Awe + Sauce

The High Five

2013-12-18T06:52:00.000-08:00

My heart leapt when I saw you in the distance,
Coming towards me with your steady, purposeful left - right.
You, clad in red and black from head to toe
A dark knight of the pavement.

Me, a mishmash of white tights, red gloves and toque;
Black windbreaker, and headphones.
A Hopeless Wanderer
As it blared into my head, egging me on.

I could not see your eyes,
But I could feel their recognition;
Kindred spirits meeting for an instant.

Fools, some may call us;
Morons, imbeciles, nincompoops - crazy.
Our determination propels us.

In the face of black ice, snow and
A negative twenty eight wind chill,
Coming towards me with your steady, purposeful left - right.

My heart leapt when I saw you in the distance,
I held my hand aloft, hopeful;
You responded majestically with a resounding
Thud.

We ran past each other, not looking back;
Kindred spirits meeting for an instant.
Hope reignited, I pressed on redoubly;
A wanderer, eternally.

By-Election Chronicles: Bourassa Edition

2013-11-25T14:17:00.001-08:00

6 am - E-Day
Much too early to wake up. Songza tries, but only the scalding shower can do that.

Scarf - check; orange boots - check; sunglasses - need to go back. So begins the trek to Bourassa.

8:50 am
The third STM transport of the morning is late. Decision: walk the remaining 3 km. The wind chills my bones to brittleness, and the condensation of my breath forms ice crystals on my beard - the first of the year. Winter is here, and I feel alive.

1:00 pm
A stint at a polling station and a tour of getting out the vote later I find myself enjoying my badly made 'Italian' chicken sandwich much more because it is being eaten in warmth. Short lived, the contentment is, as I find out my incomplete French has taken me off the streets and back to polling stations. The burnt danish I had previously considered is now inedible.

"I can manage!" I assure them to no avail. I am left staring into the face of the ennui that comes from sitting for six hours. At least it's not minus nine, and it affords me time to do what I do best. Think. "As long as I can help," I say.

3:30 pm
School's out. Many remark at the democratic process unfolding in their gymnasium.

Jeune fille 1: C'est quoi ça?
JF 2: L'élection la
JF 1: L'élection pour quoi?
JF 2: Pour voter!
JF 1: Voter? Pour qui?
JF 2: Je sais pas... Le maire?
JF 1: Le maire?! De quoi, l'école?

Democracy, inspiring young minds since...

Thanksgiving: Who Gives a Thanks?

2013-10-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

As with any holiday aside from the religious ones, it’s common to feel as if it is just a way for us to perpetuate our arbitrarily consumerist lifestyle. You could argue that even popular religious holidays have been exploited for the sole purpose of getting us to buy more useless crap. Hearts, candy, and flowers, all topped by an unnecessarily more expensive meal; Wreaths, bows, the slaughtering of innocent pine trees, and garish, unnecessary lawn ornamentations. Thanksgiving, thankfully is only marked by the sharing of food and the odd fall-themed potpourri arrangement.

In Canada, the holiday has its roots with Martin Frobisher, an explorer who celebrated surviving the ice and storms as he tried to settle Nunavut. While many other countries and parts of Canada celebrate the harvest, the first thanksgiving was one borne out of struggle, and being grateful for surviving it.

All things considered, the concept of thanksgiving is an intriguing one: to demonstrate gratitude. It seems however that this sentiment gets lost beneath everything else. It seems obvious when you think about it, but showing gratitude does makes you happier.

It’s easy, especially for someone like me - a career cynic, doubter, questioner - to see only the cracks in the veneer, the imperfections, the possibilities. “To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering,” said Nietzsche. Combine this with the Aristotelean notion of striving as a path to self actualization and you have some idea of how I think.

While this sort of mentality is fine and dandy when one has the luxury to have little in the way of logistical or other struggles, it is crippling when those struggles mount. These past few months have probably been the most trying of my life so far, and I have been forced to adapt, to incorporate an alternate way of approaching life in order to survive it. I am extremely thankful to have done so. I am thankful for great friends, and all they have done for me. They may not have been big things, but they were very important to me. You know who you are, and know also that while I may not often express it, I am forever grateful for your friendship. I am also thankful for my family. While we may not always get along, it is comforting to have you as a constant in my life.

