I need the darkness, someone please cut the lights

Not studious about it, but let's say a vagabond browser, a main sad thing about modern industrial agriculture is monoculture farming. More or less producing or growing one crop over a wide area. Monoculture suggests some virtues, like cheap productivity, but the gist of why it is a horrible, ugly evil is that it leaves the crops, the soil, farmers & end users vulnerable to diseases, bugs, weeds, pesticides, pathogens, oil price flutters, and corporate whim/litigation (cough Monsanto uncough). If it is not obvious why, think about it for a second longer. Still foggy? then read or watch any of the food propaganda books/movies. Or e-surf.

The postmodern remedy to the food supply ailment is decidedly simple and very retro, oldie but goodie risk managing diversity, albeit with modernize techniques. Again, the why should be obvious. What is most appealing to me about diversification based production approach is that it drastically improves sustainability.

I might have been hasty to say the whys are obvious. Or even if obvious, the details might not be. I googled about monoculture and diversity in farming, and one interesting thing I found was the once, and possibly renewed, popularity of rice duck farming.1 Essentially raising ducks along with irrigated rice fields where the ducks control weeds, eat bugs, poo natural fertilizers, offer alternative income, and even, from what I can tell, alleviate global warming. In the process, harmful chemicals/fertilizers are eliminated, or rendered superfluous. As well, fish and other vegetation can sometimes be incorporated, which enhances whatever existing perks from the ducks. Neat.

1. More details here.

This is also part why I'd be hesitant to test, even with all the supposed benefits, a vegan or hardcore vegetarian diet. It is antithetical to the (postmodern) natural order. Duck consumption enables organic (no petro fertilizer/chemical pesticide) rice farming methods. Or, duck tastes yums. Nix the reason for raising ducks, hello chemical poison again. Though these particular webbed-footed waddlers do not seem to be foie gras candidates. That would be but too perfect.

A nagging issue I have with the whole diversified, sustainable, organic, local utopiod farming movement - to sorta add my voice to the Alice Water boo bird chorus - is that local/organic is pretty much code for white bourgeois, see the farm to table eateries: Blue Hill at Stone Barn, Eigensinn Farm, Manresa, and Chez Panisse. That shit is hella expensive. That fact extends from those several gilded restaurants with their tasting menus and pre fixe fixations to regular day in and day out grocery shopping: regular people are suppose to afford organic/local? The whole thing strikes, from my anemic wallet's viewpoint, as too qu’ils mangent de la brioche2, ya know.

2. Misattributed, according to teh internet, to Maria Antoinette.

If push reaches shove, I'm not sure which I would mind less, being called cheap or poor. I mean cheap comes with a noxious brew of negative connotations, made that much more potent in that it is a conscious decision, or at least a somewhat voluntary choice. Being poor, well, circumstances commonly force that societal hand. Then again, is there anything worse in the world than being poor?3 Well, I'm not in a position to choose one or the other. Convenience is usually the tie breaker. Most of the time that means industrial farmed produce, but I stalk, from time to time, what's at the greenmarkets and organic stores anyway. Or, for this summer, I am participating in a local CSA.

3. Money makes the world go round.

The diversity that is a boon for farmers, environment, and food lovers is a stickier matter when it comes to romantic re-la-tion-ships. Apparently cheating or, less judgmental, covert juggling of multiple dating partners is quite the rage these days. Or that's at least what my friends have been telling and practicing. Yet I've been a bit of a buzzkill on this. The guilt trip I laid down led one such friend to claim reformation, ie booting one girl and sticking with the other. Which was not what I was going for at all, assuming he does follow through and or does not have other girlfriends on the sidelines.4

4. Since then, word is my pal has resumed sipping the dating around waters, despite being in a relationship. And because it's taken a hella long to write this, the gal he stuck with has dumped his ass. So he is back on the watering hole sans anchor. Hard to keep pace with people's dating habits sometimes.

I re-routed my arguments by suggesting that he's a plant in the desert, when it rains, no plant is gonna stop doing whatever plants do with water, which I assert is indiscriminate absorption, to fake fidelity. His life depends on taking full advantage of the moment's downpour, I think that was the botany case I was building.

