before I lose it. Sometimes I will even skip several chapters ahead just to get something written out as it hits my skull, although usually I capture the idea in notes (as an aside, my inner geek shows through, as I use SGML style markup to do it... <delete>like this</delete>).<br /><br />The problem with this approach is that many ideas are distractions which might have seemed fun to me, but that really don't play a part in the movement of the storyline. For the kind of story I am writing, sticking to the action is critical to keep the audience's interest. I have read whole chapters that on reflection should be removed entirely with just the bare stitching need to fix the hole they leave behind. Some chapters I want to keep, but maybe move to later in the story, as they deal with character development that become important points of the plot.<br /><br />I'm not saying anything new or novel here. I have read several times in articles by other writers that reading the story out loud really helps in the proof reading. It is just interesting to reflect on it now as I am doing it.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-58736906575844017352009-07-12T07:46:00.000-07:002009-07-12T08:12:35.138-07:00Hey, advertising is free!Really, all you need is the time to make a video. Then just post it on YouTube. Here are two of my own that I did for the book:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjah2HWsGE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjah2HWsGE</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkMSEaBvLuM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkMSEaBvLuM</a><br /><br />Obviously this isn't all. The desire is for the video to go viral. I have to admit to my own ineptitude at manipulating the interests and desires of the general populace. I really have no idea how to get something like this to go all over the place. I tend to lean a great deal on hoping the content itself will carry it, but as I have seen with other attempts at promoting my book, that really is not enough.<br /><br />Other people seem interested in this phenomenon as well. Advertising companies are doing a great deal to get their ads on YouTube and the web in general. One of my friends, Dave Kindard, seems to be invest a deal of research into the viral tipping point, particular with his recent use of Twitter as a distribution medium. Maybe I need to start reading up.<br /><br />I recently read an article by another author about Amazon detail page visits. He never published the article, but he sent me a copy because the idea for the technical hack making it possible came from me. I had suggested to him a means by which an author published on Amazon could track how many times their book's detail page had been hit, something Amazon doesn't tell you (the technique no longer works - Amazon's behaviors changed around May this year). He ran an experiment and found not only could he count his hits, he could tell how the person visiting the page had got there (Amazon keeps such information on the URL query string), which allowed him to catalog the effectiveness of different means of promoting books. The conclusion: personal websites, Amazon guides, Listmania lists and author blogs are ineffective. The most effective means are Amazon's "bought together" feature and placement in search results.<br /><br />Its all part of the "what drives people to something" soup that is the Internet. I personally found that paid web-based advertising was completely useless for promoting my book. I set the account on a small budget (this is a hobby to me, not a business) - and got lots of clicks (I chose pay for click as the model). Not ONE of those clicks registered as a visit to my website. Again, to reiterate - not ONE SINGLE CLICK that I PAID FOR resulted in a web site hit. I believe I was likely a victim of clickbot fraud. This is when automated programs simulate clicks on advertisements to exhaust the advertisers budget, after which point that ad no longer runs. This leaves the ads the clickbot deployer paid for a greater amount of the remaining ad displays. The problem is so big that MS actually sued the daylights off a business in Canada doing precisely that.