Tag Archives: culture

Alternative Engineering

Article by Stephen Novella, M.D.

A new phenomenon is sweeping the country, gaining the attention of both consumers and manufacturers alike. Increasingly disenchanted with the cold metallic world of modern technology, people are looking closely at more natural alternatives. Collectively called Alternative Engineering (“Alt Eng”), a host of new and old methods are gaining scientific and journalistic respectability.

Alec Waterstone is one such self-styled alternative engineer. He has no degree or formal training in engineering, which, he explains, is an advantage: “My thinking is not limited by mathematics, logic, or any stodgy old mechanistic paradigm. I do not have to pay homage to the likes of Newton or other Western male pedagogues. My complete lack of training frees me to consider unique and innovative solutions to engineering problems, unfettered by the annoying constraints of “reality.”

Energy-Based Bridges

Alec’s latest project is a design for a 1200-foot non-suspension bridge. He claims the bridge will be able to span this distance without pylons or overhead suspension, and will be supported only by the ancient art of Feng Shui. “This wisdom, which is thousands of years old, is the art of channeling energy through design and form. This energy can be used to support a 1200-foot bridge, or even larger structures.” City planners are intrigued by these designs, because such bridges will cost less than half as much as conventionally designed bridges.

Alec is also quick to point out that ancient Chinese documents reveal absolutely no accounts of collapsing suspension bridges. His technique’s safety record is, he argues, unparalleled. “How else would it have survived all these years if it didn’t work?

Anthony Trellis, a professor of engineering at State-of-the Art University, claims that Alec’s designs run contrary to basic principles of physics and materials science. An exasperated Trellis commented, “A bridge based upon Waterstone’s designs simply could not stand. It would be unsafe in the extreme.”

But Alec is not perturbed by such criticism. “Of course professor Trellis does not like my designs, because they challenge his precious status quo and turn his world upside-down. But the protectionism of the old guard is starting to crumble, like one of their obsolete buildings,” he retorted at a recent symposium for progressive thinkers who agreed that those who fail to jump on the bandwagon will be left behind. His talk to a standing-room-only crowd also accused the American Society of Civil Engineers, the steel industry, and other “vested interests” of trying to suppress his views.

Skeptics have suggested that before we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on such projects, and subject American motorists to the unknown risks of driving over a Waterstone bridge, Waterstone’s basic principles should at least be tested to see whether they work. This is especially true since his designs seem to run contrary to conventional wisdom. But Waterstone responds:

I”m too busy designing bridges to jump through some skeptic’s hoops. They will never be satisfied, anyway. The American motorists should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to drive over one of my bridges. I respect their intelligence and ability to make smart decisions for themselves. They don’t need to be told by some bureaucrat, or professor in an ivory tower, which bridges are safe and which are not.

Professor Trellis and other naysayers argue that individuals should not have to be scientists or engineers in order to drive safely over our bridges. Regulations are not designed to limit freedom, but to provide a basic level of safety and protection for the public. This attitude, however, is increasingly being dismissed as overly paternalistic and protective.

Intuitive Cars

Civil engineers are not the only ones gravitating toward the ancient wisdom of pre-technological societies. The auto industry is also catching on. Natural Designs is a new car company based in Kansas. Its president and CEO, Andy Wily, received a degree in engineering from Harvard 20 years ago, but was fired from his subsequent teaching position after excessive drug use nearly destroyed his life. Now he has returned with a new company and a new philosophy that many consumers find appealing.

“I am advocating a mixture of the best of modern scientific engineering with the antiscientific and superstitious ideas of earlier times,” explains Wily. “I call this approach Integrative Engineering.”

What has this new approach created? Natural Design’s newest model sedan, the Millennium 2000, does not use air bags, or even seatbelts. “Seat belts are dangerous, and air bags are kid-killers,” complains Wily. So he has come up with something better. The interior of the Millennium 2000 is coated with a patented psychoactive material, called Natural Safe. “All a driver or passenger has to do is think safe thoughts, and this miraculous material will do the rest. In a crash, the material will gently repel any safe thinking person in the vehicle, leaving them free from injury,” Wily asserts.

