Jake Carlson

Racial Linjustice (sorry)

2012-02-19T18:37:00.000-06:00

Apparently intentional, ESPN’s since-deleted headline about Jeremy Lin was distressing

I woke up on Saturday to find Facebook and Twitter alight with cries for blood over the mobile ESPN article headline that was posted in the middle of the night for 35 minutes before being taken down. It had used the unfortunate idiom "chink in the armor" to describe the end to the Knick's surprising run of wins fueled by an Asian-American, Jeremy Lin, who came out of nowhere to inspire his team and the sports-watching public. It was also found that a news anchor used the same idiom to pose a question about vulnerabilities in the basketball sensation's game.

Was the use of the racial slur intentional? I don't think any spectator can really be certain, and ESPN is mum on that point. There are those that are completely convinced that both cases were pre-meditated acts of bigotry. Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Or maybe one was and the other wasn't. It may have been a Freudian slip. After all, if the writer/anchor subconsciously associated those of Asian descent with the racial slur, that does not necessarily mean that they are racist. It could simply mean that they encounter the word in reference to that people group, and for better or worse, associate the word with an ethnic heritage.

In fact, apparently the wife of the suspended anchor is Asian. That in and of itself does not mean that his use of the idiom was not careless or perhaps even bigoted, but surely this should give one pause before waving the racism flag in his face. It could mean that subconsciously, he is aware of properly associates the racial slur with the people group it targets -- perhaps even because he has witnessed his own wife suffer racial abuse.

Or, maybe one or both of the ESPN staff simply utilized a frequently used idiom in sports, and the context of its use was extremely unfortunate. We don't know.

Here's where this gets sticky. I am now seeing people coming out in forums and Q&A websites asking why this headline is offensive. Honest to God, they don't know. However implausible this seems to me (and I'm sure to you as well), there are actually people out there didn't know that was a racial slur. More importantly, there are people out there that are young and/or sheltered enough for it to simply not be part of their vocabulary. Believe you me, it is now. This controversy has "enlightened" them, and the really sad thing about it is that this word is now percolating in their subconscious, even if they would never intentionally use it for ill.

I'm not advocating intentional ignorance so as not to introduce subconscious word associations. I'm merely saying that this mob mentality is counterproductive. If we dwell on racism, we are more apt to look for it, even when it isn't there. Every time we call for blood when we perceive something as racially inappropriate, we run the risk of embittering the perpetrator and those that can empathize with his/her mistake. Therefore it is vitally important for the outrage to match the offense. This in turn will hopefully make the punishment fit the crime. If we were to give the death penalty to anyone that used a racial slur, do you think racism would end? Most definitely not. You would further the divide, and the majority race would all the more hostile toward the minority.

I am going to be brutally honest with you, and I ask that you be equally honest with yourself. Do a free word association exercise. What word(s) pop into your mind when I say the word "African American," or "black" [as an ethnicity]? If none of the words you came up with are racially offensive, you're almost definitely lying to yourself, or you're so sheltered or ignorant that those racially offensive words are not part of your vocabulary. I have no ill will toward those of African descent. Yet because of what I know of history and the racially charged society in which we live, I worry myself sick about what I say and how I say it when I encounter someone of African descent. I don't want to offend anyone. I wish that I could simply be at ease with a human being of any ethnicity, but there it is. I am so concerned with not offending someone racially that it makes me uncomfortable. To my knowledge, neither I nor any of my ancestors in the last 10 or so generations that I have any knowledge of had African slaves (or any slaves of any other ethnic group). But my knowledge of history and the contemporary outrage of individuals over racism has made me feel guilty and uncomfortable in the presence of someone of a particular ethnic group.

This, I feel, is mostly to do with lack of familiarity. I grew up overseas in China and was constantly surrounded by people who are not of my ethnicity. Needless to say, I'm fairly comfortable around Asians. A few of my best friends in elementary school were black (from Papua New Guinea, actually). I also met and interacted with a few straight-from-Africa university students while drumming for church. My wife's college roommate was black. The paltry list goes on, but the bottom line is that my familiarity and dealings with those of African descent is not extensive. In fact, I probably interacted with those of that ethnic group far less having grown up in China than I otherwise would have in the United States. My feelings toward African Americans in particular are largely guilt for what some other white folks not related to me did to their ancestors and an eye roll for the latest racist gaffe some public figure got skewered for in the news. While unfortunate, I do not believe it appropriate to place blame on an individual for lack of familiarity with a given people group (racial or not).