<br /><br />You know what DID drive people to my website? Chest pain. Well, searches on chest pain. When I first created my website, I wrote an experimental blog post about having a heart attack. The article talked about how after a heart attack all the day to day little muscular pangs you get in the chest area scare the daylights out of you. I forgot about the article for about six months until after I had published my book and put a page about it on my website and ran some ads on Facebook and Google. I was looking at the site visit reports, and surprisingly I had traffic, but many months before I ever published the book. I followed through the referrer URL, and they came mostly from Google searches. Google? Why would people be searching my site on Google? I checked the tag terms, and they were for "pain in chest". Apparently calling Google comes before calling 911. Go figure.<br /><br />But the point that is interesting is that in both cases, effective placement in search results seems to be an important aspect of website promotion.<br /><br />Yet, I am not sure if that is works for viral media. I always get that delivered to me by someone in email, or on sharing sites like Facebook and Digg. I am wondering about the dynamics of social movement described by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. There, Gladwell describes the necessity of three personality types to start a social phenomenon - the early adopters (the ones on the fringe who differ from the mainstream), the observers (these are people who understand the early adopters and see a fad coming) and the connectors (these are people who have a massive network of other people they either know and communicate with, or who hang on them for advice). I am wondering if viral media rely on the same sort of thing.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-28288697425781156842009-06-23T16:33:00.000-07:002009-06-23T16:35:45.837-07:00Correlations of stupidity explained with stunning charts<span style="font-size:180%;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>Why the other side is always stupid</strong></span><br /><br />It is just the law of numbers at work. In a standard distribution, average intelligence is at the top center of the hump. However, we really don’t count you as smart until you are substantially farther up the curve than average. Stupid, however, well, if you live anywhere below the top of the hump, then you get to own that dumbass badge.</div><br /><div><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 222px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5350670656918587106" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNLitXBCCo3IsXDuyVdTxhqTWNnFHz1Btd6mjS9BSLrba1RlntnaO375URqpto1baUtj8hWnVbfw8xXoSelyA1WvHTZMe7Oc_loDRisSZukryHQK-B-Xg5AL-D9qvK_IeMCai5H5VbiQ/s320/smartdumbcurve.jpg" /><br />This is why the “other side” of any argument always looks like it is highly correlated with idiots. That is because everything, no matter what side, is highly correlated with idiots. No matter your viewpoint, the standard distributions will apply, and by definition, at least half of those people will be below average intelligence, hence stupid. </div>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-88848866007157205462009-06-13T22:34:00.000-07:002009-06-13T22:42:14.783-07:00Reading for early criticsI picked an easy audience: my kids. I've squeezed in two nights of reading so far. A total of four chapters. They seem to like it. I told them that the book was just all over the place and needed some serious editing before it was ready to be read aloud, but they didn't care.<br /><br />I find myself correcting grammar, skipped and incorrect words as I read. Still, it doesn't roll off the tongue too badly, which seems to be a pretty good test of how it is going. At 8.5 x 11, double spaced 10 pt. font the book is about 150 pages long. It's about 340 pages long when reformatted for a typical kids paperback size. I want to get the book down to about 200 pages long, which might mean some re-ordering of the chapters and points of action, as well as some serious trimming.<br /><br />At the moment, the second book ends right smack in the middle of the action where the third book starts. I have not been able to bring myself to begin the third book just yet. I am letting some of the ideas sort themselves out in my mind.