Most of all, I am thankful for my mother; and the exacting and meticulous standard with which she cleans, and has taught me to clean. Because of that I am able to live happily from day to day. Thanks, mom.

Cheer up, beautiful people. This is where you get to make it right.

2013-09-30T21:04:00.003-07:00

I must confess, I was in two minds on what to write about for this piece. On one hand, the American government is about to miss its shutdown deadline; on the other, Breaking Bad just finished in familiar, glorious fashion in “Felina.” I’ve always been a big fan of Walt. Right from his early, naive days, to the height of his Heisenbergery, and through to his self-realized end. I’m sure there are a fair few of you who do not watch the show, who grew to despise Walt on the grounds that he became an immoral mass murderer, and who think that he should’ve suffered a less self satisfying end.

Largely due to the quality of the writing and the performance itself, there are a lot of parallels to be drawn between Walt’s life and many of ours. It just so happened that Walt’s specific skills, along with a favourable environment allowed him to become a meth drug lord when confronted with life shattering news. What would the rest of us do in that scenario? Some of us would lay down and die. Others would find solace in higher powers, or things of the like. Walt is of the breed I like to call the struggler.

Much of the unhappiness in his pre-meth life is self inflicted. He had the opportunity to continue on with Graymatter, but didn’t. Supposedly stuck in his mediocrity, he resigned himself to being a chemistry teacher and decent father. His cancer was an opportunity for him to rediscover his struggle. Admittedly, there are many avenues within which one may struggle, and credit to the writers of the show - they always chose supremely interesting ones for Walt.

It is interesting to note that while interesting for us, Walt’s choices were intensely self-destructive. Perhaps knowing that he was going to be dead soon, he decided to go to the extreme of ‘living.’ As the show progresses and he is no longer dying, he decides to continue the way of life that makes him feel alive rather than going back to mediocrity. It is here that we see the strength of his motivations as a provider as he struggles with not being able to transfer his rewards to his family. While the activity is for him, the reward is always for his family.

And so he struggles. All along the way making decisions that prolong his struggle, prolong his feeling of liveliness while alienating his family more and more. It is the ideal of his relationship with his family, of his role as his family’s provider that keeps him able to do what he does. He is at the same time trying to preserve this ideal as he is trying to leave a legacy as someone great in his field, regardless if it is cooking meth. Ideals versus Legacy. It is this sort of struggle that it is quite easy to relate to, and extremely easy to fall into. It is the kind of struggle that gives the illusion of creation, productivity and meaning, but is ultimately destructive.

It is apparent that this is the struggle that now grips the two sides of the American government. President Obama and the democrats are uncompromising on the healthcare provisions - the democrat majority in the senate, unwilling to accept a republican proposed delay of the healthcare provisions for a year. Conversely, the republican majority in the lower house refuses to validate the senate proposed inclusion of funding for healthcare.

As of the time of writing, there are only 38 minutes remaining and neither side has compromised. The consequences are as self destructive to the American government as anything Walt has ever done to himself. It is quite evident that this is not what is best for the government, yet each side is selfish in its motivations.

Obama, in his second term appears primarily concerned with his legacy, willing to go so far as to cripple the government to seal his name as the president who introduced federally funded healthcare to America. He has accused the republicans of holding the government for ransom. If they are doing that, then he is playing chicken with the republicans over the same issue. It is easy to call the republicans bullies from the White House but the fact is that citizens voted for these representatives, hopefully knowing what they stand for.

The pointlessness of this struggle is more than apparent. Ideals versus legacy. Would it be so bad for Obama to let the republicans have their delay? If he believed in the strength of his healthcare program and his party, he should have no problem letting it stand the test of time. Would the republicans be so hard pressed to let the program stay and repeal it when they win the presidency? If they believed in the strength of their candidates and their evaluation that the program is bad for America, they should have no problem letting it run its course into the ground. When a step is taken backwards, there appear to be many outs, if only those concerned would be able to see them.