... Which brings us back to the ESPN Jeremy Lin snafu. To everyone that was offended by this incident, I am sorry. But your collective outrage just cost someone a job, and got another person whose wife is Asian suspended for being racist toward Asians. You don't know if it was intentional, but that doesn't seem to matter. If it wasn't intentional, it was careless. I agree, it shouldn't have happened either way. But now nobody wins. The guy/gal that just got fired is probably pretty pissed off at Asians as an ethnic group right about now, especially if it really was just an honest mistake. The anchor especially has reason to be pretty annoyed by this outcome. More appropriate, I think, would have been an apology for a poor choice of words by the anchor (which he offered in addition to his suspension), and perhaps a reprimand / suspension for the person that wrote/published the headline. That should have been enough to show remorse for what happened regardless of whether it was intentional or careless. It would also have not been so severe as to further polarize those involved in the matter. But ESPN had to react in equal measure to the level of outrage expressed. Those two individuals will now forever be labeled racist, which could have implications for their future career prospects. Whether they deserve it or not I don't think we'll ever know, but I for one like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

When I cautioned against the rampant mob mentality on the matter, I was met with hostility. Apparently, my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not of Asian descent. (Conversely, the opinions of Caucasians that shared in the outrage were accepted and lauded for standing by the Asian community.) I am not qualified to comment on what should or should not be done in response to something offensive to another people group, or so the theory goes. The voice of reason is so easily brushed aside. Some believe I can't possibly have anything constructive to offer on the matter because I am white. To some, I simply can't identify with the plight of the Asian American. But that doesn't mean I have not and will not be discriminated against. Almost everyone has been or will be. Race and sexual orientation are the hot button issues of our day. I have been the object of ridicule for both my beliefs and my physical appearance, and it certainly is not pleasant to be degraded in any way, shape, or form. Words hurt. But I question whether an unfortunate pun, whether intentional or unintentional, should have such drastic repercussions where an apology and perhaps reprimand would suffice. I would like a world where people realize they have hurt my feelings, and apologize with understanding -- not a world where the perpetrator is punished so severely that he/she is embittered and holds it against those that fit the profile of the offended, and certainly not in a world where such an unfortunate slip has potentially life-long consequences to the career(s) of those involved.

I'm glad that the witch hunt over at ESPN is over, but the outcome saddens me. As someone who does not always have his wits about him while working in the middle of the night, I feel for whoever just lost his/her job if this was just a careless reference to an oft-used idiom in sports. The anchor that just got suspended -- whose wife is Asian -- just felt the ire of the FB / Twitter generation for using the same common sports idiom without fully weighing its racially-charged double meaning. My hope is that my Asian and Asian-American friends are not rejoicing over this misfortune, and have some grace and humility over the fact that people make mistakes. What matters most is intent. If the intent was racial bigotry, certainly a reprimand/suspension is in order. A pink slip, on the other hand, will only build the person's resentment toward the people group that just got him fired, especially if it was just an honest mistake. The fact that the one was fired and the other suspended does not prove guilt. It only means ESPN judged it to be the most expedient means to put the controversy behind them, and unfortunately, they are probably right. The cries for blood should now finally subside.

Our technology has given the average person in the West an unprecedented ability to rally behind causes with little to no effort. Gone are the days where you had to spend some serious time and effort to protest an injustice. The net result is that even the slightest potential bigotry is met with outrage. I wish people would just chill. The more we look for racism, the more we will find it, even when it isn't there. No doubt anyone that has read this post who knows someone close to them that has been discriminated against on the basis of race or has experienced it first hand will now tell me that I just don't get it, or that it's easy for me to say what I'm saying because I wasn't the target of the offense. Maybe. Or, maybe the outrage should be tempered by reason and grace, and maybe our world would be a little better off if we stopped perpetuating the racial divide.