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-75288822381439970522009-05-25T19:42:00.000-07:002009-05-25T19:53:21.315-07:00I just hit page 301... I celebrate with a table of contents, and title spoiler...Okay, I just crossed the 300 page mark. I have hit the moment before the final, last scene of the book. So, to celebrate, I have decided to drop a few spoilers. Three, in fact:<br /><br /><strong>1. The book ends with a cliffhanger</strong><br />The second book does not wrap up and resolve itself. It dives right into the action of the third book. I dare not describe the action in the ending - because I really do believe it will be totally unexpected. I believe it works with the story, and make sense when viewed with the rest of it, but nothing leading up to this ending will give you any clue to how it is going to end.<br /><br /><strong>2. Okay... here comes the title for book #2</strong><br />Are you ready? I mean, are you actually ready? This is a legitimate spoiler. I have been wrestling with this one for a while, and it has taken a long time for this title to emotionally soak in, but I finally feel committed to it. So... the title of the book is: "Millicent Marbleroller and the Bear Monster Army"<br /><br /><strong>3. And here is the table of contents... at least, so far...</strong><br />The problem is that this book is too long as it is. It is all the way to page 300 by the time the last chapter starts, and that is just to leave it at a halfway point cliffhanger for the third book. I am anticipating doing tons of edits on this book to cut it back fifty to seventy pages or so. I might move some of the action and dialogue out of this book and to the third... but until I do, the chapter names and page numbers are as follows:<br /><br /> Prologue 3<br /> Alone With the Music 5<br /> More Music and Many More Bells 15<br /> The Package 26<br /> The Delivery 36<br /> Jolly Good Toys 53<br /> Work Begins 70<br /> Bears in the Night 79<br /> Investigations and Messages 87<br /> Trouble Brewing 99<br /> Interview with the Admiral 117<br /> Back at Work 124<br /> Into The Walls 132<br /> Nobbins Story 153<br /> The Orchestra In The Cellar 171<br /> The Room In The Ceiling With No Doors 179<br /> Back in the Kitchen 209<br /> Civic Courtroom 15B 221<br /> The Admiral’s Case 227<br /> The Decision 237<br /> Shadows In The Moonlight 246<br /> The Other Way In 252<br /> The Admiral’s Victory Gloat 262<br /> The Clock Ticks 274<br /> The Whistle That Saved The Day 282<br /> The Roar of Engines 290<br /> Standoff With the Admiral 299Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-79584317686401798552009-05-25T16:25:00.000-07:002009-05-25T19:17:35.393-07:002009 Memorial Day Weekend Activities for Roseberry Family<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:180%;"><strong>Saturday</strong></span><br />Eggs, vinegar, plaster and rocks. Two science projects.<br />Plaster and rocks was all about making a craterscape. This was for Hanna's astronomy class. We poured some plaster into a container, and just before it was setup, we dropped rocks and sand into it. I think we let the plaster set up just a little bit too much, but we still got some rocks.<br />Aimee's science experiment inspired more of a visceral reaction. The experiment was to see if soaking eggs in different kinds of vinegar would have a different effect on the breaking point of those eggs when dropped from various heights. The eggs had been soaking for many days (were supposed to go at three days, but that was last weekend and I was too tired for science). The three types of vinegar were red wine vinegar, apple cider vinegar and white vinegar. Aimee held the yardstick, Tanya took notes, and I did the dropping. The shortest dropping height was four inches (white vinegar) and the highest was 12 inchest (red wine vinegar). The site of the experiment smelled of eggs and vinegar - go figure.<br />Before all of this we went to Bainbridge Island. Really this was nothing more than the ferry trip, a little lunch, and then back. It was more about being on a boat on a sunny day than it was about doing something. In retrospect, though, we really need to learn more about Bainbridge Island so that next time we have a better itinerary.<br />Really need to do the San Juan Islands...<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:180%;"><strong>Sunday</strong></span><br /><br />I forcibly wake up the family and get them in the car by 9:00 am. This is an astounding feat in our house, made even more amazing by the fact that there was no screaming, yelling or bloodshed involved.<br /><br />We then headed north on I-5 until we got to the Bow-Edison, Chuckanut Drive exit. I took them west until we got to Larrabee State Park. Low tide was at 11:15, with a -3.2. We spent about and hour and a half looking at the tide pools.