While Walt was able to tie up his loose ends and finally find peace due to fantastic writing, this deadlock is shaping up to be a prelude to the horror show that will come when the borrowing allowance is up on October 17th. How long the deadlock will last is anyone’s guess. Ultimately, it may be the president who caves because as much as he tries to project responsibility for the deadlock on the other side, he is the leader of the nation. The inefficiency of the government will inevitably be etched onto a legacy he so dearly has worked to cultivate. It is perhaps here that Walt's last line to the Schwartz's rings clearest. "Cheer up, beautiful people. This is where you get to make it right." Like those involved in the US decision making, like Walt in the past, like many of us in every day life. A step back is all it takes to see an opportunity to make it right.

In Defense of Miley

2013-09-25T15:48:00.001-07:00

Yes, Miley Cyrus. Friends, please reattach your jaws.

With the release of her latest singles, “We can’t stop” and “Wrecking ball” and her Robin Thicke VMA performance sandwiched in between; Ms. Cyrus has been on the receiving end of the kind of celebrity hate that makes us all feel a little bit better about our lives. Even given the summer’s Amanda Bynes chronicles, Kimye, and the continued Justin Bieber activities that shame Canadians from Victoria to St. John’s, there has been a dearth of a “Bald Britney” calibre of celebrity crazy.

Before I go any further, a word to my biases: I consider myself a harsh critic of popular culture, and especially its music. I find the bulk of pop music one dimensional, derivative, and simply boring. It seems that catchy is the only requirement for a ‘good’ pop song. Anyone remember LMFAO? Lmfao.

That being said, to use pop music grade, the songs themselves are of standard fare. “We can’t stop” is positioned as a party anthem; and while less effective than others such as the Ass Laughers Off, it does the job. As it goes, I prefer “Wrecking ball.” While musically predictable; it better showcases Miley Cyrus’ vocal talent and I feel the weight of some real emotion behind her. Further, you could make the case for a metaphorical laying bare expressed through her nudity. Personally, her songs are nothing special, but she certainly can sing. Maybe the song without the much controversial video will lend to my point.

The main reason for criticism directed towards her seems to be because of her activities: Haircut, the popularization of ‘twerking,’ that weird tongue thing she does in her songs, Robin Thicke, and of course, riding a wrecking ball naked, prompting construction workers everywhere to be on high alert.

Is all of this so scandalous that it warrants the kind of negative attention that it is given? Have we not seen worse, and are there perhaps other reasons why Ms. Cyrus is our latest celebrity piñata?

First, the hair; it’s not that bad - see Bald Britney. Twerking - what is it? Wikipedia tells us:

Twerking (/ˈtwɜrkɪŋ /) is a type of dancing in which the dancer, usually a woman, shakes her hips in an up-and-down bouncing motion, causing the dancer's buttocks to shake, "wobble" and "jiggle."

Is it me, or has this been done before? This is what I was seeing in most popular hip-hop videos in elementary school. In the same vein, is twerking Robin Thicke as scandalous as Janet Jackson’s breast? I don’t think so. Also, as many have already pointed out, the criticism has been glaringly one sided. Lastly, riding a wrecking ball nude - is it the nudity? Can’t be, Lady Gaga does it all the time in her videos; but that’s art, right? Must be the wrecking ball. Saucy.

While much has been made of the overt sexuality of her recent activities, it is quite puritanical to scandalize her for them. I don’t remember Eminem getting nearly as much attention for his “shove a gerbil in your ass through a tube.” Although it may be a bit heavy handed to say that all of this is because she is a woman, it does seem like there is a bit of misogynistic prejudice at the heart of it.

It appears to be a trend in celebrities - especially in the music industry, who start their careers at a very young age - that they often have to grow into their identity very publicly. While reaching puberty and the following teenage years are seen as tumultuous, many of us only come into ourselves in our twenties. Imagining coming into sexual and emotional maturity in the public eye is not something that is personally appealing.

