Mt Rushmore/Crazy Horse Memorial/Badlands

It would not be entirely accurate to credit my crush for life girl for my if not total conversion but greater emphasis on a vegetarian diet. At different times, T was fasting, a vegan, an eggs, diary & fish vegetarian, and, as she puts it, "as long as I don't know what's in it" vegetarian. Plus, an aversion or allergies to shellfish, mushroom, cumin, and counting. What the? Forget assigning credit, try understanding first. Women folk are not easy to figure out, even a perfect in nearly every way one like T.

It wouldn't be difficult to come up with reasons that have nothing to do with my enduring infatuation for T. A reason, if annoyingly secular, is that, mostly cook at home a hella lot, meat is way mad expensive. Or, the vegetarian alternatives are much less so: legumes, rice, tubers, greens, and that sort of stuff. Not to mention carcass proteins are a hassle to shop. Another is health reasons. Often all the basic nutritional needs and without many of the harmful arterial side effects can be met with a balanced veg diet.

A big reason is also a greater vegetarian diet conforms better with how I feel about the environment and culture. These days, no kidding ourselves, the veg most people get and consume are off mechanized, science enhanced, and filth producing industrial enterprise. Yet, as we still have to eat, the veg farm/industry is leaps and bounds mo' betta than meat production. That's the environment side. And also the answer to the lesser of two evils choice between grain fed vs grass fed beef. It don't matter. Just eat less of either/both. Way less, like way over 50% less for the typical fatassed American.

The culture side has probably more to do with my luddite leanings/yearnings. For most of history, and currently still for many people 'round the world, meat proteins make up a tiny portion of most meals. And usually prominent for "special" meals, whether prosaic weekly family dinners or bigger celebrations. That luddite taint did all sorts of things to alter my kitchen habits. I don't really imagine this as weird, but, for example, I keep a freezer bag in the ... uh, freezer with all the odd ends of various veggies and herbs I may on occasion utilize, like the stem sides of carrots, fronds of fennel, stripped stalks of thyme, and add 'em as either aromatic for stock, or straight up for veggie stock. Also a freezer bag for poultry carcasses, another for shrimp shells, and etc. for, again, stock. A small jar of rendered duck fat, when I had from past-made duck whatever dishes; duck fat is taste bud dynamite. And a larger-sized jar of my "red cooked" master stock. These type of use and reuse things happen in a lot of households, and, I assume, were status quo in the not too distance past.

With chilly winter on the way out, I'm looking forward to rebooting my container herb garden. Even with only one short season managing my small windowsill patch with dubious success, winter without fresh and accessible herbage was a harsh deprivation. While sorta planning out what varieties to incorporate, what I worried about was soil and fertilization quality. Do you know what compost is? I don't, but that impairment does stop me from figuring it might be something I need, if it was affordable. Anywayz, the point of which is that I started thinking, gee whiz, I should be composting. Well, specifically contributing my organic rubbish to a compost. Composting ain't always easy to do in the big city, but more feasible in less urban setting. Of late, I have been sorting non-paper/plastic/glass waste into two bins, for landfill and for composting, and plan out trips to the couple of collection areas in my neighborhood. This borders, I think, in taking things a little far. Maybe. The gist is that these collection entities gather the organic trash, add it to their far away compost heap, let nature do her decay thing, and then package the stuff as expensive potting compost. Sadly, no likely return favor in free or discounted potting compost for me. Oh wellz.

It also would be inaccurate to say that magically radiant T played no part in my burgeoning sorta vegetarianism. Quite some time back, my favorite girl C stated her desire for a vegan conversion. I was totally, like, whatever. T's example, like T herself, is something else. One is the tremendous force with which I am happily attentive to everything about her, resulting that I would be much more receptive to her vegetarian/vegan tales. Then, some of it is participating in her decision and sharing the pleasure in that. Holy shit, does that sound unhealthily obsessive? Hmm... it would be a lie to say I ain't obsessed with T, and her dark nourishing eyes. I don't necessarily mean sharing in her experiences or using that as a vehicle to relate better to/with her, but at the same time I want to foster however my own interests may align with hers. Well fuck, that certainly don't sound less obsessive now, does it? Maybe this gets it better: the fact that T was a more or less dedicated vegetarian made it fun as I changed my dining habits, even while my changes evolved independently. Not related to anything, but the distracted, grand potency of T's voice is pure joy.