When skeptics point to deaths or disability for Millennium 2000 passengers, Wily replies that the passengers clearly weren’t thinking as “safely” as they should have been. “Besides,” he adds, “the Millennium 2000 only goes 50 miles per hour on a good day with a happy wind behind it. If the motorists who were killed had been driving something developed by the International Automaker’s Cartel like a Ford or Chevy, they’d have been traveling much faster with an even greater chance of death. When Ford quits murdering thousands of people a year on our highways, then their complaints about us will look like something besides protecting market share. In fact, we have a study right here that shows that if everyone quit driving tomorrow, the death rate would go down in America! Until we can convince the American people of the millions killed needlessly by modern ‘automotive science’, Natural Safe remains the safest choice.”

Many consumers are convinced. Not to be outdone, GM and Ford both have started putting Natural Safe coatings in their cars. Amy Zinger, of Arkansas, survived a 40 mph head-on collision in one such vehicle. “I was wearing my seat belt, and the air bag did deploy, but I know it was the Natural Safe that saved my life,” she asserted recently. “Besides,” she points out, “If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t be allowed to sell it.” Motivated by such testimonials, more and more consumers are insisting on only buying cars treated with Natural Safe.

One problem faced by Natural Designs, however, is that outdated safety regulations, such as those requiring seatbelts, do not account for these new integrative designs. Recently, however, this has all changed. Senator Hackem, from Natural Design’s home state of Iowa, has pushed through legislation that will exempt manufacturers that use Alternative or Integrative principles from regulations designed to protect consumers. This was hailed as a great step forward.

Still, hard-headed skeptics will not go away. “All I’m asking for is a simple crash test” exclaimed noted skeptic, Perry DeAngelis. “If the stuff really works, heck, I’ll buy it.” Skeptics have been increasingly calling for such tests, arguing that testing should take place before implementation, especially when human lives are at stake.

But Wily explains why such tests won’t work. “Crash dummies are not people. The psychoactive material will therefore not respond to them. The fact is, these innovative designs cannot be subjected to the same testing and principles as traditional engineering. But consumers who drive our cars feel safer. How can you argue with that.”

Still, DeAngelis points to recent studies which seem to indicate that drivers of Wily’s cars are twice as likely to die in a crash as are drivers of conventional vehicles. But Wily merely scoffs, “What are you going to believe, numbers on a piece of paper, or people?”

Political Achievement

Despite the skeptics, Alternative Engineering seems here to stay. Wily has just been named chairman of the new Integrative Engineering Department at Zones University, where he hopes to train the next generation of engineers in his philosophy. Meanwhile, Senator Hackem has pushed through Congress a bill to create Center for Alternative Engineering. This new office will divert money being wasted on maintaining this country’s infrastructure and use it to study and promote alternative principles in engineering.

Finally, in what is characterized as a landmark coup in the making, the Canadian College of Rainbow-Coloured Integrative Engineering — after spending more than 100 years as a scientific pariah — is finalizing negotiations to become part prestigious Dork University. Despite howls of dismay from Dork’s math and science faculty and several Nobel laureates, Dork’s Senate has pushed onward with its plans for affiliation. The $25 million dollars that the Integrative Engineers have promised to give the University has not, according to Dork’s President, influenced the deal. The president characterized critics of Integrative Engineering as “crybabies” who espouse “long disproven misinformation” about Alternative Engineering.

____________

Dr. Novella is an Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and an Associate Editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under random, ruminations, whack attacks

it’s not easy being green: yes, we cannabis

Stealthy as a socialist,

It slithers up our shores,

Turning all our children into hooligans and whores!!

Please enjoy a clip from one of the best films ever made:

Yup, this posting is about weed.


I’m not sure I have explicitly stated this, but I am a fan of the green.  Before you dismiss me as another stoned slacker, (which, to be sure, I wish I were), I actually don’t smoke pot anymore on any sort of regular basis, if ever.  However, I was quite the pothead back in the day.  Don’t judge me.  All the cool kids were doing it.