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:180%;"><strong>Monday</strong><br /></span>On Monday morning, we don't do very much at all. The kids sleep in. I wake up around 7:30, but don't do very much until Tanya wakes up. The two of us eat oatmeal until we decide to rouse the girls around 9:30.<br /><br />Hanna and Aimee have planned to see Night at the Museum 2 with a friend from Hanna's school. Tanya is going with them. I cause a bit of disruption right before the trip by resetting the passwords on all the user accounts for the kids... that got me in big trouble with the kid who was in trouble in the first place, which is why I reset the password to begin with.<br /><br />I give the angry child a few minutes to chill out, explain calmly to her the rationale behind the disciplinary action and convince her to cheer up before going to the move.<br /><br />While the girls are at the movie, I take Ethan out on a bicycle ride. This is only his second time on the bike. I take him to the biking trail that runs along bear creek behind Redmond Town Center (really, starts behind World Imports). I think we probably went a half mile, total. I checked my watch at the end. We were on the trail for at least an hour and a half. I had to follow him with the same speed you follow old people when you are helping them down the hallway with their walker. He kept doing that thing where he pedals so slowly that the pedal won't move once it comes just short of top dead center - that point where you have to transition from a rising foot movement to forward, but sometimes you do a push down movement that immobilizes the bike. Add to this that he hates being nudged or pushed... even when it means getting him out of the middle of the trail so the other light speed bikers have room to ride around him.<br /><br />Back at home, I am helping Aimee with charts for her report on the egg dropping.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-90029365963848106392009-05-17T22:18:00.000-07:002009-05-17T22:31:47.339-07:00Facebook detox-ingI am in the middle of a Facebook detox experiment. About two weeks ago I stopped checking my facebook page. I stopped posting status. I stopped taking silly little quizzes.<br /><br />I was addicted to it. I was neurotically checking the page several times a day to see if there were any updates, messages, comments or whatever. Even worse, two weeks after my cold turkey cleansing, I still want to check. I come to the computer and feel a compulsion to type in the URL... and when I don't, the experience feels so empty. Its like there is nothing to do on the computer. It felt as if I can't have my Facebook fix, then what the blazes is technology for in the first place?<br /><br />Isn't that the stupid thing ever? I mean, here is a machine capable of so many things, and yet some wacked out obsessive addictive behavior of mine has reduced it to lobbing back and forth blibbets of information 1000 characters at a time.<br /><br />I don't know if this is a stable experiment. Facebook has become a kind of communication central - supplanting emails and phone calls. People rely on its noteboard-like experience to casually drop off bits of information for their circle of friends, family and acquaintance. It it is a proxy for email - obscuring one's actual email address (kind of a nice feature, really)... but that basically necessitates visiting the site to reply (unless, of course, we all go back to email again).<br /><br />I have filled more of my time with gardening, painting and writing. I managed to get out two full chapters on my sequel to Millicent Marbleroller tonight. I also started another book two days ago - this one a how-to, as supposedly those are easier to sell. Maybe that's the answer to the outcome of going dry on Facebook? Happy, fulfilling, Luddite pasttimes?Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-61232740017920322002009-05-10T20:54:00.001-07:002009-05-10T22:00:50.528-07:00Painting of General Horatio Crackerhead<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNzD8wOkRchrUCLGSdqpKukbevvsvY74rFFHDasCdJV5tv9DovKwqoAe6wg9j8NprLu-0c8aV4m2ufMCMJ2hR7uKBqCyuMY59l609LtjGcgMEnUg_BRh7BhfQkbr4DZL39kLxDO9V1Og/s1600-h/GeneralPortrait.