All said, I'm not and wouldn't wanna be a vegetarian. Tortured or otherwise slain animals and animal products taste yums. That alone should be sufficient reason. If there was a dawn of time time where human folks sustained their groups/packs/villages exclusively on vegan meals, I would say that was rather short lived. Humans are omnivores by nature. Moreover, denying or rejecting meat is in many ways a denial or rejection of important familial and societal celebrations/traditions. This mangles it but there is the subverted "eat to live, not live to eat" adage. Turning away from something that taste good, and has been a key element in any cultural celebration, seems like a mighty, awkward strain. For the animal's part, I do my best to honor, as a lot of chefs and foodie and farmers like to flaunt, every section of the carcass, from hooves, sweetbread, blood, offals, to ears, cheeks and stewed tails.

As for, probably not all, other arguments for vegan adoption, about the cruel treatment of animals, I, and this seems kinda brutal I know, I don't care. Animals are, I believe by definition, animals. Maybe it's because my cold evil heart and soul has never been properly thawed by pet ownership, but as foie gras and lamb, as clear cases of more inhumane aspect of food production, are so delicious, it's really tough breaks for any organism lower than humans in the food chain, which is basically everything.

Aside from the feelings, or "feelings" as I mock, of the animals themselves, there is also the gross avalanche of filth that is associated with meat production, as it relates to the food itself and the defacement to mother nature's natural landscape. Disease, hormone cocktails, feces, chemical runoffs, profligate inefficiencies, usurpation of vast tracts of land for nefarious and unnatural industries. But you know what? Somewhat recently in a too brief - because anything short of forever, as it relates to T, would be too brief - conversation with T, she accused me, I hope not too seriously, of hypocrisy for stating sustainability as one of my chief dining principles, cuz meat production, as, like I confessed, I still eat beef, is just about the worst use/disaster to the environment. I replied, I know. The thing is that nearly everything that is horrible about livestock cultivation goes on with non-livestock industrial farming too. Any high ground is a rather low hung fruit. And for counter arguments about going organic, or careful, selective purchasing from trusted sources, well, the same could be said for meat and meat products too. No? Right?

It's tough to sustain a morally or intellectually honest position on this unless it's really a dedicated shift to a fringy, marginalia type stance. There must only be a slight incremental harm in modest consumption of meat products as opposite to a complete vegan diet. Unless the vegan food source is really home grown or well researched reputable providers. In which case, that's pretty impossible except for folks with abundant space to farm and garden on their own, or for the ultra wealthy who can afford the exorbitant premiums of reputable goody two shoe providers. In which case, I hate from envy those people. About the moral position for the inhumane treatment of slaughtering/exploiting animals. Well, treating animals inhumanely is not a big deal, because they aren't humans. But okay, let's say that's subjective or I'm a total dick and am completely wrong on this. I think then, is whether abstaining from inhumane treatment through non-consumption of meat a valid moral position. More to the point if cruelty is such a yucky evil, is abstention enough? I'm not talking about full throttled radical PETA-rorism, but let's say a devout vegan who shops at Whole Foods, and thus adds cash money to the bank accounts of those who promote animal misery and torment. It doesn't take much to get messy fast. Or likely, I'ma just stupid or simple about all this, and not know what the fuck I'm talking/writing about.1

1. And just as much, I have no idea what T does aside from her various stated dining status.

Regardless I hope I'm not coming across as preachy, cuz I know that ain't peachy. So what does this all come down to? Nothing. What a surprise, huh?

There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.2

2. Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself".

Once upon a time, I was posed, "What was the most beneficial course you took in college or highschool and why was it beneficial?" My answer, "None specifically. The courses in college and high school should be taken for the pleasure in and of itself."

Part of Mike Rose pretty darn outstanding book Why School? deals with this:

We live in an anxious age and seek our grounding, our assurances in ways that don't satisfy our longing--that, in fact, make things worse. We've lost hope in the public sphere and grab at private solutions, which undercut the sharing of obligation and risk and keep us scrambling for individual advantage. We've narrowed the purpose of schooling to economic competitiveness, our kids becoming economic indicators. We've reduced our definition of human development and achievement--that miraculous growth of intelligence, sensibility, and the discover of the world--to a test score. Though we pride ourselves as a nation of opportunity and a second chance, our social policies can be terribly ungenerous.

Not one to shy from redundancy, Rose again, this time not from the book:

What we hear from across the political spectrum is that the reason we send our children to school is to be ready for the 21st Century economy. And the way we measure our success is through a standardized test that is typically far removed from the cognitive give and take of the classroom.3

3. From Huffington Post.

Now Rose, and is clearly stated repeatedly as such in Why School, does allow, "[t]o be sure, a major goal of American education is to prepare the young to make a living." The problem lies where that the economic/career motive tsunamis every other consideration. "But parents send their kids to school for many other reasons as well: intellectual, social, civic, ethical, aesthetic. Historically, these justifications for schooling have held more importance."