There is indeed a clear transformation from her time as Hannah Montana, to the teen heart break years to the twenties Miley. It might be that the stark change from that cute little girl to this over sexualized young woman has put off a lot of people including, seemingly her former fiancee. Each person comes into their own differently, and certainly growing up as a celebrity cannot give one much room for introspection. It sets a troubling example when anyone, and especially a woman is criticized for the way in which they develop, regardless if they are a celebrity or not. While we may often consider these people jesters for our entertainment, they are at the end of the day, people.

Given the breadth of her talent, I hope that this is the cocoon phase of her development and she emerges with a maturity closer to the video which inspired this post.

Who knew Miley Cyrus could make me swoon?

The Stagnation of Ethical Theory

2013-09-18T20:32:00.000-07:00

Many of the day’s peer to peer ethical debates, where once may have taken place in a smoky dark room with great armchairs facing each other (a personal fantasy), now take place over platforms known as Facebook - on a wall, or Reddit - on a thread. Quite nonsensical when taken out of context. One such debate played on my newsfeed, and featured a comment to the effect of “But ethics has not progressed as much as other branches of philosophy.” Although the thought has presented itself to me in a vague, back-of-the-mind fashion, it is not something I had previously given much notice.

It is almost as nonsensical as talking philosophy on a wall, to think that ethics has progressed less than other branches of philosophy. Questions of right and wrong, of the nature of right action, have governed human thought perhaps, since the development of coherent thought itself. They have influenced the creation of deities and have been the primary self-limiting factor of human action.

Our daily lives consist of decisions of what the right thing to do is, without any clear idea of why we think something is the right - or wrong - thing to do. When considering the progress of ethical philosophy over the past two hundred years, this is not a surprising revelation. Kant’s deontology proper, which is still the basis of modern deontological considerations was created over two hundred years ago. The positivist answer to this idealism in the form of utilitarianism, a type of consequentialism was developed shortly afterwards. Although deep rooted issues have been established in both, no significant innovation has taken place that presents a viable alternative or reconciliation.

As an aside - I will, in this evaluation categorically disregard a dogmatically grounded ethics. Some may consider this problematic and rate this piece incomplete for this reason, but I contend that a dogmatically based understanding of ethics will be eternally dependent on the dogma on which it is based. This doesn’t provide an accurate guide for action or evaluation of action from humans, but only for humans who believe a certain dogma. Lastly, to accept ethical determinations reached from dogma is to tacitly validate its foundations, and no dogma is without intrinsic holes in its foundations. As such, an ethics developed from such an unstable ground cannot be considered.

This rejection points to a possible explanation to why our ethics has been so stagnant. If a dogmatic ethics is based on the dogma which has motivated it, a physical ethics is founded on a metaphysical understanding of the lives which are governed by the ethics and their relationship to the nature in which they are contained. Although there has been significant progress in metaphysics since Kantian idealism, the steps taken are yet fresh and unconsolidated. As such, ethics has not yet been provided with the grounding it requires in order to develop further.

Thus, ethical thought is left to take iterative steps in the vein of what had previously grounded philosophy which has now been challenged, but not as yet consolidated. This is because there are currently no mono, di-, or trichotomous metaphysical understandings which can ground ethical thought the way in which empiricism and idealism have in the past.

This climate of stagnation can be likened to the limitations that often mark the consumer technology industry - the megapixel race in cameras, or the gigabyte race in hard drives - when a given field is approaching the end of the current era of innovation. Is it the fault of the metaphysicists then, that ethical thought is stuck in the sort of revisionist loop that would lose a consumer electronics company precious fanboys? To say that would be similar to a hardware designer saying that he can’t create the create a sturdy plastic phone because plastic is inherently weak. True innovation in a field often requires laying the grounding, and pioneering the required techniques oneself.

Although this innovative set may be lacking in much of the recent ethical philosophy, the toiling does provide us with lessons to guide our innovation.

The consequences of our actions are of great importance in determining morality.
There are other ethically relevant factors in determining morality.