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 245px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5334410137693461122" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNzD8wOkRchrUCLGSdqpKukbevvsvY74rFFHDasCdJV5tv9DovKwqoAe6wg9j8NprLu-0c8aV4m2ufMCMJ2hR7uKBqCyuMY59l609LtjGcgMEnUg_BRh7BhfQkbr4DZL39kLxDO9V1Og/s320/GeneralPortrait.jpg" /></a><br /><div>I finally finished my painting of General Horatio Crackerhead. As stated in previous posts, he looks a lot like Teddy Roosevelt, with Chester A. Arthur's sideburns and mustache. I went with oil paint for this one. Working in oil requires more patience, as it takes forever to dry. However, much like acrylic you can fix anything. Further, it stays wet longer, which makes blending new layers of color together far easier. I also like the way the colors pop out a bit more.</div><div> </div><div>As a side note on the sequel, I feel like I am indulging a horrifically overused cliche', but I just wrote a scene with a ticking clock. The whole scene felt so flat and devoid of any tension without that tick-tock countdown going. At least there is no "red wire? green wire?" dilemma... at least, not yet.</div>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-37752566722825591872009-04-26T10:51:00.000-07:002009-04-26T11:05:42.124-07:00Character inspiration from 19th century photographsI have been trying to come up with drawings of the characters from Millicent Marbleroller. General Crackerhead and Nobbins have been the most difficult, although Mumbleskull has likewise been hard.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">I decided that giving Teddy Roosevelt a mustache like Chester A. Arthur makes a pretty decent General.</span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3-gjcNC43FwUZKAGELyENalC9HgNhQOVb3-zO8p9RLllHivkvbIHXf27UU9oJq1jG-HBFemlauby2SSP_b6aHBlT0JhRdspBDKjXlRy6525Q2HSTnbuB6dFNv8lcSJZv7zUaMEfcYmvE/s1600-h/roosevelt.jpg"><span style="color:#000000;"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 160px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 124px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060164037292450" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3-gjcNC43FwUZKAGELyENalC9HgNhQOVb3-zO8p9RLllHivkvbIHXf27UU9oJq1jG-HBFemlauby2SSP_b6aHBlT0JhRdspBDKjXlRy6525Q2HSTnbuB6dFNv8lcSJZv7zUaMEfcYmvE/s320/roosevelt.jpg" /></span></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHuVnpWIpXBUKxt8pO8aZvxRjy0Gu7sT0nzrijCqlXLrhbpcI0md-AYtisBv9ldcfdg0Mn3IwwFzXqgTP04la1WKQ0ieecX0wTSNIr4xnFyOMfdk0wnLZNz2nAvYkg2AE93_YHyMjkGms/s1600-h/wagner.jpg"> <div></a></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcc9uu3hNkAvZK7k1RvMc0Zlo6fh0iJeX4M3CEkCfNxOaQs6nWMCk6mziKVGF-p9FzWsQQQaS5_K8PJDU4wFRgb19g5mcZ5fanIYH7fx0Smmg6eaL7uO9JOeI6Bmena0TMIJFB_AApqJg/s1600-h/chesterarthur.bmp"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 220px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060160359695906" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcc9uu3hNkAvZK7k1RvMc0Zlo6fh0iJeX4M3CEkCfNxOaQs6nWMCk6mziKVGF-p9FzWsQQQaS5_K8PJDU4wFRgb19g5mcZ5fanIYH7fx0Smmg6eaL7uO9JOeI6Bmena0TMIJFB_AApqJg/s320/chesterarthur.bmp" /></a></div><div></div><div>Wagner - stern face, large face. I was wondering about Nobbins..</div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHuVnpWIpXBUKxt8pO8aZvxRjy0Gu7sT0nzrijCqlXLrhbpcI0md-AYtisBv9ldcfdg0Mn3IwwFzXqgTP04la1WKQ0ieecX0wTSNIr4xnFyOMfdk0wnLZNz2nAvYkg2AE93_YHyMjkGms/s1600-h/wagner.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060882513808898" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHuVnpWIpXBUKxt8pO8aZvxRjy0Gu7sT0nzrijCqlXLrhbpcI0md-AYtisBv9ldcfdg0Mn3IwwFzXqgTP04la1WKQ0ieecX0wTSNIr4xnFyOMfdk0wnLZNz2nAvYkg2AE93_YHyMjkGms/s320/wagner.jpg" /></a> Schoepenhauer - if he looked a little happier and not as constipated I would say he is a good Mumbleskull. Needs coke-bottle glasses.</div><div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjznaF987jhvQboHrbVPdSEl9VMHm7uG629uQwiadGpyAeJCznArk9FhPogd_2Wajbr1A3p8QUEpNZsUTnpNHru6IyFKkI6QBKnkxjIHPcvAydqHPzy2HzjBmicW9osWuEGmL5uxmoDOjM/s1600-h/schopenhauer.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 150px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 191px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060878572265746" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjznaF987jhvQboHrbVPdSEl9VMHm7uG629uQwiadGpyAeJCznArk9FhPogd_2Wajbr1A3p8QUEpNZsUTnpNHru6IyFKkI6QBKnkxjIHPcvAydqHPzy2HzjBmicW9osWuEGmL5uxmoDOjM/s320/schopenhauer.jpg" /></a> Some guy named Wattles Wallace - inventor of some sort. I was looking for thin faced men to help with the drawings for Admiral Crackerhead.