What I'm getting at here is that in, and I should qualify as limited/abbreviated phone conversations I had with a relation o' mine, let's call the dude J, several talks with J, he described his lil' girl's college misadventures, and his main desire that she gets out of there with marketable job skills, aka employment prospects/security.

My view on this is more extreme than Rose. But let's mellow with Rose first. Rose might say to J that his concerns are valid, but insufficient and way too confined. These various excerpts are good, so don't casually glance through any of them.4 Why School addresses some of the things that are lost, no longer addressed or obscured, as economic goals have dominated the educational discussion, and why revitalization of these non-economic considerations is a matter of tremendous urgency:

We educate for a number of reasons, and people have written about them since the first decades of the republic: to pass on tradition and knowledge, to prepare the young for democratic life, to foster moral and intellectual growth, to enable individual and societal prosperity. All are legitimate, and a good education fosters each of them.

There's not much public (and private) discussion of achievement that includes curiosity, reflectiveness, uncertainty, or a willingness to take a chance, to blunder. And how about accounts of reform that present change as alternately difficult, exhilarating, ambiguous, and promising - and that find reform not in a device, technique, or structure, but in the way we think about teaching and learning? Consider how little we hear about intellect, aesthetics, joy, courage, creativity, civility, understanding. For that matter, think of how rarely we hear of commitment to public education as the center of a free society.

We need public (and private) talk that links education to a more decent, thoughtful, open society. Talk that raises in us as a people the appreciation for deliberation and reflection, or for taking intellectual risks and thinking widely - for the sheer power and pleasure of using our minds, alone or in concert with others. We need a discourse that inspires young people to think gracefully and moves young adults to become teachers and foster such development.

4. In fact, Rose has an exacting perceptive writing style that is quite good.

I come around on this this way, any parent holding that economic/career preparation is the goal for his or her child's education, that position is just plain folly. Rather, those other more aspirational goals should be the sole motivation for a young adult student. Borrowing Rose's word from different sections in Why School:

A good education helps us make sense of the world and find our way in it.

All the foregoing helped me develop a sense of myself as knowledgeable and capable of using what I know. This is a lovely and powerful quality - cognitive, emotional, and existential all in one. It has to do with identity and agency, with how we define ourselves, not only in matters academic but also in the way interact with others and with institutions. It has to do with how we move through our economic and civic lives. Education gave me the competence and confidence to independently seek out information and make decisions, to advocate for myself and my parents and ... to probe political issues, to resist simple answers to messy social problems, to assume that I could figure things out and act on what I learned. In a sense, this was the best training I could have gotten for vocation and citizenship.

Or, I'll repeat: The courses in college and high school should be taken for the pleasure in and of itself. The main gist for why is that, and obviously there are qualifiers for this, young adult kids have zero clue about careers or any economic/vocational future. We are talking about maturing teens who firmly believe manga and anime to be the epitome of artistic expression, who make selection of majors based on the choices of their boy/girlfriends, who have hardly been in the real and wider world, let alone can project themselves in that world

For J to hold to the belief that the goal of higher education is preparing his daughter for a career, that first requires - even greater - faith that his daughter is capable of deciding on a job path early on in college, stick with that job path through college, and then pursue that job after college. Goodness, even Job wouldn't be able to muster the requisite stride for that leap of faith. Now there are, like I said qualifiers, in the form of exceptions like strict vocational schools. Or the highly motivated, serious minded youths who are already dead set in pursuing dentistry, pharmacy, accounting, agriculture, and so forth; in which case, good for fucking them. Or those with obvious talent, like my blog idol desaite, who back in the daze as a wee high schooler was already a highly accomplish and superb spinner of prose.5 But J's daughter, like most of the bourgeoisie dreck - I don't mean it quite as nasty as that sounds, but it is what it is - use college to find, and discover, and, yes, blunder. Or, most kids change majors, flunk, drop out, make bad decisions about alcohol, drugs, & sex, nearly go to jail, run up fantastically high bills, stay up way too late, eat poorly, choose bad friends, and so forth. No use fighting that.6

5. I also gloss too quickly the fact that many kids leave high school ill prepared with basic academic skills, and need college as remedial training.

6. Not too long ago, I was talking with some people, and I stated how it wasn't till well after college that I began to appreciate food. By way of bringing an analogy to this, imagine asking a college student what would be a great meal. The typical response likely would be something safe, vague, and/or boring. And this is only about food. It takes time, experimentation, curiosity, and daring to even look at food. Projecting a career is going to be different or simpler? How?