As many remain unconvinced of one or the other of these two points, - or indeed the necessity of either of them - and their relationship has been reworked unconvincingly nearly to the extent of convincing a dead Humean; it appears the study of ethics is at an impasse. It is interesting though, that these points represent the kind of dualistic problem previously encountered with the mind and body and as with that impasse, it appears that it will take a creativity of Kantian proportions to propel us into the next era of ethical thought.

Putin’s Game

2013-09-14T11:16:00.001-07:00

Russian president Vladimir Putin recently engaged in a plea directly to the American people through an op-ed in the New York Times, in an effort to discourage American military action in Syria. Superficially, it is exactly what Mr. Putin claims it to be. He highlights the mistakes that the United States have made in the past with regards to military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, et al., and appears genuine with his hope that diplomacy will prevail. On one hand, predictably, American politicians have responded with the kind of skepticism and self-righteousness that is to be expected when dealing with Russia. Conversely, almost as predictably, there has been notable public acceptance of the Russian president’s sentiments.

Over the past decade, Russia, and in particular Mr. Putin has engaged in the kind of political and legal hypocrisy that is characteristic of the best antagonists of fiction - Lex Luthor, the Emperor of the Republic, or perhaps Dr. Evil.

Picture: AP

He claims that his nation is democratic, and free; but he routinely skirts political protocol with such moves as translucent elections, and exploiting legal loopholes to retain power beyond his prescribed term as leader of the nation. His recent crusade against the LGBT community in Russia undermines the progressiveness he likes to attribute to the nation under his rule. On the international stage this hypocrisy plays out in such memorable situations as condemnation of American intervention in the Middle East, while seeing fit to invade a neighbouring sovereign because it falls within Russia’s ‘sphere of influence.’ In keeping with this trend, Russia, as part of the UN Security council has routinely vetoed security initiatives pursued by the west, leading the nation under Putin to be viewed as the primary antagonist against American security interests abroad.

In his letter to the American public, he cited the need to respect the procedure of Security Council decision making to prevent it from going the way of the League of Nations. It is often the perception that Russia is playing the west - messing with them. “Do you want to go in here? Oops, veto! Didn’t see that coming did you?” It is what has prompted American led coalition of the West to consider and act without Security Council approval when it is relevant. It is easy to see why they may be justified in doing so when Russia is being uncooperative, unfair even; against the spirit of the Security Council.

What is different this time is that Russia has opted to take a leadership role with regards to the acceptance and destruction of the chemical weapons. It is difficult to discern how much of the piece is merely rhetoric, perhaps all of it; however, it is difficult it disagree with much of it. That Russia has acted against American interests on the Security Council - and off it - may have been the best thing that it could have done. It is presumptuous to think that western interests are the ‘right’ interests; that the west, and especially the United States, has acted in a way that in addition to preserving their security, is beneficial to the people whose country they invade.

It may be that Mr. Putin’s words are another example of the games that are played, but it is undeniable that he, and Russia provide the world with the necessary counterweight to American hegemony. It is easy to forget that of the ‘us versus them,’ those we categorize as the other have as much intrinsic right to their way of life as we do ours. There was a time where the Taliban was on America’s side, and a time where Britain was not. There must be a time in the future when Russia is.

In Defense of Marriage

2013-05-13T21:37:00.002-07:00

Much need not be said as to the importance and social relevance of the debate on the morality and legality of same-sex marriage, only that it is extremely so. As such, what better avenue to have this discussion than amongst peers and friends. One such person (whom I went to high school with) has quite courageously ventured to make his views public on his blog here.

He writes firstly about the complete pointlessness of catch phrases in an exchange of ideas on a topic like this: “Claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet.” Similarly: “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” That both these examples give us nothing in the way of understand the facts at hand, I think, can be a point of agreement on all sides. The post then goes on to establish a particular definition of marriage, namely between a man and a woman based on tradition and a general understanding of marriage, claiming that any other formulation is not marriage because that is not what marriage is - same-sex marriage is something else.

What is in a definition if not what we put in it? I’m not going to go too deeply into this sentiment, but definitions are not inherent in words. Words are representative of the ideas that we assign to them. This is apparent in the changing role of words through time. Take ‘book’ for example. Traditionally taken to mean a group of paper pages bound together with a front and back cover. Now, I can quite easily say “I downloaded a book yesterday,” and you wouldn’t think twice about the statement. As such, to say that the meaning of a word is restricted to its traditional definition, is perhaps insufficient in a defense of a man-woman formulation.