An earlier conversation, almost certainly the same back fence gossip - cuz you know, when we scamps get together, we're worse than a sewing circle5 - I mentioned something to the effect that when it rains, it pours.An old idiom with wide applicability: good breaks, bad luck, financial windfall, change in health, job offers, whatever; sometimes when something happens, especially something that has not or does not happen with great frequency, it abruptly happens in great quantity and or intensity. I only wish I put it as cleverly for the case at hand - namely dating opportunities - as one friend did: pussy pour. So indiscriminate absorption, ya know.

5. I'm rather ambivalent or with even lower estimations regarding Tarantino's movies. But he has a way with clever dialogue.

I guess I am a little naive because this line of gossiping does come as a surprise when I hear about it, or shamefully, I am impress by or encourage the licentious ways. Well, I encourage it because the stories and misadventures associated with promiscuous going ons are highly hil-arious. Practically every part of it intrigues me: the process of multiple dating, tactics used to evade detection, the faux guilt buildup from the libidinous lapses/trickery, the almost or actual slip ups, and so forth. It all seems so mystifying and daunting.

What I did learn, sorry cannot give away too many of the details, as even while I can safeguard my friends anonymity by not naming names, details might be a giveaway. What I did learn is that if a dude is going with the alternating weekends with alternating chicks, spending time with family (provided that you do not introduce either girls to the parents or do not get them too close) or work (provided you do not work at McDonalds) is a fine alibi. Picking up stray hairs from sofa/bed/chairs/etc is a must. As a matter of practice, skimp on details or maximize vagueness first, foremost, and at all cost, otherwise it will blowup the alibis or excuses, and eventually trapping oneself in the tangled web of deception.6 No matter how one tries to enforce a rigid (daily) call routine, the other chick will call at an inconvenient time.

6. Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire. Not sure how it would play out if one were to quote Voltaire, in English, in lieu of even a vague, detail skimping answer, - the secret of being a bore is to tell everything. Oh, and Sir Walter Scott.

I would think not answering a call is the surest way to lead to suspicion, but apparently either that's how some folks prefer to handle it, or circumstances dictate the call goes to voicemail.7 Regardless, it does lead to some sort of confrontation when the call is eventually returned. As in: what were you doing? why did it go straight to voicemail? why didn't you pick up? and, what were you doing? and, why didn't you pick up? and then, repetition. Plus, not answering calls is not just suspect to the chick calling, it seems to me rather doubt-raising to the chick one is with at the time. But I suppose one tip is to switch to vibrate or silent before going full on straight to voicemail/turn off cell mode.

7. Regarding the voicemail(s) left, an inevitability is the frantic "it's an emergency, call me back" message. I sez to my friend, "Universal code for 'it's an emergency, call me back' is 'it's not an emergency, it can wait til whenevers.'"

Beyond the close calls and the general inconvenience and financial cost of dating more than one chick, there is some psychological/spiritual/emotional price too, as my friends have confessed feelings of anxiety. I can imagine. You decide whether it is remorse for their actions or fear from getting their paws caught in the pussy jar. A friend regularly exclaims that he believes he's going to hell for his actions, especially as one of his main squeeze is sooo nice or sooo trusting. Another cyprian pal tells of sleepless nights and or nightmares. And so forth.

I have asked them why do it then. Or why risk it when you already have a good thing. One response: cause the reward is so gratifying. Uh, okay.

I would say, unless caught red handed with the other woman, the best thing to do when confronted is to feign bafflement over the accusations. But that's not really true. Because, unless caught red handed, it doesn't really matter how it is handled. Despite some heated words, if all she got is suspicions, she cannot do much but try to bait a slip up or some other telltale sign. As long as one avoids her (and your own) traps, and, as mentioned above, eschew details and embrace ambiguity, appeasement and exoneration is pretty much assured. That is, if things rarely reach the confrontation stage. Happens too often, that only means ya just don't care.

Not sure if why I find all the lothario-esque double dealings so richly hilarious comes through sans name and, for the most part, sans details. I mean, I do feel bad if/when the discovery leads to the hurt feelings and other trauma, and I worry for the loose moral moorings of my pals. But it is different looking from the outside; from the exterior, it's pure entertainment. So it is pretty funny. Assuming I ain't one of the victims, I suppose.

Or, more funny.