So my stance, dads should encourage and harness that exploration and curiosity first/foremost/solely in their children, or better yet, participate in it. Nothing productive happens in college. I know it's hard for J, footing the tuition, housing, meal plan, and miscellaneous, to accept that college is a degree dangling scam. Well, J is sensible, so he knows higher education is more or less a con, but most fathers think their progeny somehow will be different and really take full advantage of college. Nothing to say for this except, sigh.

The better way to beat the system is to forget all that economic career mumbo jumbo, but use school for the kid's pleasure, taking whatever classes that fosters, informs, and intensifies curiosity. And if she comes out the other end more curious, that's a victory. Or, perhaps this will make it more palpable, that cultivated and honed curiosity likely will go a longer way in making J's daughter marketable and interesting, and fiercely aware of herself and her abilities.7

7. If anything, mastering time management probably would have the biggest impact on ones career.

Then again, there'd be less to convince if she passes all her classes.

As qualifiers go, I also don't want to seem like I am cavalierly disparaging youths out there. Toward the end of Why School, Rose quotes from John Dewey:

The child of three who discovers what can be done with blocks, or of six who finds out what he can make by putting five cents and five cents together, is really a discoverer, even though everybody else in the world knows it.

I bring up this gentle appreciation of cognitive growth because it applies to jaded college students as well. Which might seem an odd way of not disparaging folks, declaring that they not know the things pretty much most adults know, but J's girl and most young adults are still discoverers. And in this respect, I'm rather reverential of and amazed with the depth and range as their potential get realized. Envious, even.

So, there were talks of an extended road trip this summer. San Francisco was supposedly a potential destination, but I was made to understand that Vancouver was among the options too. Vancouver, or specifically the northwest, holds much more appeal to me. There is just many more stop options for the drive. The way I see the route, there would be - from east to west - Chicago to Mt Rushmore/Crazy Horse Memorial/Badlands to Yellowstone Park to Montana's Bozeman dinosaur attractions and natural hot springs to Glacier National Park to Emerald City Seattle, and etc. Essentially, plenty of neato places en route for a quick 5 minute scramble.8 Anyway, you know what various google sources said would be another worthwhile stop along the way? Cour d'Alene, for its lakeside, resorty scenery. Cool.

8. See "Bande a part".

This is off of near the end of Tom Pynchon's Against the Day:

Jess brought home as an assignment from school "write an essay on What It Means To Be An American."
"Oboy, oboy." Reef had that look on his face, the same look his own father used to get just before heading off for some dynamite-related activities. "Let's see that pencil a minute."
"Already done." What Jesse had ended up writing was,
It means do what they tell you and take what they give you and don't go on strike or their soldiers will shoot you down.
"That's what they call the 'topic sentence'?"
"That's the whole thing."
"Oh."
It came back with a big A+ on it. "Mr. Becker was at the Cour d'Alene back in the olden days. Guess I forgot to mention that."

Apparently it's easy for me to forget my history. Cour d'Alene was also the setting for some mean and murderous labor tussles.9 Now the Idaho city is famous as a popular weekend retreat for the region's well to do. Cool. But anyway, for the time being, Vancouver seems to be out of the running for the summer.

9. "Against the Day". A-mazing.

This is not, seriously is not, Obama is a big fat phony w-site. The many cheapshots visitors (if any) may perceive notwithstanding. Well, I uh, well, he is. Which is besides the point. The ultimate thing is that I'm woefully ill equipped, nor have any such interest, to be his e-attack/watch dog.10

10. I guess this requires slightly more clarification, in the slightly drawn out story type of way. On Democracy Now recently, there was a show-long interview with Rob Redford, who depending on age group, was either your mum's or your grandmum's prime screen heartthrob. The interview was ... alright. Like always and in all things, cause that's the type of jerk I am, I can find things that I wish were different or, to brass tack it, better, but alright is alright. Anywayz, there was some questions lobbed for Redford about his outsider status. In response, the once matinee headliner described his formative years studying in Europe and his entanglement with politically curious youths in Paris, which included, "And they would challenge me politically, and I knew nothing. I grew up at a time when Nixon was the senator in California, Earl Warren was the governor. I thought they were boring. They were guys in suits that sounded boring and acted boring, and so I didn't have any interest in them. When I was challenged, I was humiliated. They said, “How can you not know how you feel about your country? How can you not know about the politics, when you’re in the strongest country in the world?” Well, I was chagrined." (Emphasis mine.)