Thus, the green has a special place in my heart, and I hate that it has been so mistreated.

During one particularly bong-hit ridden day during college, I took it upon myself to venture to the biomedical library to do a little research.  You see, I had been smoking mary j mutiple times per day for a few years, and the thought occurred to me that maybe it wasn’t the best idea.  Yes, it took me a few years to even conceive of this notion.  What can I say–I was too busy focusing on visual stimuli.

But why is smoking pot a bad idea?  I’m very much the sort of person who does things unless I can think of a good reason why not to do them–I feel that life is meant to be an experience and therefore pretty much any experience in worthwhile in my book.  But, I digress.

I went to the library to find the straight dope (pun intended-I’m so fucking clever) on cannabis. The biomedical library was a majestic place because it allowed one access not only to published information, but also to research that was in progress or not published, for whatever reason (I obviously objectively evaluated the validity of the articles I read to be sure that if it was not published, it was not due to erroneous data/procedure/etc).  And the bottom line is: I found out that pot really isn’t all that bad for you.  In terms of long-term effects, it has less than I had previously thought–and there were even marked POSITIVE effects of THC.  Fancy that, bitches! (Government bitches, that is.)

Nerd moment: because I am feeling a little ambitious today, I am going to share with you two things.  One: in the case of neurodegenerative/neuroinflammatory disorders, cannabinoids are a helpful therapeutic intervention (Gordon, Jabri, and Underwood, 2006).  Two:  Although multiple studies have found impairments in multiple areas of functioning whilst under the influence (like, duh),  the effects of long-term, frequent use remain inconclusive–that is, there are findings that dispute one another (Messinis, 2006).

In other words–pot has been proven to have some positive effects, and its possible (alleged) negative effects have not been clearly/properly/extensively documented.

Yet…it’s still illegal.

The illegality brings in all sorts of sociopolitical considerations when one chooses to burn the devil’s leaves–and guess what those considerations usually do?  Kill one’s buzz, obviously.

So what is the solution?

That is an interesting conundrum.  I don’t know that there is one.  My friends and I were discussing the fact that LOTS of people smoke pot…and I do mean LOTS…yet no one really wants to openly talk about it or try to effect change in this arena.  I can’t say I’m too keen on the idea of publicly associating my name with reefer–even though I love it like a pothead loves cake.

And why is that?  Because of closeminded, judgemental people.

The general idea that pot is SO terrible is not even founded, and actually causes more problems than it counteracts, in my opinion.  A perfect example is the fact that for many professions, random drug testing is involved.  THC stays in one’s system at detectable levels far longer than other harder drugs…I have had friends actually tell me that they stopped smoking pot because of drug testing, only to start hitting up the yay pretty hard.  Now THAT is effective substance control.  BRAVO, strategists for the ‘war on drugs’.

All of this said, I know some people reading this will write me off as some crazed stoner.  It boggles my mind that people in our society can possibly be so judgemental about marijuana, yet think nothing of the exorbitant amount of prescription drugs being prescribed after extremely minimal evaluation, or even the incredible prevalence of alcohol use in our society.

I can’t precisely recall where I got this idea (so it may or may not be based upon fact, although I’m 80% sure it is, hah!) but I am under the impression that the short-term stresses of alcohol upon the body, as well as the long-term effects of prolonged indulgence in adult beverages, put more physiological strain on the body than marijuana use.  I think this is true to a certain extent neurologically as well, but at the very least, alcohol and marijuana are comparable in terms of the scope of their effects on the brain.

Subjectively, I can say wholeheartedly that I have never done things I regret whilst stoned (not the case when I get my hands on too many tequila shots), and to be frank, I don’t feel as ‘fucked up’ whilst stoned as I do when I am drunk.  In fact, a significant reason why I am such a fan of the pot is the fact that it stimulates me cognitively, and has thereby caused me to have really interesting experiences, whereas alcohol causes intoxication through the inhibition of cognitive function–yielding some experiences that could be called ‘interesting’ in a different sense entirely.