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTHf2mc5USZLtR2yimFjyCYC4DwECg4gJcWkbrSd7vPr_ao-tM9mAFdS7vuQc2PO_79O2W9QvrhQ2t23UtLASYZTZOCYi9mXmq5DQ9UnQWWFxOn5HunJqEA4C7zmQTc61H3pwq6qDBNvU/s1600-h/Wallace_Wattles.gif"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 161px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 252px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060879551285090" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTHf2mc5USZLtR2yimFjyCYC4DwECg4gJcWkbrSd7vPr_ao-tM9mAFdS7vuQc2PO_79O2W9QvrhQ2t23UtLASYZTZOCYi9mXmq5DQ9UnQWWFxOn5HunJqEA4C7zmQTc61H3pwq6qDBNvU/s320/Wallace_Wattles.gif" /></a> Pope Leon - another thinner faced man for the Admiral.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhanErPIn2cjcx2GSKEGdPHtqvKft9hbToz4Si8JEfe2CXFUJLxYFnO6SygJtNVgAoXFmbi9H9Rvbop3LP8qsqrW6gHEAtKD3dpvUNsasCIm8amDEV3m4tviQBjGZhBzihw8TLVeNAeXpM/s1600-h/leon23_original.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060878406275042" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhanErPIn2cjcx2GSKEGdPHtqvKft9hbToz4Si8JEfe2CXFUJLxYFnO6SygJtNVgAoXFmbi9H9Rvbop3LP8qsqrW6gHEAtKD3dpvUNsasCIm8amDEV3m4tviQBjGZhBzihw8TLVeNAeXpM/s320/leon23_original.jpg" /></a> Thomas Huxley, an ardent supporter of the theory of evolution, who coined the term "agnostic" to refer to atheism because apparently at the time atheism was carrying a lot of socialist baggage. I thought his stern visage would make a good model for Nobbins.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuhAWUHyxYVjDXR2POPQTrHIeZQo0W9ivuF58nGGbFMQi7SOYGZnh5fs5qvfd08cZ6XerhvbdQrZS4YDC-x2VytZmWDJQfUXLY2wiJcEnWHfWxx86KDVczd6XVHRmBgsbIioDUhsVfcJY/s1600-h/Huxley1.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 138px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 186px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329060873520056882" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuhAWUHyxYVjDXR2POPQTrHIeZQo0W9ivuF58nGGbFMQi7SOYGZnh5fs5qvfd08cZ6XerhvbdQrZS4YDC-x2VytZmWDJQfUXLY2wiJcEnWHfWxx86KDVczd6XVHRmBgsbIioDUhsVfcJY/s320/Huxley1.jpg" /></a><br /></div><div></div></div>Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-80325878644093125082009-04-11T15:27:00.000-07:002009-04-11T15:37:12.236-07:00Difficulties picking a title for the Millicent Marbleroller sequelThis has been a problem for me because the story itself doesn't change venue. The sequel to the book picks up the very next day, and most of the action happens in and around the same location and with the same characters. It is really just an extension of the conflicts that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">occurred</span> in the first book.<br /><br />I know I want to follow the same structural pattern for the title... "Millicent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Marbleroller</span> and..." - but the "and the WHAT?" is the part that throws me. The way the story is going, I could easily say "Millicent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Marbleroller</span> and More of the House of the Toymaker", but that just sounds stupid.<br /><br />But now that I am into the story I have an idea for a title. I just am not so sure I want to use it. It would follow the same title structure pattern, but it introduces a concept for the book that I did not see coming until I was in the middle of it. The original idea was just a minor plot device, but it was something that was so funny to me that I have kept re-using it and growing it and making it bigger, and bigger and more important to the story. I have thought to use this thing (trying to avoid spoiling it just yet...) as the object in the title... "Millicent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Marbleroller</span> and the <thing>". It actually SOUND really good - it is a really wacky title, and I think guaranteed to make people go "What the heck is this about?", so I am really tempted.<br /><br />However, this particular development took me by surprise when it came about, and I want to share that surprise with the readers. I don't want them to see it coming, but rather have it grow for them in the same way it grew for me as I wrote about it. I am finding this to be a very difficult decision.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-28049981247392625752009-04-07T20:39:00.000-07:002009-04-07T20:55:49.716-07:00Saying "No" on Facebook feels rude... is it?I just realized something about facebook comments. It was triggered by a rather typical status update/comment situation. A friend of mine set his status to "Should (person) <person>buy the new Camaro?".