Amen, brother.

UPDATE #1: Jeremy Lin commented on the controversy in a CNN article. "'I don't think it was on purpose,' Lin said. 'At the same time, they've apologized. I don't care anymore.'" Kudos, Mr. Lin. Way to diffuse the situation with grace and give people the benefit of the doubt.

UPDATE #2: The man that got fired over the Jeremy Lin / ESPN debacle has come out in an interview. He claims it was an honest mistake and that he was merely using an idiom he had used over a hundred times before. He goes on to say that Lin is one of his heroes both for his skill and because he is an 'outspoken Christian.' While some may stick to their original assertion that this was an intentionally racist act, doing so now necessitates the accusation that the hapless editor is lying through is teeth about it. I don't think he is, but if he is, he's taking the deception really far. The simplest and in my opinion most likely scenario is that you had a guy working the night shift at 2am slapping a headline he'd used many times before on a sports article without fully realizing his mistake or the outrage that would ensue.

So there you have it. An editor has been fired over an offensive headline. He claims it was an ihonest mistake. The person the supposed racial slur was directed toward doesn't think it was intentional, immediately forgave the oversight, and wanted to move on. However -- and I want to make this abundantly clear without ambiguity -- these facts are inconsequential to my original point, which is that great harm can come from acting harshly in condemnation with too little information, and that we as communities are often too easily swept up in outrage at the expense of an opportunity for reconciliation. I fully understand that this outrage can come from a place of deep hurt from past ill treatment, but that does not justify lashing out unfairly toward another human being and causing them harm in unequal measure to their offense, especially if there is a lack of evidence to support the presumption of guilt.

UPDATE #3: Anthony Frederico has posted a more detailed defense of himself over the incident. He lists his humanitarian work (including work overseas), and pointedly asks 'My career was taking off. Why would I throw that all away with a racist pun?' Why indeed.

Not Another Sherlock Holmes Reference, Watson

2011-02-17T02:53:00.004-06:00

I've been following the Jeopardy! IBM Challenge with interest over the past few days. Pitting man against machine in the arena of language comprehension and general knowledge is just good television. I can't claim to be an expert on Artificial Intelligence, but I am programmer, interface designer, and trivia buff.

Let's get this out of the way immediately: the technology that went in to Watson is phenomenal. It is definitely a step forward from anything that I at least have ever seen with regards to a computer's comprehension of language. English in particular is a very nuanced language, rife with pun and innuendo. The imagination runs wild with the possibilities, and of course IBM is right there stoking that fire with promises of real world applications for medicine and any other discipline that tends to make us humans more apt to agree that the endeavor is for the benefit of humanity.

However, this is an incremental step, and I don't really view it as anything revolutionary in its own right. It should also be obvious to anyone that watched that we still have quite a ways to go before we put matters of life and death into the hands of a decision making super computer. Computers are good at doing things we tell them to do. I view Artificial Intelligence as a difference in degree, but not in kind, of any run of the mill set of software algorithms. In the end, even a "learning" robot or computer can never do anything that it was not programmed to do, even if in an abstract sense. More on that later.

It all seems so magical until you break down the problem into parts. The machine's understanding of English grammar is by far the most complex issue that must be overcome. Yet it too follows strict rules, and if the algorithm can parse the clauses correctly, the actual fact finding process should be relatively trivial.

For any given question or clue, the machine must deduce what kind of answer is expected. Is it a place? A person? An abstract word or concept? There are obvious word cues in many cases, but other times it is less clear. More fundamentally, the machine is being asked what is expected of it. In the context of Jeopardy!, the answer is almost always a noun or the infinitive form of a verb. Watson usually got this part right, but at times was way off. We take it for granted that our brains do this part with such ease.

For any given clue, there are numerous keywords that restrict the possible answer set. Not to trivialize the process, but this part seems much more simple programmatically to me than the parsing of grammar and figuring out what kind of answer is being asked for. Every bit of knowledge has related concepts, people, and places. If we know we're talking about a given place, and we know the answer is a person, in most cases we've already narrowed our possible answers to the ten's or hundreds. It's really just a matter of figuring out how strong the correlation is between the keywords in the clue are to one another. Again, when I make light of this process, I am not saying that this is some weekend project a kid could do; I'm merely saying that the means by which it is done is not hard to comprehend or explain. It's all a game of probability, and Watson is the most advanced probability engine with regards to parsing the English language that anyone (I think) has ever seen.

