I'm trying to chew through this Tocqueville reading assignment and I wish I could read it with others, I know this course has a discussion section but an official class for discussion always seems to screw up the point of discussion, there's some clearly hammered out objective with standardized assignments and the 'discussion' must always be tailored to fit the confines. Not only that you put a guy in the front of the room and thus becomes a presumption that this person is more knowledgeable in the matter, not saying I think I am, I'm saying it makes any discussion off kilter. Discussions are by their design supposed to be among "equals" or at least among people with a common interest in hearing each other's opinions.
Tocqueville in his Democracy in America brings up a number of contentious issues, the first one that's really stuck in my craw is democracy itself. From what I've read he clearly understands its literal and more liberal definitions. Literally democracy is all the people of a state voting on laws. He makes a point that this did occur in America in New England in the 1600s. More broadly his use of democracy is the liberal social (and neither of these words mean what I normally mean them to mean) concept; democracy as a generic concept of rejecting autocratic or aristocratic rule while still maintaining order through law with a great emphasis on individualism. What bothers me about it is really tied in with what I want to rant about here, the concepts of "equality" and "freedom".
Through my life it has come to my understanding that equality and freedom have two different definitions in common usage. At the heart of each of these definitions are two opposing social-political ideologies. The version of equality and freedom that Tocqueville refers to, when he says America is more free and equal than any European state, is the version that props up the individual as the most important factor in state issues. The alternate version is a more communist version (literally communist) that refers to the freedom and equality via the state's control of the people. This is a problem of modern American politics. Communists and those who believe in authoritarianism to a lesser extent use their version of these words to subvert the dialog. Changing the definitions of words, rather than dealing honestly with their intended goals.
Another reason this issue is sparking up with me is that in Tocqueville's intro he argues that this democratization is inevitable, that no action either for it or against it is stopping the inevitable, though he doesn't necessarily judge the goodness of this inevitability. Karl Marx had a similar attitude about Communism, which I was told stems from an older German philosopher Hegel who argued that humans (and pretty much everything else) would reach an ultimate state of existence. And Marx's idea doesn't necessarily conflict with Tocqueville, as Marx saw capitalism and democracy as a step along the way.
What brings this all together are these words freedom and equality. Equality is used much more by Tocqueville, but I've personally seen both used in dual roles and I'm sticking them together, there are other words too but I'm not thinking of them off the top of my head. Tocqueville began his intro writing "Of all the things that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me more forcibly than the equality of social conditions." the first thing I thought of (being so well bred and raised by public education in our quasi-socialist America) is 'What about slavery? What about Native Americans? What about women? Not to mention America clearly had super wealthy and powerful elites, as well as dirt poor subsistence farmers and indentured servants.' Well through context and his moving on to specifically condemn slavery and other subjects I realized partially much of my initial contention with his assessment is an unfair look back. He's judging America more equal and free than Europe in the early 1800s at the height of European monarchies. However lopsided American equality was at the time, his fond look back from the 1600s-1800s was revolutionary for individual liberty and equality, despite the numerous continuing issues.
For Tocqueville (and me) freedom and equality are tied in with individual liberty. When he gave examples of equality, he didn't mean that everyone was in a similar social status, he meant that people had a chance to better themselves. His (and my) idea of equality is equality under the law, to treat people equally, to not subjugate people or demand them to be in a social status. His example for Europe illustrates this, "The clergy opened its ranks to all, rich and poor alike, commoner and lord alike; by means of the Church, equality began to permeate the government and the man who might have vegetated in eternal enlsavement as a serf was elevated to the heart of the nobility". Later came social equality through education opportunities, and financial equality through industrial opportunities, but at no time does "equality" = "mandated social status".
This is the realm of the Communist. Equality to a Communist stems from Marx and Engels' argument that people won't be "free" until all people are "equal". Only by "free" he means entirely controlled by law, and by "equal" they meant literally murdering the wealthy class and under threat of death forced the bottom feeders to start working. Thus creating an "equal" society where everyone works and no one takes the profits, which are "equally" distributed. The freedom in this way is actually "freedom from" which is why, as much as an Atheist as I am, it hurts to hear people claim the 1st Amendment is also "Freedom from religion". "Freedom from" to me is a gateway to misinterpretation and ultimate usurpation of the original idea. "Freedom from" is not the same thing as "Freedom of" in fact they can be quite opposing. And this is the opposition of the liberty seeker and the communist. The liberty seeker wants the "of" and the Communist wants the "from".