<br /><br />I wasn't going to say anything because, frankly, I have no opinion about what that person should do regarding car purchases. I myself don't have much interest in cars as anything other than a utility, and don't really know if the new Camaro is all that interesting or not. But then, I wondered what it would be like to say "No". I then suddenly realized that saying "No" felt inappropriate and wrong. My inner etiquette alarm went off.<br /><br />So, naturally, I said "no".<br /><br />Immediately after, two other people posted comments telling this person to buy the Camaro. Nobody chastised me on my negative response - but certainly they were all positive.<br /><br />Which left me wondering - is it EVER appropriate to say "No" on facebook in response to this sort of question? I don't believe it is. I believe the actual interchange is not really about soliticiting a response geared toward assisting in the decision making. I believe the real purpose of the interchange is positive affirmation - morale boosting, cheering up, etc. The real thing the person was saying was "I want to enjoy something, and this is what it is. I am pretending to ask for opinions, but I am not really asking for you to say anything but 'yes' - thus affirming that I deserve to enjoy myself with an indulgence."<br /><br />I don't believe we use Facebook status for real decision feedback - we use it for quick, chit chat style small talk. Decision making is for other venues - e.g. discussion forums, mailing lists. But status updates is where you seek quick cheering up, affirmation of your values, etc.<br /><br />Sometimes, it seems like "No" is the right response, but I would suggest that in this case the question is actually applied sarcastically to be framed as a negative, but really seeking to affirm the opposite. For example "Sally is going to give up on her dreams of becoming a dancer and just join the blasted army!"... which is guaranteed to get "Nooo! Don't do it!" responses, but only because everyone knows Sally isn't serious, she is just frustrated, and wants everyone to know how difficult pursuing her dreams really is and is fishing for a bit of encouragement disguised as railing against a military career choice.<br /><br />Like always, I state my case here with nothing more than ad hoc observations. I haven't the guts to test the principal to its limits (e.g. by replying "No" whenever someone obviously isn't REALLY looking for an opinion) for fear of losing the few enough friends I have accumulated. I leave such bravery to more spirited souls... say those studying psychology at Berkeley or something.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-8931135767399259152009-04-03T17:35:00.000-07:002009-04-03T17:45:59.217-07:00San Francisco Behavior Pattern? "Helpful" Shout OutsI saw this happen twice today. We were on the public transit in San Francisco. The first time we were on the N streetcar, in the underground, and were just short of the Embarcadero station. The car had stopped, but the doors had not opened. While we were there, my wife asks me, and one of the people standing by the door, if we were at the stop and if the doors were going to open. The woman turned around and shrugged her shoulders.<br />Just then, there is this woman's voice nearby that says "We aren't at the stop yet."<br />I turn to see who spoke. Nobody is looking in any direction. Nobody is looking toward myself or my wife. Everybody is looking down at their newspapers, magazines, cell phones, etc.<br /><br />Later, we were on the F line (different street car, picks up at the Embaracadero station) and someone starts to try to get off at the back door. He shouts to the driver "Back door!". A few seconds later, someone randomly says "Step on the step" (the doors open automatically when someone steps on the step). Again, nobody is looking at the guy. The guy doesn't turn to acknowledge anybody. Everyone is looking at their own business, books, phones, feet, whatever.<br /><br />I have never observed this before. Every time I have seen anybody say something to anybody else there is always some sort of acknowledgement of the conversation. A nod. Eye contact. But this was almost like people talking to themselves, which was really weird, because they were technically offering help and instruction, but without directly looking at the person. It was hard to tell if this was "Hey, let me help you.." conversation, or if this was, "Oh geeze, you idiot, can you just get on with it...?" conversation - I try to avoid interpreting behavior, especially when it is so usuual to me.