This blog is meant to do certain things, in some ways a lot of things, and in many more ways no things. But even where the content might have a political slant, this a not a political blog, whatever and however that might be defined. Yet, that is not to say that political considerations, more specifically as Redford describes it, "how you feel about your country," should be dismissed, discouraged, or ignored and so forth. Even in the oft skewed and more oft inadequate way I stay inform about these things, knowing about how you feel about your country is dearly important. Just that for me, not sure if this needs to be added but what the hey, up till today at least, this blog is not where and how I'm doing it.

Why School, in addition to the above, intrigued me with quite a few other ideas. One rejuvenating surprise was that the purpose of education is to produce an in/evolved citizen. It is a prominent expressed in several of the excerpts I had above: "to prepare the young for democratic life," "commitment to public education as the center of a free society," and "the best training I could have gotten for vocation and citizenship."

I had asserted that pleasure and curiosity building was the main aim in education, but in a sense, it's not that removed from Rose's conception of a realized citizen. Citizenry has so much to do with curiosity, being interested in those things that might not seem to be of immediate concern, but in fact actually is. Where the self is not viewed in isolation from the world, but within the broader world/community/neighborhood/other hokey idealism.

The other outstanding thing Why School does is the examination of opportunity, and in the process reveal how powerful it is.

... I'm especially interested in what opportunity feels like. Discussion of opportunity are often abstract -- as in ideological debate -- or conducted at a broad structural level -- as in a pollicy deliberation. But what is the experience of opportunity? Certainly one feels a sense of the possibility, of hope. But it is hope made concrete, specific, hope embodied in tools, or practices, or sequences of things to do -- pathways to a goal. And all this takes place with people who interacts with you in ways that affirm your hope.

People leery about calls for standards need to remember their benefits and reclaim them for democratic ends, despite the fact that standards and assessments can be used to limit access and stratify students into educational tracks, or can lead to an overly prescriptive and narrow curriculum.

I habitually (possibly simplistically) diss hope. But perhaps all those hope advocates know something I don't (I am still a discoverer?). Anyway, last year I wrote that I like to see within the first year of the Administration:

• Retool DOMA, if not its obliteration,
• Drastic troop drawdown in Iraq.
• Drastic troop drawdown in Afghanistan
• Guantanomo detainees released or tried under courts in accordance with full due process rights.
• Increase spending on infrastructure (non-highway variety) and alternative energy.
• Universal health care
• EFCA passage.

If I had my heart set on any of the items, let's just say disappointment city, as either it hasn't or ain't ever going to happening, and in some cases horribly and intolerably so. Which regardless, not that Obama needs it, I'm going to give him a pass. Unless anyone has no clue how the USA government work, it ain't only about Obama, but also those little people in Congress too. And judiciary, and bureaucracy, other folks in the executive, and etc.

For sure, culpability (and credit) is most readily charged to the president, as the national figurehead and all, and for that matter, I ain't absolving Obama either. Rather, responsibility to fix and improve our nation and the lives of her inhabitants is shouldered by all the different members of our mutilated government. Nothing prevents any specific person from tackling headon the challenges and roadblocks, from correcting what needs correcting, from pushing the work of government to a better path. They, just as much as Obama, were elected to - or otherwise voluntarily accepted - office. This is not a call for the folks in Congress (or any other branch) to cooperate with the White House, or with each other. No, government officials meed to rise above party, lobby groups, or any other allegiances and make their intelligence, independence, energy, and conscience their guide to bring the necessary change and reform, and be loud and persistent (aka not measly symbolic outrage) when things do not go well. It's not okay to defer to get along decorum, be hand tied by partisanship, or bend to the meekness within ones own political party or the fear/confusion of the populace. And I'm not ignoring some members of Congress, for example, who try to do good work, but, as I'm raining blame, I guess it ain't good enough, and they gots to do better. Otherwise, all that remains is squandered opportunity.

Since this is a pox on all houses screed, let's not, for us folks in the private sector, settle as a fatass, docile citizenry either. To not be discouraged before the fortifications of evil, especially as those carapaces are most often held only by flimsy compromise and neglect. No more turning a blind eye, or throwing up hands to formidable status quo. If the men and women in DC can not find the opportunities in these dark and contentious times, good and brave citizens can. Otherwise, why school?

----------------------------------------------------------

This might reflect poorly, but here goes.

Tarrytown, NY is historically and usually linked with Washington Irving. For which the immediate thing that pops to my mind is how cool that Tarrytown was the birthplace of peanut butter, and other peanut product derivatives.

Seconds, maybe a minute later, oh, that's George Washington Carver. And I still have no idea what the Legend of Sleepy Hollow or Rip Van Winkle is. Well, I kinda do and don't. I misremember it as Rip Van Wrinkle, and suspect it to be a cautionary cosmetic tale about frown lines, brow furrows and such.