Back to the concept of AI. It took IBM millions of dollars, 4 years, and some very smart people to make Watson. In his current form, Watson was programmed to do one basic function, and he does it quite well. He is not some walking android; he is a network of a ALOT of computers in a large facility. If you asked Watson, "What does a circle look like?" he would not show you a circle. He would calculate the highest probability answer of related keywords and spit it back at you. This of course seems silly, but this is what I mean when I say that a machine cannot do what it has not been programmed to do. Even if it is capable of "learning" new things, those things are still within its programmed parameters. It's pretty darn cool, but let's not get carried away. We are not on a verge of self-aware automatons that adapt to their environment and make split second intuitive decisions. But the more varied those parameters are, the closer we come. Whether we ever get to the point of a small, mobile robot capable of having a general enough set of parameters to function on a quasi-human level, I'll leave to the experts. I just know that we're nowhere near that right now.

The interesting thing about Jeopardy! is that it's not really all about facts per se; it's a combination of comprehension, thumb reflexes (for the buzzer), and knowledge. Most people who are on Jeopardy! are pretty smart from a sheer knowledge perspective, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the show. So the lesson isn't really that Watson is "smarter" or knows more facts than the human contestants. As hugely successful past Jeopardy! contestants, both Ken and Brad probably knew most of the answers. Therefore, either Watson was able to comprehend the question and compute the answer more quickly, or the sheer speed with which he was able activate his buzzer (or a combination of both) was what made him succeed over his human rivals. I'd hate for it to have been primarily the latter, because all we'd be saying then is that IBM built a machine that had better reflexes than a human.

Let's break down the question and answer process further. Once a clue is revealed on the screen, Trebek reads it aloud as it is simultaneously sent to Watson in plain text. Contestants are not allowed to buzz in until Trebek finishes reading the clue, which can take a few seconds depending on how long it is and how much he embellishes its reading. If the contestant comprehends the question and comes up with the answer in those few seconds, it comes down to reflexes. That is, who can push the buzzer faster after the signal is sent that contestants can now buzz in? I'm pretty sure that Watson would have the humans beat every time if he had comprehended and come up with an answer to the clue prior to the time when he was able to buzz in.

So I'm guessing the humans either had some very good (read: lucky) timing with the buzzer or Watson took longer to comprehend the clues for which a human buzzed in first. I noticed that in several cases, Ken Jennings concentrated on buzzing in even before he knew the answer -- probably because he had reasonable confidence that he knew the answer and also that he'd have a couple seconds after he buzzed in to actually figure it out. Specifically, it was in the "decades" category, for which the answer space is tiny (no more than 20 for sure). The probability therefore of someone with some decent general knowledge of history being able to figure out the answer in a short span of time is very great. That was a hugely successful adaptive strategy while it lasted, and it is an example of something that Watson would not have done because he was not pre-programmed to do so. Watson had some general strategic principles built in, like not wagering a lot of money when you're really far in the lead, and not buzzing in unless there was a pretty good chance of success. But beyond that, there was no "outside the box" (literally) strategizing going on.

In the end of course, Watson crushed the humans. There are a few things I can think of that would have made Watson a better Jeopardy! contestant, but few of them would have improved the PR stunt. After all, it's in nobody's interest for Watson to absolutely obliterate the human competition. That wouldn't be interesting to watch at all. In the end, the humans put up a decent fight, all things considered. So here's my list of improvements. They have to do more with an understanding of how the game works rather than technical improvements to the actual comprehensions system.

1) Watson should have buzzed in all the time, right away, no matter what. Period. He would have missed 3 or 4 questions the entire match, but would have gotten the lion's share of questions correct. He also would have had a couple precious seconds to complete his computations if he still needed the time. This of course would have made the whole event boring, but nonetheless, there it is.