The most significant part of this post is the discussion on the morality of same-sex marriage, because it is here that most positions are developed and held to. The issues at stake according to this post are two fold. First, that same-sex marriage is against a Christian moral understanding of marriage, it “wouldn’t be marriage as defined by god.” Second, that those who contend that the sex of partners involved in marriage is not morally relevant are making a “revolutionary moral claim.”

I will not contend with the content of the first claim, but with the idea that a Christian morality is not necessarily a universal one, and as such need not “irritate” those whose moral understandings run contrary to it. The following sentence states that this moral formulation is an “objective, unchanging set of standards.” When a moral standard is said to be objective, it has to be immune to subjective individual interpretations of the standard, as such it is a universalization of this standard. Further, to say that this moral standard is derived from a Christian understanding of god, is indeed to say that it is a standard to be applied universally, as the Christian god, to the Christian is a universal phenomenon. So to say that Christians don’t try to impose their morality is a misnomer due to the fundamentally imposing nature of a universal Christian morality.

Given however, that this view of morality is what is considered traditional, anything different may be seen as revolutionary. Marriage at its roots, predating all formal religion, is an expression of commitment, all other things it seems need only be window dressing. Why is it then that this thing, which is a formalization of love, of inclusion, has been used by certain religions, and others as a tool to exclude? Is it so revolutionary to think that one can love another so deeply, so passionately as to deserve formalization of that love as others enjoy that privilege? I am not of the view that religious institutions formalize expressions of love which they deem unworthy, as they are private institutions and may formalize as they please. However, to say that it is moral for a public institution of which I by nature am a part of to exclude me from a privilege provided to others solely based on my choice of whom I love is at the very least discriminatory.

Marriage seems to be founded on commitment and love, who’s to say what’s moral about what form either of those thing’s take. Perhaps all you need is love. Perhaps the simplest of ideas are often the most revolutionary.

Election Watch at Awe Plus Sauce!

2011-03-28T07:54:00.000-07:00

Hello my dear Canadians, elections are upon us! ... Again. For the fourth time in the past seven years, we are forced to chose between two inadequate main parties, and 3 on the large scale, irrelevant smaller parties to form our new government.

For those who affiliate themselves with the smaller parties, you probably will not have a reason to move to either of the bigger ones, as the Conservatives have continued with their ‘shady’ (depending who you ask) policies, and the Liberals remain akin to a blindfolded person, being bullied by the Conservatives.

Of the two bigger parties, in terms of ideological situation on the left-right scale, they’re pretty much in the center, so no help there. It really comes down to who you believe, who’s going to have the best policies, and which man is going to make the best leader.

What most people will agree with is that we need a stop to having an election every almost two years, and need a stable government that can harmonize the country. As such it is quite important to vote in this election, if you don’t want to, among other things have your favourite t.v shows usurped in favour of election coverage.

In order to help you make that decision Awe Plus Sauce will be embarking on a journey of bi-weekly (Monday and Thursday) election updates and information, on main policies of parties, looking beyond the largely uninformative 30 sec t.v spots to give you an actual clue of what both parties can offer to you and in what areas they’re quite simply full of shit.

I plan to vote in this election, as my first, despite being in my third year of voting eligibility, mainly because i have no intention of continuing to do this every 1.75 years. So join me on this journey and lets try to wade through the muck that is Canadian politics.

Why I’m addicted to failure

2011-03-17T17:18:00.001-07:00

Because its hella easy. Failing is literally the easiest thing to do, as it entails doing nothing. People say that if you don’t try, you can’t fail, not true. The reason many people think that failing is necessitated by trying –followed by a lack of success as a result of that trying– is because that's usually what it means. Not for me.

To look at the trying-failing construct more closely is to see that the only reason that failing may be seen as necessitated by trying is because trying creates an investment into the thing that you are doing, and a lack of returns on that investment invariably qualifies as failing when the success of the investment is entirely in your hands. As such, it is naïve to think that trying is the only way you can make an investment into something.