This is by no means an exhaustive examination or discussion, as I think there are multiple other scientific (i.e. biological/physiological/neurological) facets of pot smoking, as well as various sociopolitical elements of the issue–these are just my immediate thoughts on the subject, as for me, writing in my weblog is a way of organizing my thoughts more than it is an attempt to construct a properly written assessment! Even so, I hope that if you actually read this whole thing, you found it (somewhat? mildly?) informative and as intriguing at I tend to!

(And, for the record, I don’t advocate smoking pot in excess, because anything in excess is not a good idea.  And furthermore, in case you’re wondering, a major reason why I don’t smoke pot anymore is because I observed changes in certain areas of cognitive function which were consistent with the documented effects of long-term chronic marijuana use…so I’m not saying it’s all good.  I just think the demonisation of the practice of toking up is too much.)

What are your thoughts on this issue?

xx Charlee

2 Comments

Filed under personal, random, ruminations, whatever

true confessions & revolutionary road review (kind of)

I have a confession to make my friends: I have no clue how I got into the world of academia (if you can call it that–hint: you can’t).

No. Fucking. Clue.  I’m not very well-suited to intellectualism in terms of personality (or intellectuality, for that matter) and I don’t think I ever consciously decided I wanted to end up where I am today.  The point is…I at some point came to the conclusion (okay, I’m pretty sure I was watching a film by some sort of overly-clichéd director, and was most likely baked out of my skull) that I should have gone to film school.  It was never something I even remotely considered, but I think it would have been pretty fucking sweet.

ANYWAY, because of this latent desire, I sometimes feel the need to write my opinions on films I have seen.  So, enjoy the exorcism of my half-baked scheme.

I recently saw the film Revolutionary Road and really enjoyed it, as I knew I would, because Kate Winslet + Leonardo Dicaprio = two of the greatest actors of our time, in my humble opinion.

Something that was quite striking to me was the intimacy of the filmmaking.  I recalled after the film that Kate Winslet’s husband (Sam Mendes) directed the film, to which the unique presentation can probably be attributed.  There was something vaguely marked about way the story of this couple was told, and I had trouble conceptualizing precisely what it was, but I really think the best way to describe it is that it was particularly intimate–every facet of their marriage, their emotions, and the complex interplay between the two, came across on the screen.  It really seems fitting and explanatory that there existed this incredibly close relationship between the person behind the camera and the person in front of it (as much of the film revolved around Kate’s character).

Aside from the philosophical takeaway I got from the film, I enjoyed it stylistically–the music/costumes/set design were magnificent and made the story far more engaging.  The acting was absolutely superb, not only in the lead roles, but there were a number of supporting characters (namely, Leo’s work buddies, their overzealous garden-obsessed neighbor, and her institutionalized son) that I felt added a lot to the film and whom I thought about afterward.  Some of the dialogue was a bit much for me (some of the lines actually made me laugh, during dramatic scenes) but that is a complaint I have fairly often.

The ‘story’ was basically of these two people and their perceptions, interactions, and methods of coping with a life that had not been meticulously constructed to suit them.  They questioned whether or not this was the life they’d imagined (any Thoreau fans out there?) and what–if anything–they could change in their collective life to increase their satisfaction with it.  To be more precise, the fundamental concept that underlied their conundrum (in my view) was whether their circumstances needed to be altered, or if it was simply their perception that needed changing.

I often wonder this in my own life–particularly because I tend to do things that I think I am expected to do.  A perfect example would be my choice to get a relatively serious job, when I was perfectly happy chilling and being  a barista–I felt lazy and lame about that choice, but the truth is, I took time off from my studies so that I could have time to myself and not have to worry about the world’s idea of what I should want.

Ergo, this film really resonated with me.  I think many of us ‘go with the flow’ only to one day look at our lives and wonder who told us that we had to want all of this…whether it’s the two kids and the picket fence in suburbia (as in the film) or a career in academia or medicine or some other pretty serious field (as in my life!)–as I think she said in the film, at some point, we just keep doing what we’ve been doing to prove to ourselves that it hasn’t all been a mistake.