2) Watson had no peer relating input mechanism. When Ken answered incorrectly, Watson buzzed in and answered the same thing. Epic fail, IBM. This would have been so simple to build in compared to the rest of the system. All you need is an audio input and some generic voice recognition capability. There is no ambient noise to speak of, and anyway everyone is on a mic. Most operating systems nowadays have this built in and can do a half decent job of understanding your voice even without training. If your top answer has a zero probability of being correct, eliminate it. IBM got so caught up in the technology of producing good answers to questions that they forgot to build in simple inputs based on the way the game is actually played. They couldn't see the forest for the trees on that one. As an interface designer, I see this all the time. A programmer (myself included) gets so wrapped up in solving a given problem that he/she ignores the more obvious problems that need to be solved that will have a much greater positive impact.

3) The "Toronto" debacle was also pretty funny, and one that IBM felt it needed to explicitly address. For Final Jeopardy!, The category was "U.S. Cities," and the question was about a city with two airports, one named after a Word War II hero, and the other after a World War II battle. Watson guessed "Toronto." The humans both got it right (it was "Chicago"). To IBM's credit, Watson was very unsure of his answer. Nonetheless, his answer was so ridiculous that I think IBM was just a little embarrassed. Their fumbling explanation is even funnier than the initial error. Essentially, Watson was programmed to put less emphasis on the category name because the category names in Jeopardy! are particularly prone to pun and other language constructs not easily parsed by a machine. So my 20/20 hindsight recommendation: treat the category as pretty important and just program Watson to better understand the complexities of the Jeopardy! category -- or at least to understand when a category is likely to be straightforward and when it is likely to be tricky, and weight it accordingly. There only a couple different ways that the category "U.S. Cities" could be misleading, and even then "US" probably would have been in quotes or something. So really Watson should at least be able to tell to what degree the category name is ambiguous instead of writing it off almost entirely as a rule.

All in all, this has been very fun to watch and talk about. So kudos to Jeopardy! and IBM for taking it on. I don't really think I'll be letting a machine make any substantial decisions for me any time soon, though.

Music Without Pretense

2011-01-25T17:48:00.003-06:00

Like everyone else, I have a certain taste in music. I have hangups that preclude me from liking certain popular artists, but nevertheless I listen to an eclectic assortment. I use the word "eclectic" here very reluctantly because it's the go-to word that music snobs use to lord over you the fact that they are complicated and have better taste than you do. Secretly what they really mean is that they listen to indie music almost exclusively and hate (or at least pretend to hate) anything else on principle. Oh you rebellious wannabe hipsters, you make me giggle.

Music lovers are like the fans of most other art forms, except there are way more of them. It has its snobs just as it has throngs of people who just "know what they like." Disclaimer: I am a designer by trade and an amateur musician. Yet I am still among those of you who sees a Jackson Pollock and thinks to myself "How the hell is this art?" I understand its importance from an academic standpoint, because, well, I studied about it in an academic setting. But that doesn't mean I have to actually like it or even marvel at it from an artistic standpoint. It is just paint splatters after all. But good for him. He got a bunch of pretentious art snobs with too much money to buy his work. I'm not really judging the taste of these people so much as I'm judging their attitude about art and their unfounded air of superiority. As a general rule, you won't see any real artist paying tons of money for another artist's work. Think about that for a minute.

Really it makes sense, though, doesn't it? A mechanic understands better than most what is involved in fixing his car. Do you think he pays someone else to do it? But we're talking about art, and ostensively, the creation of one person is different than what another artist could do on his own. Nonetheless, the artist understands what goes into the art of his peers better than the average art lover, and so is in a better position to appreciate its worth from a technical perspective. I'm not going to shell out a thousand dollars for someone to design a website for me because I can do myself and I know how.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think everyone that likes Jackson Pollock paintings is stupid or misguided. I'm just saying that you're allowed to not like them and still be a lover of art. It's fine to have your own taste, and taste is something that's developed in any number of ways. I'm not even necessarily saying that your taste shouldn't be influenced by what other people say, because let's face it, sometimes people say intelligent things. I just hate it when somebody likes something because they think they should like it, or because they think that it will somehow enhance other peoples' perception of them.