The easiest way to make an investment into something is to pay for it, a la university. More than just a monetary investment, one usually makes an emotional, and almost spiritual investment into something, when that thing is of value to them. When you look at it like this, failing is not really so hard, as it really requires you just to rarely or never go to class and do the same with assignments.

But why an addiction you ask? Failing is quite certainly a ‘bad’ thing. There’s very little about it that’s pleasurable, so how is it possible to get addicted to it?

I’m a smart person. I’ve always been smart, ever since I was a kid. It became at the same time a state of being for me, being among the best as it was an expectation of me, not least from myself. As time went on, it became extremely boring.

The late teenage years, and possibly the following few years into the twenties, are invaluable as formative years. You learn about yourself, you explore your horizons, and some people try a lot of new stuff. Not me.

I guess I was always too rational for teenage drunkenness, smoking and drugs. Extremely goal oriented and with a slight superiority complex, there was no way I would let myself get sucked into the norm of mediocrity that was perpetuated by an education system that stifled creativity. But I was bored.

My experimentation came in the form of procrastination at first. It was my quiet rebellion against the expectations and the norm that my life had slipped into, and oh what a gateway it was. Harmless at first, for a time it provided a semblance of a challenge. The thing with addictions though, is that it gets to a point where you can never have enough.

Coming to university compounded the situation, aided immeasurably by my cockiness and lack of maturity. Aided by a few trying circumstances, and higher stakes, it was very easy to slip into a state of being where failure was the norm, and so familiar that my ambitions were gradually blurred by this state of stupored comfort.

Failure was so much a part of my life, that I became a pro. It was easy, a time tested method not to succeed at anything. I became a success at failing, addicted to it, unable to do anything different. I became bored.

So I find myself once again, trying to overcome a state of ennui that had permeated my being for almost two years; though this time, hopefully with a maturity that will sustain my desire when i find myself peaking so that I may surpass myself.

For Pony.

How much technology is too much?

2011-02-09T08:45:00.001-08:00

It is the beginning of the year, and that means that for the first six months of this aforementioned year, the tech industry is going to be buzzing with events such as the recently passed CES, the upcoming MWC and various smaller events featuring announcements from our favourite gadget makers. As my dearest white macbook 2007 nears the end of its life, indicated through a sputtering fan, a disintegrating chasis, and quite a number of dead pixels on the screen -all no doubt contributed through my failure to keep it from falling from a significant height on a number of occasions- my attention turns towards these events as I look to my machine's replacement.

What if it dies in the mean time you ask? Whatever shall I do, without a constant link to the internets and all that I consider holy? Fear not, for I have my iPhone! To stop and think about smart phones is to realize that they truly are magical devices, at least when compared to the pre-iphone era. Yes, I know windows mobile existed, but we all know that resistive touch screen sporting phone was a piece of crap.

My phone has enough computing power to rival some netbooks, and surely more than my mother's laptop from 2003. Many of you may think, what's the point? Is it really necessary for a phone to have all that power? Indeed, my esteemed roommate, an electrical engineer himself, fails to see the point of a phone having so much power and being able to do so many things that we can just use our computers for.

Well my dear fellow, that is exactly the point! The days when the mobile took instruction from the PC on how to be more effective are over as a one way relationship. The future of technology lies in among other things, portability. The days when we have to sit at a desk to do our daily computing are done and the days when we have to lug around 3-5 pound machines to do our computing are ending. PC makers (apple most notably) are taking lessons from the mobile realm to design computing experiences that are less restrictive logistically, and provide an enormous amount of power in an extremely small package.

So what then when my computer dies? Can I take notes on my iPhone, most assuredly, have I already done so? Absolutely. What about my files, what about the notes I have already taken? World, meet Dropbox, where all my notes and essential files wait for me no matter what device I'm using.