Interestingly, the person who most identified with this notion in the film was the one who had been deemed insane.   Kate’s character’s plans for “fixing” her life were portrayed as unrealistic, and yet the ‘crazy person’ in the film thought they were entirely necessary–this is very interesting to me and quite relevant, I think, in the overall conversation about what happiness is, and the role of desires and practicality within that conception.

I really enjoyed the film.  It really spoke to the numbing nature of certain aspects of life and did a really wonderful job of examining different perspectives of life in suburbia, and life in general.

I’m not sure I’d view it again (although I very rarely view films twice due to my attention deficit) but it was very thought-provoking for me and I’m quite pleased that I finally got around to seeing it! Definitely worth seeing, blogga-buddies. :)

xx Charlee

6 Comments

Filed under film

The Bubble

Did anyone see 30 rock this week?  I absolutely love that program–The Office was really the only television show I was into, and then I realised that not watching Tina Fey’s program when I have an EPIC girl crush on Tina Fey was just odd.   The point is, YOU SHOULD WATCH IT! (Or at least tivo it with sincere intentions.)

I digress.  In this episode Tina (or Liz as I believe she is called on the show) was dating this doctor who thought he was a magnificent cook, a fabulous tennis player, blah blah bnlah blah…well it came to light that he actually sucked at everything.  Everyone was just being nice to him because he’s a sexy docta!

As of late I have been having a bit of an identity crisis and this episode made me wonder if I, too, have been living in a bubble.

This started last weekend.  I had to spend time with Lover’s awful sister.  His whole family is lacking in coolness if you ask me (and just in case you DO read this my dear, please remember that loving someone does not mean loving their family! :) ) but homegirl takes the fucking cake.  She tells these exasperatingly long stories and really just rubs me the wrong way.  Generally, I make a lot of effort to avoid people that don’t please me…but this is one thing I could not get out of.

Every time I said something, it was like she had this whole story about why what I said was wrong, or how I should rethink what I said.  I mean, honestly?  I know I have a big mouth.  I know that may be bothersome at times…but I’m over it.  We all have our idiosyncrasies, and it is what it is.  Why the hell does she even care what I like?   I don’t expect anyone else to agree with me or think in the same manner…and even though I might not like certain things, it doesn’t mean I dislike the PEOPLE associated with them. Everyone is different, bitch! Come off it!

She was just so utterly bothersome, but I think I’ve made my point that we just didn’t get on well.

However, she is a bit tricky, because she succeeded in making me think about some of the things that she said to me, almost a week later–and this is why I avoid people who have studied psychology extensively.  I had a lover who also did, and like homegirl, he used his knowledge mostly for EVIL.

So now I’m wondering if I, too, have lived in a bubble which only includes people who love me…and it’s true, I really hate interacting with people whom I have not endeared myself to in one way or another.

Now I feel that many of my perceptions could just be reflections of people telling me what I want to hear!  What a horrific thought!

I think we all have our own bubbles to some extent, but perhaps some people are more insulated, so to speak, than others.

What do you think?  Do you believe in the idea of ‘The Bubble’ confusing your self-concept?  Do you think YOU live in a bubble?

I’d love to know!

x C

9 Comments

Filed under men, personal, ruminations

best marketing strategy ever

I’m not a fan of reality tv.

I did watch the first Bachelorette and quite enjoyed it, but I believe that was primarily due to the fact that I was about 13.  Actually–that isn’t true–I’d probably watch a ton of shit tv if it weren’t for the fact that I have severe ADHD that prevents me from boob tubing it for more than about 30 minutes.  But the point is, this post is about The Bachelor.  (Accordingly, I apologize in advance if I don’t have my facts straight!)

I cannot imagine my outrage if I’d actually watched the show, but holy media saturation, batman!  I’m pretty sure that I’ve heard about what happened about 30 times within the past few days.