So let's get it all out on the table. I'm a child of 90's and alternative rock forms the bulk of my music collection. But there's also the likes of Marvin Gaye, Norah Jones, David Grey, and various Gospel / Contemporary Christian outfits. This is a discussion for another time, but I'm a lot more selective about what Gospel / Contemporary Christian artists I listen to than most Christians are. If I had to pick a common theme in the music I enjoy, it would have to be that an artist's vocals make or break them for me. I usually don't get too hung up on the lyrics, though -- unless they truly ruin a song. I appreciate good poetry over bad poetry, but delivery usually wins out for me in the end. I also do not emphasize the meaning of the song over its artistry as many pious Christians are apt to do. To me that's tantamount to refusing to listen to someone that disagrees with you, which is decidedly un-Christian. I don't have to agree with their worldview to enjoy the artistry any more than I have to wish for the dismantling of society by appreciating the chaos of Deconstructivist art. I'm generally not into Pop, Country, or Rap, but that's not a hard and fast rule. I can appreciate the appeal of each of those genres, I just don't dig them.

I have to stop here and talk for a minute about Creed. I like them. I was living in China when they burst onto the scene of late 90's / early 00's alternative rock. I was in the United States when it all of a sudden became cool to hate them, but apparently I missed the memo. I googled it. Apparently the reason for the disdain is a combination of overplay on the radio, perceived hypocrisy, and a couple unfortunate statements made in interviews. Who cares? I don't listen to the radio. If you listened to a station that played Creed non-stop, that's your fault. What the members do is pretty much a non-issue for me. I don't idolize them, I just enjoy their art. And even if I did, is it really that hard to separate their admirable qualities from their aberrant behavior? I think what makes it difficult for people is the fact that Stapp's lyrics are often overtly religious, and he describes himself as a Christian. I'm not going to pretend to know how it is for a rock star at the peak of his career, but I will say that people in general do not deserve the "hypocrite" label simply by failing to live up to their own standards. By that metric we are all just as hypocritical. To my knowledge, Stapp did not get preachy about the evils of pre-marital sex on stage and then go backstage to receive oral sex from some coked out groupie. (The latter he did, the former he did not do to my knowledge.)

Some people just honestly don't like that kind of music, which is fine. Others think Creed is some cheap Pearl Jam imitation. Again, I fail to see the problem. I love Pearl Jam. If Creed sounds just like Pearl Jam, I'd like to have more please (but they don't). And anyway, it's not like Pearl Jam is so unique or something. They have their influences just like everyone else. They've been in court cases to defend their work for copyright infringement. I don't get hung up on the fact that so-and-so sounds like so-and-so. What I really care about is whether it sounds good. And, by the way, that goes for artists as they "evolve" throughout their careers as well. All the critics are hung up on whether an artist sounds like they did before -- whether they are "progressing" as an artist. Excuse me, but the reason I like an artist is because they sound like they do. Why would I want them to change? If I want something completely different, I'll listen to someone else; I won't sit around and complain about how the artist sounds the same. I'm all for the artist experimenting, especially if the result sounds good, but I don't get all up in arms if they make awesome music similar to the awesome music they did before. More often than not, artists that change musically to any significant degree end up being the artist that was good when they started but now suck.

And now back to indie music. Ah, the genre that isn't a genre. So basically, you have a group of artists on independent labels. Because they aren't on major labels, they have trouble getting their name out there. Often they have a sound that is not mainstream, but that's not always the case. A bunch of hipsters in the know get wind of them and celebrate how indie they are. They tell their hipster wannabe friends. The indie band starts to enjoy modest success. They are picked up by a major label. Are they still indie? "Indie" is not a category of music, it's a label for something that's not mainstream. There are very diverse sounds under the banner of "indie," to the point that the label is essentially meaningless for everyone except hipsters and wannabe hipsters who think they are cool because they listen to hitherto unpopular music. It's not that the music isn't good, it's just that it's not popular yet. And once it does become popular, they're on to the next unpopular artist because popularity is somehow uncool. Seriously, the more popular something is, the less cool it is.