<br /><br />So, is this a San Francisco thing? A big city thing? I don't know if ANYBODY reads these blog postings, but if anybody from the SF area, or from somewhere this behavior is common reads this, let me know.Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5530982599958059379.post-44127791959308571812009-03-22T10:48:00.001-07:002009-03-22T11:37:20.683-07:00Facebook status postings: maybe there are only five?There is something about Facebook social networking dynamics that seems to motivate a patten of similarity in postings, be it status updates, comments, or notes. The status updates, in particular, seem to feel like they come from the same categories regardless who the person is. This seems to be phenomenon one may observe at other social venues (e.g. how people act at church versus at a party at work versus at a party in downtown versus if they are interviewed on television versus when they are with family, etc. etc.), so it is not altogether unexpected. What is more interesting to me is how much the mode of the social context affects the flavor. Here is a non-authoritative, non-exhaustive ad hoc attempt by me to categorize some of the Facebook status categories I have seen:<br /><br /><strong>"Homey feelings"</strong><br />This status update is to publicly share with others the fact that deep down inside we prefer the "quiet, low key benefits of life at home" in contrast to the goal-oriented, high energy, pop-buzz lifestyle we experience at work, observe on television or that exists in some other mode or venue. Some examples of this type of posting might be "Jolene is hunkering down on a cold-rainy day. MMM!! Hot chocolate" or "Stephen is looking forward to a quiet morning with the kids".<br /><br /><strong>"I am just too busy"</strong><br />This status update is to publicly share that you too participate in "too busy to exist" life, and that you have just about had enough. You want everyone to know just how tired you are because, gosh-darnit, you are being stretched way too thin. The context of "busy" is allowed to extend to anything, be it life at home "Gretel is exhausted from helping Jeret with his algebra. Help!", to life at work "Christof is pulling another all-nighter writing Weenus reports!" to the social calendar "Zando feels stretched too little butter over too much bread after dancing naked for three days at burning man."<br /><br /><strong>"I am above it all"</strong><br />Pick a societal phenomenon and publicly declare that you are too good for it. Irony is a big payoff here, so if the societal phenomenon is directed at social networking then all the better. The irony deepens even more if you are incredibly guilty of whatever you are publicly declaring yourself too good for. Great examples, "Marcus is done with cel phones! Wait until you get out of the car and talk face to face you dolt!", "Mira doesn't want to know your status."<br /><br /><strong>"I am so freakin' connected"</strong><br />Drop names. Drop references. Go places and tell people where you went and who you saw. The purpose here to demonstrate for everybody that are more connected, hip and socially cool that most around you. This particular status works really well when disguised as a "I am just too busy" status. Hip examples, "Merlot thinks the Society for Creative Anachronisms just isn't what it used to be..." and "Lizzie is just back from the VIP presentation of 'Live With the Osborne Family' and is too tired after all those caviar and vodka shooters."<br /><br /><strong>"I am enigmatic, strange, and smarter than you"</strong><br />The purpose of this status update is to have people simultaneously say "Wow, this person is SO smart!" and ask "What the heck are they talking about?" Drop names, drop references, but unlike "I am so freakin' connected", which necessitates people understand your references, make sure that the names and references are so non-sequitir and lacking so much context that everyone will feel like an idiot for not being able to follow you. Frequently, meaningless semantic phrases can substitute for obscure references. Examples, "Gregory isn't going to do what they are telling him..." or "Felicity was but isn't unless she does."Wayne Roseberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10850628456593359645noreply@blogger.com0