So, if you did not hear or are unfamiliar with the idea behind the show, the shortened version is that homeboy (‘The Bachelor’) lives out many a male fantasy with a harem of women who are grossly smitten by him from day one.  He dates them, they cry, he gives them roses and kicks them to the curb, they cry some more and declare homeboy The One.  One of these lucky women (barf) gets chosen by ‘The Bachelor’ and he proposes.

Well, this time, they did not walk hand in hand off set only to break up 8 months later.  This time, they broke up a month later.

But that isn’t all my friends.  No, that is NOT all.  Homeboy declared that he was just not that into the girl he’d PROPOSED to only a few weeks earlier, and decided that the lady he sent packing was indeed the one he should have chosen.

Disregarding the obvious stupidity of the entire ordeal, I have to say that there is no way that could be legit–as in, not manufactured by the producers of the program.  Who in the hell cared about the Bachelor a few weeks ago?  (Okay, I suppose there is a group of single 20-something women splitting their time between drooling over engagement rings and thinking about this program.)  But now, it has been getting so much attention…mostly because of the sheer ridiculousness of it, but even so, there’s no such thing as bad publicity my friends.

The dude from the show claims he simply had a “change of heart” or whatever.  I have a few things to say about this.  Number one: not only is he 32, but he has a child.  What kind of person is he that he plans to marry a woman and then ditches her for another?  I don’t really believe he would be so irresponsible with such a serious choice, especially given the fact that he is rather old and is making choices not only for himself, but for his son.  I would like to make another point–and I would like to thank People Magazine for assisting me with this:

WHAT IN THE HELL IS HE WEARING????

No, really.  REALLY.  How could 30 women be into a guy who dresses like a Fall Out Boy reject turned Abercrombie model??

I mean okay, he probably didn’t choose his own clothing on the show?  I pray this is the case and some overzealous costume designer (who is obviously oh-so-talented, to land such an enviable position!) misperceived the fact that he is not cool enough or–okay I’ll say it–young enough to pull that shit off.  He seriously looks like a fool.

I just had to let that out.

Anyway, I give hella props to the people behind this stunt because not unlike most people (since I don’t think the show is too highly rated), it takes a lot for me to think about The Bachelor and I’ve not only thought about it, but become interested in it, and even written a weblog about it.  And that, my friends, is the magic of marketing!

x C

6 Comments

Filed under men, random, ruminations

i am the queen of indecision

Sorry I have been MIA from blogga world!   That is partly because I’ve been very busy (barf) but also because a few rather difficult events have occurred recently in my life, and it’s hard to write about something relatively trivial when someone (or in my case, someoneS) that you love are going through serious sh*t.  At the same time, to try to write about the intense life-and-death events that have recently occurred is quite difficult also–I actually find writing rather therapeutic and began to write a posting about the things that have happened, but then I started to question if I really felt comfortable putting that much of myself–that much incredibly personal information–out into the world.

I’m an incredibly private person, and I know that is something people say fairly often, but I really am exceptionally private to the point that I’ve been called ‘secretive’.  It’s not that I really go out of my way to keep things to myself, it’s just that I don’t understand others’ expectation to be privy to the goings-on in my life; this is something that seems to really bother a lot of people in my life, but one has to wonder why our society has become one where everyone’s entire lives are completely public and “out-there”.  Since when did it become normal to chronicle our entire lives for our friends–and even strangers, and why has it become the norm to expose oneself rather intimately, seemingly without a second thought?

Seriously–facebook, myspace, weblogs–how much of yourself do you put on the internet for all to see?  I find facebook quite invasive, and to be frank, a bit freaky, but it’s basically unavoidable.  That said, I rarely use it and don’t really have very much information/photos/etc. on there, nor will I become “friends” with someone on there unless I know them incredibly well.  Facebook has long freaked me out, and I did have a weblog before this one, but it was anonymous.  Oddly enough, until recently, I hadn’t given a second thought to the implications of having a weblog and writing about my entire life, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately.