No, this must stop. Listen to music without pretense. Who cares how popular it is? Who cares that the lead singer is a douche? If lyrics matter to you, fine. Don't tell everyone that they should matter more to them. Let people like what they want to like. Share good music. Don't make fun of people for having different taste than you do (unless they like pop, country, or rap).

Danger Is My Middle Name

2011-01-15T18:01:00.007-06:00

I am a very unexciting person. The thought of skydiving seems, well, moronic to me. Jumping out of a plane? Really? Whatever adrenaline rush one experiences for a few minutes after jumping out of a moving vehicle thousands of feet in the air and hurtling toward the ground, let's be frank, shouldn't be worth it to any sane person. I don't do drugs, whatever that means to you personally. I don't drink and drive, which is easy since I don't drink at all (I never grew accustomed to the taste). No, I don't do stupid things like that.

I am, however, guilty of something perhaps worse: I drive while very tired. In fact, I would go far as to say that I have a superhuman ability to stay awake for extended periods when needed. I have been extremely busy ever since the beginning of year. I've been juggling numerous projects with tight deadlines, and there just simply haven't been enough hours in the day. I woke up at 10:30am on Tuesday morning a little earlier than I wanted, having just 6 hours of sleep. No biggie. I had to a lot of work to do before my Wednesday meeting in San Antonio. So much work in fact, that I didn't sleep that night. Apart from my half hour nap from 7am to 7:30am, I literally did not sleep.

At 8am, I drove from Austin to San Antonio and made it just in time for my 10am meeting. I was in the meeting all day until 5:30pm. Then, I met with another client in San Antonio at 6pm. I met with the second client until around 7pm, then made the drive back to Austin. I picked up dinner on the way home and made it back by 9pm. I'm not gonna lie: I was in bad shape when I got home. I was listening to Chevelle and screaming along when I finally pulled into the garage. I ate dinner and was asleep by midnight (I think).

So yeah, I was pretty much awake for about 38 hours and drove around 200 miles near the end of it. After about 10 hours of sleep, I woke up again and worked until 4am the next day, went to bed for another 6, hours, then got up and ran some errands with Kyla. At 7pm Friday, I crashed hard and had a good sleep.

Zealous

2011-01-11T14:26:00.003-06:00

Crack open my shameful head
I am nothing to deserve
To dine among the dead
Let my pride do me in
Lest I forget
Where did it all begin?

Cut me and I'll melt like ice
Steer me away, my Savior
From my malicious vice
From the chains set me free
Don't let it be
The only end in me.

Potter, I am the clay
Mold me, my Jesus, mold me
Mold me every day
Father, cleanse all within
I wait, oh Lord
For heaven to begin.

I want to lose myself
Inside of You
I want to move the mountains with love
I want to lose control
And give it all away
I want to walk on water with You
I want You
I need You
I give You my love:
All I have to give.

Smooth out the edges
Of my jagged soul
You alone, oh God
Make me whole.

An Unfortunate Process

2011-01-06T05:27:00.001-06:00

My process for writing poetry kind of sucks. The original poems were raw, flowing emotion with very little editorial changes. They usually had more or less strict meter and rhyme, but were very focused and short. Over time, I combined a lot of them with vague similarities and smoothed over the rough edges. I regret that now. In most cases, the originals are lost forever, along with the poignancy of their original passion. What I have left are more like song lyrics now, with occasional bridges. I guess I was always keen to one day make them into songs. Maybe one day I'll learn guitar well enough to do so, but until then, I'll leave them as the mediocre amalgams that they are.

Candy-Coated Apathy

2011-01-06T05:14:00.002-06:00

Don't you show me
All your fake shining teeth
Don't give me a reason to believe
That you would ever care about me.

Don't you wear that
Sunshine mask anymore
We both know that you dream devil dreams
Under the angel face that you wear.

You think pity
Is such a noble thing
You kill me with every single word
Don't lie to me and say that you care.

I thought I heard you calling my name
I thought I saw you look my way
Was I too bold
When I assumed that you cared?
Was I a fool
To let you play me like one?
Was I so disillusioned
When I thought you would stay
Until we blur the lines
Of all eternal seeming
I must have been dreaming ...