I do not mean to imply, or be direct about it either, that strict monogamous relationship is the gold standard or is in any way morally/spiritually/anyly superior. It isn't. Or it would be beyond me to make that determination. What other people do is their business.

Furthermore, whatever fidelity (if any) I practice is mostly due to profound lethargy. Maintaining a relationship with one person is difficult enough, but more than one? while also keeping the romantic shuffling clandestine? Geez, that seems like hard fucking work. For me, being direct and open, to the degree that I am direct and open, which is a tough to call because most folks that I "socialize" with probably would say I am mysterious or secretive. Which is a fair interpretation, as when I am not direct and open, I tend to be non-responsiveness. But being direct and open is simply easier. I rather not try to be careful, or to make something up, or otherwise selectively censor. A slippery slope that also impugns on my favorite mode of communication, silence.8 What formerly was just not having anything to say becomes conjectures that the silence is hiding something. Not that traversing in that grey or middle area requires that much more effort, but lazy is lazy.

8. Otherwise known as the time between post. For which I originally intended in jest, but now, the humor is long past the expiration date.

Hmm... I think what I mean by direct and open is like a type of genuineness. I understand that misunderstanding or misinterpretation, or hell with the mis, just interpretation is inevitable. The thing that drives people's understanding of things is their understanding of things. But to the degree where I do not contribute other than through the specificity of my words or actions, that is what I want. What that does is I do not have to take a more circuitous route in saying or doing something, I do not have to explain what I am doing or saying, I would just say or do whatever it is. Or not say and not do, for that matter. And if someone still misreads or reads more than what is there, then I can brush it off; that is not what I said or did. And that's it. Redundancy risk taker that I am, I do not want to be an advertisement: selling sex, arthritis relief, confidence, or no money down real estate purchases when the only thing I am usually offering is a moment of personal interaction.

Which, needs to be said, is an approach to life and living, to the degree that I actually adhere to that triparted direct/open/silence directive, is not something that I think is that great either. There is the perceived misanthropy, and then the often long stretches of self imposed loneliness and desolation, and well, it is not nor should be for everyone, maybe myself included.

Diversity in romantic couplings could be said to be a tricky matter because of the (often) necessary deception. I wonder if the aforementioned gratification my friend spoke about is based on "knowing" two different girl in a single day, or getting away with it. In keeping with the theme, why mutually exclusive? could be both. But you know what I mean, deception prompts moral/ethical questions, and the arduous task to maintain that deceit.

I am not going to saying that deception/cheating is unequivocally evil, it may well be. But I haven't really thought about it through that frame.

But beyond the implied problems of deception, the perceived taboo of multiple dating partnering seems closer to the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, and I am sorta repeating, that too would also be outside my comfort zone to deem a definitive, unequivocal evil. There are any slew of justification/mitigation, and - not to mince words - outright good reasons to seek an extra-traditional relationship structure. I won't go through 'em all, but that a second and simultaneous girlfriend, or boyfriend, might be a fun (life) experience, that alone seems sufficient to preempt automatic foreclosure to such prospects. The way one pal put it, when he tried to reverse my goading back to me, "I know you like to read a lot, V., but sometimes you could be the novel instead of just reading it." Ha. And as this is be the blog - what transgressions need I tread for that, I wonder.

Being lazy, an easy test would be, and this is all in the hypothetical, where I to be in a relationship and be curious about pursing an extra-relationship, er, relationship, how would I feel if my existing partner was to consider the same thing, practice deception in that pursuit, and or perhaps how such a multi-relationship would be tolerable/acceptable/approvable.9 Might seem despite my portrayal above that these matters were too removed from my moral/ethical comfy zone for consideration that the answers would be quite easy. I would guess - I hope not too much of an assumption - most folks would say that they would, respectively, feel shitty, be mortally wounded by the betrayal, and no chance in hell of tolerating, let alone accepting or approving such arrangements. But I will stick to my original theses, as I think the answers are not quite that easy and - without getting into it, and without suggesting that I am "deeper" or "more complex" than anyone - my answers would be contrary to (reemphasizing, I assume) most folks.

9. Too Catholic? According to Wiki, the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese broadcasted, essentially, the golden rule long before Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John did. If that makes a difference.