For some reason, to me, it feels as though putting certain aspects of my life out there for public consumption trivializes them.  This is just another way that I seem weird to my friends apparently, but it happens to be a facet of who I am that the nature of things and the philosophy behind many aspects of my existence consumes me at times.  I just feel like I need to own my life and my relationships–and I know that one might wonder how sharing things with people changes that–and I suppose in reality, it doesn’t, but the idea of speaking casually and nonchalantly about the things that are dear to me–the things in my life that I consider sacred–just isn’t appealing to me.  I’d rather not discuss them at all.

Not to mention–it isn’t anyone’s fucking business…I couldn’t care less about the details of my friends’ relationships, etc. (unless of course they are seeking advice or comfort or whatever) so I don’t know why they not only care about that information, but seem to think I am obligated to share it.

Part of the reason I am so weird about this could be that I come from a somewhat public family, and I probably on some level resent that, even if I don’t consciously think I do.

Anyway, I will most likely get over this soon, because I do enjoy writing on here and it is rather cathartic in a lot of ways.  Sometimes my crazy need for privacy just becomes extra intense, or as my therapist would say, I have ‘intimacy issues’ at times.

Hope all is chill with you, blogga-buddies! :)

xx Charlee

Leave a comment

Filed under random, ruminations, whatever

bullets are pretty chill

Reasons why I am happy right now:

  • I am going to ‘n’awlins’ for pardi gras.  With my little bro ! Yes!
  • My bogus cleanse is over and I can once again eat hard food…and drink (ergo:)
  • I am a bit tipsy.
  • The worst day of work EVER is finally over :) :) :)

Things that are cramping my style right now:

  • Consideration of the hangover I’m going to be doomed with tomorrow
  • My concern for America’s economic future
  • The piles of work I have sitting on my desk anxiously awaiting my attention

Thus, blogga-world, I do not believe you will be hearing from me until I return from New Orleans–I will be bringing my laptop, of course, and I’ll have my mobile so perhaps I shall feel motivated to blog…although more likely than not I’ll be intoxicated.  So there’s that.

Also…I just feel inclined to say that I was reading a fellow blogga’s thoughts on blogging recently, and she said something like ‘I am a writer, and not, I want to add emphatically, a diarist.’  Now…I want to emphatically add that I was equally amused and annoyed by this statement.   This could be a reason why I’m not the prom queen of  blogga-world, but in case you couldn’t tell, I am a diarist!  Weblogs are not theses, they are not novels, and I don’t really take them all that seriously–this is mostly due to the fact that I don’t take anything too seriously, but of the things that should be taken seriously in my mind, weblogging isn’t particularly high on the list.  Thus, I put very little thought into what the hell I write on here and just kind of ramble about whatever is on my mind at my time.  I don’t censor myself and I don’t really think about how I might be coming across.  Sometimes this results in me reading things I’ve written and feeling like an arse, but the thing is that I spend most of my life behaving in an appropriate and polite manner and this is sort of my outlet for the thoughts that are not necessarily expressed.  I think this is kind of problematic because I think writing something makes it seem as though the ideas being expressed are well thought out or complete depictions of the issue at hand, and thus a passing thought becomes this statement of what I believe or think–when often it’s just a small slice of my overall view on something that is skewed by a variety of factors, ie. recent events in my life, my mood, my disposition, etcetera. And for the love of god (or whatever) please don’t take anything I say all that seriously. Lord knows I don’t.

That is kind of ramble-y, but hopefully you get the point even though I don’t think I’ve made much sense. I really enjoy the fact that I don’t need to worry about being politically correct, polite, etcetera on here–sure I think it probably leads to me expressing a lot of negativity and shit, but it needs to be expressed my friends! Also–believe it or not–I rarely curse in real life.  Isn’t that strange?  I was thinking about how a lot of people don’t curse in their weblogs, and the thing is that I don’t really curse when speaking–but I do curse when thinking.  Haha.  Doesn’t everyone?

So the things I say on here…I think they should be read as thoughts, as writing for me is more of an expression of thought than it is a means of stating something.

Hah, I think that sounds kind of contradictory and stupid, but it is the best way of conveying what I’m trying to say…

I think I need some sleep!

If I don’t write from nola, peace and love for the next few days! :)

x C

5 Comments

Filed under random