The PC as we know it is dying. Is it hard to accept? not for me! As Flash storage becomes more viable, HDDs will disappear, devices will feature instant on, lightning fast computing with less powerful processors, and a user interface that is markedly different from what we know now. Change is good, and technology is not only for the young. The future is friendly, embrace it.

Can someone find me a good government? Please?

2011-01-30T09:05:00.000-08:00

There was a lot I wanted to talk about this past week, and indecision had the better of me when I finally decided to settle on the topic of Egypt in this past week and a half. First of all, if you don't know what's been going on, in short, Egypt is in the middle of a potential political revolution, where protests have been going on for almost a week now. A detailed account of the protests, and the subsequent action of the government can be found at the BBC source link.

The protests in Egypt follow the protest and resulting overthrowing of the ruling government of Tunisia. These protests have been mainly brought about as a result of rising prices, unemployment, oppression, and the resultant dissatisfaction with the ruling government. The protests in Egypt have been motivated by similar problems with Mubarak's government and may have gotten their motivation by the Tunisian revolution.

To be honest, the events of the past week in Egypt perturb me on several levels. The most significant of which is the extent to which the Egyptian government has gone to combat the protests, using tear gas and rubber bullets almost indiscriminately, beating journalists, arresting any at will. At times, according to statements from the ground, live rounds were fired into the crowd, leaving the combined death toll of protestors and police at over 50. As with any situation where there is a semblance of anarchy in the form of protests, there will be those who try to take advantage of a potentially positive thing and try to turn it to their own advantage. Yes ladies and gentlemen, I am talking about the infamous looters. What disappoints me is that if the police was less interested in disbanding protestors exercising their legal rights, they could have curbed the side effects of the protests by apprehending criminals. Alas, such is the case when you have a foolish old man at the helm, trying desperately to hold on to his power as he sees it fade away.

The second source of my perturbation is the ability for the government to shut down the internet and the telephone services in order to impede communication among protestors, much of which occurred over the internet. It might be me, and my tech friendly stance, but I believe we are approaching a time in our progression as a species where the internet and telecommunications can be afforded the status of a fundamental right. In this capacity, although the shut down was temporary to some extent, I see this as a disgraceful stifling of free speech. However, when compared to the more explicit shutting down of Al-Jazeera operations in the country, seems almost forgivable. All in all, these are the actions of a dying leadership that is gasping for life through these cowardly measures. To this I say Vive La Révolution!

As a concluding note, it is important to recognize that there are different sides to the protests. The most prominent of which has been that for all his faults as a domestic leader, stifling democracy, free speech, and opposition to his rule; as an international presence, Mubarak has maintained a peaceful stance for Egypt, especially towards Israel. This, in a region that is quite often plagued with meaningless hate, conflicts, and death. As such, what Hilary Clinton calls an 'ordered transition' is on order. It is of greatest importance that the egyptian people not lose sight of the values and the rights they fight for, and not succumb to the rule of another democratically ignorant leadership.

Source: BBC

'Sup

2011-01-19T14:38:00.000-08:00

Has anyone ever wondered what other people think about? I mean I know what I think about; I sort of know what my girlfriend think about on a daily basis, probably even have an idea of what my brother would think about. But what about the other? (Can you tell I'm having fun with other?) By other, i mean other people; people you may or may not know. I guess it doesn't really matter what they're thinking; of course, why should it matter to me what another with whom I have no connection is thinking.

The mind really is a lonely place. It's a little bit like my own fortress of solitude (Superman reference), where at the same time it appears to contain all that I have, am, and will think about. That's a pretty big place to be alone in. I started writing this with no idea of where it would go, and slightly motivated to begin as such as a result of my increasingly awesome phenomenology class. It seems the place I have ended up in is that talking to another (and having them talk back) is one of the great joys of living. The sharing of ideas, thoughts, feelings, histories has been the way that the human race has evolved over the course of our existence.

I myself have been secluded in my fortress of solitude with my own musings for far too long, and as such want to take on this endeavour to share said musings with the world. The 2011 equivalent of a soap box on a street corner, the advantage here is that you don't have to pay attention, and I won't know about it. However if you do find some of what I present here interesting, do come back, for I promise there will be more, much much more.

-John