Anyway, like I confessed, I am thoroughly enchanted and intrigued with romantic double dealings. I am a little ashamed to take enjoyment in my friends' unrestrained sybaritic impulses, or, for the friends being cheated on, their (perhaps) mistreatment. Then I kinda figure, it is none of my business, and I have very little, I'd say none, influence on anyone's action. People do what they want to do, and that includes staying faithful, sampling in the dating buffet, or how much to tolerate in a souring relationship. And if I eagerly await a new installment of romantic misadventures, or crack a few jokes, it is really nothing but what it is.

For what it is worth, according to Wiki, ducks are generally monogamous. But then again, I suppose, so are most men and women.

My favorite currently produced television shows (that aren't on public television) are in descending order of preference: Parks and Recreation, Modern Family, and Rules of Engagement. As things stand, however, due to the steady deterioration of my stolen cable and the vagaries of my own prime time free time schedule, the only one of the three that I catch and can watch on a semi periodic basis is Parks, which I am more than okay with.10 I love Amy Poehler. And the rest of the cast too.11

10. Fuck me. Looks like the teevee broadcaster have different plans for their fall schedule. A plan, for now, without Parks.

11. Aubrey Plaza = drool.

It goes down like this, superficially I can say subjectively that Parks is better than the rest. And that would be fine as it is my opinion and I am basing that judgment solely on my opinion. Except then, such statements communicate very little other than perhaps express my enthusiasm. It is tougher if I were to think what, even if subjective, makes that show better. Or maybe what Parks does objectively better that I give higher subjective value to? In some ways, it requires extended examination of things that I instinctively (perhaps) think/feel/judge. And in some additonal ways, finding out what it is, subjectively or objectively, I am thinking, feeling, or judging in addition or above those instinctive items. In any case, as is likely evident by now, I am the longwinded type that would not settle for letting things go unqualified or unjustified. Which tends to devolve to too much talk-y, or as here, type-y.

Basically, if the teevee is on, I would watch most anything, especially if a particular show is blessed with syndication. Regarding The Office, I read something about something over the i-ternet in which one faceless person posted a comment to the effect that Jim and Pam, the nominally supposed sympathetic characters/protagonists, all the pranks they play on Dwight, upon reflection/as a whole, are just asshole-ish disgusting. Which swayed me. Office is a good show, mostly well made and acted. At the same time, it is voyeuristic fascination with pettiness, stupidity, humiliation, and vacuity. Is that what I really want to be getting from a show, or consenting a show to foist upon overly sensitive me? Well, I try not to think about stuff like that.

I do understand the whole theater of cruelty idea, or understand following a quick googling. And I can understand the assertion that there could be value in the mere presentation of unpleasant things. Albeit these days I am more and more suspicious of that being an excuse for an inability to actually say something or to offer an alternative to said presented unpleasantness, the re-connection that is the point of the theater of cruelty. So Parks is better, in part, because in addition to being fun and funny, the characters and their motivations seem to be more humane, or multi-dimensional. More generally, Parks forgoes easy cynicism and ironic detachment, and its characters open themselves to risk the cliches and express the more common or basic elements of life: sharing fears, friendships, love, hassles, pains, and so forth.12

12. I substantially stole the sentence and its sentiment from a (presumably) different e-commenter. Less eloquent as I twist it for my purpose.

Somewhere else in the e-verse, a (yet) different faceless forum commenter posted that almost every episode of Parks passes the Bechdel Test.13 I am fairly certain that is not true, because the rigors of situational commercial television comedy should make Bechdel Test compliance pretty difficult in even a majority of Parks episode. But who knows, maybe it is true. In which case, neat.

13. Original Dykes to Watch Out For comic, video discussion, or google? The merit or imperative of the Bechdel Test, moreso in a mass/populous long form medium like movies, is - if not obvious - still, to me, very relevant. It is useful tool for critical (even if subjective?) evaluation/viewing. At the same time, what I hope to "get" from a movie, or any artistic expression, is mostly aligned with auteur authorship. The presence or absence of any conventions, such as car chases, happily ever after endings, or soft core teasing, let alone whether chicks are yapping about their yeast buildup is not a determining factor.

Other than that, Megyn Price is brilliant, amazing, and priceless. Modern Family is smart enough to not get in its own way, or fall into dumb traps.