Notes

2011-01-04T23:27:00.005-06:00

Cold as a glacier macho slide
Boutiques you've never tried
Sweating travel strain
Things I did for you in vain
Do you try to be so mean?
Lacking some blue caffeine
I'll go away and let you rest
Whatever suits you best.

Hot as a supernova scream
Dreaming a vacant dream
Sunburn aftershave
Tylenol and coffee crave
Empty as a donut hole
Sadist like rock and roll
Pathways lit by a candy kiss
High on rosebuds and bliss.

Sprinkling pink flower pedal hall
You're up against the wall
She can't be ashamed
Of emotions never named
The world she has created
Holds love never fated
Sleep forever undisturbed
Dream of love undeserved.

A Personal Renaissance

2011-01-01T15:21:00.022-06:00

It's crazy how life chokes out one's artistic and intellectual pursuits.

Secondary school was my first golden age of expression, a time when my emotions and intellectual curiosity bubbled over and found their outlet in sappy love poetry and prose about God and our place in this world. Like most protagonists in coming of age stories, I was caught somewhere in between the carefree imagination of youth and more mature endeavors of the heart and mind. This was a unique station of life that afforded me both the drive and time to cultivate the fertile soil of the adolescent soul. It was at this place where motivation and opportunity met that a more defined image of myself emerged.

Puberty came like a thief in the night. I wanted so desperately to love, but I didn't know how. I had a vague sense of what I wanted, but I had neither the skill nor the experience to navigate the treacherous waters of adolescent romance. Though it didn't feel like it at the time, I had it pretty easy.

I went to school in Tianjin, China, but my family returned to my early childhood home in Roseville, MN my freshman year of high school. Going from a small private Christian school in China to a huge public high school in the States was difficult. Naturally, I had few friends and felt somewhat isolated from my peers. I sought refuge through an explosion of romantic and spiritual poetry. I lusted after girls from afar but never had the courage or opportunity to make anything happen. Limitless time for tortured introspection breeds great art, I suppose.

Things got better when I returned to China. I spent the better part of my sophomore year of high school with my heart wrenched over a seemingly unrequited crush I had on a friend. Not surprisingly, this led to my best, if even more tortured, love poetry. When I finally got up the courage to get my feelings out in the open as a last ditch effort to relieve my burdened heart, I faced neither rejection nor humiliation. To this day I question the motive and sincerity of the girl that accepted me in such a lovesick state. Perhaps it was sympathy or even boredom.

I didn't want to admit it at the time, but the relationship had an expiration date. Her family moved to Bangkok, Thailand the next year. In retrospect, I got off easy. Though there wasn't any overt tension, my ceaseless paranoia made our bond tenuous at best. She was, for lack of a better term, a starter girlfriend. Without the benefit of perspective that comes with experience, I was in an emotional free fall after she left. I'm glad we're still Facebook friends, Paige.

I didn't eat for the first half of that summer; I drank only juice. I lost about 60 pounds. I bleached my hair and grew a wispy little goatee. I reinvented myself. When I showed up for school my junior year, my own friends didn't even recognize me. I was eager to try out my new persona and jumped headlong into an ill-advised relationship with another long-time friend. I was more interested in proving my own self worth than in the relationship itself, and not surprisingly, it was short-lived. Things ended amicably, but to this day I still feel like a douche because, well, I was one. I'm glad we're still Facebook friends, Shireen.

Near the end of my junior year, I started dating a cute freshman I'd had my eye on. A friendship was not at stake this time. I had burned and been burned, and I was the better for it. My experience, though minimal, was enough to give me the maturity to let love grow at its own pace. As time went by, my need for creative outlet waned -- not because I felt less, but because I had the benefit of a little perspective. Life just seemed to choke out the need for excessive introspection, and the art born of passion was no longer fighting to escape. I'm glad you're my wife, Kyla ... even though you were the end of my first golden age of expression.

I want this blog to spur a sort of personal Renaissance in me. I will rant. I will rave. I will post poetry, some old and maybe even some new. This is my outlet, and I hope you will be interested in at least some of what I have to say.