Simple direct examples of what I'm aruging: Liberty seeker wants "Freedom of social status" the Communist wants "Freedom from social status". How does a liberty seeker get his freedom? It occurs on its own. How does the Communist get his freedom? Kill anyone who doesn't fit. But to be fair, following the Hegel idea of a natural development to a highest point, Marx believed even if you didn't kill your way to Communism, it would natually occur eventually.
And this is what brought me into this discussion. Because both Tocqueville and Marx talk about this natural and unavoidable progression. I don't know if either of them is wrong. Although I am certain that there is no necessary "ultimate" level Hegel believed in, I think evolution disproves this theory completely. I actually wrote my final in a Philosophy course arguing against this eventual final form (which I don't remember if it was Hegel or my teacher who harked back to Plato on this very ancient idea of perfection.) I think that circumstance trumps the notion of perfection every time. A perfect example of what I mean is the frog. Frogs are sometimes (if this were Wikipedia, a little "by whom?" would appear here) said to be "perfectly adapted" to their environment. I could go into great detail with examples of this "perfection" because I love frogs and I've been obsessed with them for a long time. But that's another story. It is because of this "perfection" that frogs are called an "indicator species". That is, when something happens to their environment, because they are so specifically adapted to it, they are greatly effected by very minor changes. All over America frogs species are dying off. In places of pollution, they are making freak babies with too many/too few limbs etc. This is the best argument against an "ultimate form", the very nature of nature is change. I argued then and still believe the opposite is the route nature must take, humans are on this opposite side, our great advantage, our great "adaptation" is that we do not adapt. We are terribly physically under equipped to survive anywhere on Earth. Even if we originally evolved to live in temperate climate with abundance of fruit and stupid slow moving animals, we still suck at adapting. Our greatness is not in adaptation, it is in adapting nature to meet our demands. We don't adapt to the cold, we make clothing. We don't adapt to droughts, we make irrigation. We don't adapt to fast predators, we kill them. We don't adapt to fast prey, we farm. (in the grand scheme of course, the meantime is always "make do").
The Communist idea of humanity is from Hegel's theory, that we are destined for a static and finite existence. This was the crux of Marx's argument. That we need only "so much" technology and wealth, and all the proletariat have to do is wait, and when we've got enough wealth, kill the bourgeoisie and take it all and live happily ever after. However the liberty minded idea is that the wealthy are those who best adapted the world to fit their wants and needs. To kill of the best of us to slightly boost the rest of us is both evil and self defeating. That's what bugs me the most. If we really are unavoidably heading for absolute Communism, then we are unavoidably heading towards a system that promotes its own stagnation, we are heading towards our own self-fulfilling extinction.
If this were to occur, society would be a progression from government mandated status (under autocrats and aristocrats where birth defines status) with a spectrum of "classes". Next is individual mandated status and general equality in opportunity (under the "democratic" government run by the people). The final stage is similar to the first and second, a return to government mandated status, however with a new idea of equality where instead of government mandated social separation, it is a government mandated singular class(Communism). Mathematically and poetically it fits. It's a song that is easily played. 1.2.3. It hits from both directions first rule by a small group, with no freedom, then freedom of the people however they are free to enslave themselves, and third the people have effectively eliminated the separation of government and people, created the ultimate authoritarianism, while simultaneously creating the ultimate democracy.
I just have one problem with it. I reject the entire process. Authoritarianism the common thread among all these things. Only in passing and "yin to yang" does my dream government and society have any sway in these stages. I hope for a government that elevates every individual to that of a king. Instead of an authoritarian progression to make all people government, I want an individualist progression to eliminate authoritarianism completely. Not anarchy, because I am not speaking of an absence of government, but truly self defined governance. Something more honest and more just than a static "social contract" or "best interest of" government.
In the old governments of autocrats and aristocrats (dictators and kings) the average person was afforded many civil liberties that have been wiped out by this so-called "democracy". While a commoner couldn't hold office, he could tell his son to be a better man. He could find a piece of land and work it and make his own way (many people chose to work as serfs, but there had always been the option to just make your own way). A commoner wasn't told how much he could drink, or what drugs he could or couldn't use, or who he talked to, or how he traveled. He was free to build his own home to his own standards and work for whatever rate he demanded. None of these micro-managing laws "democracy" has brought us like permits to operate a taxi, limits on alcohol content in booze, or infinitely long bureaucratic dragons to get permission from the state to build a shed on your own property existed back then because no autocrat or aristocrat has the time or patience to so thoroughly micro-manage every person's life. It was only when we gave "everyone" the reigns to law that "everyone" began leaping at the opportunity to tell everyone else how to live.
However it is in stage 2 that we see the emergence of the concept of individual rights. Presumably these rights are held to be higher than common will of the people. So while a man was generally free most of his life to do what he wanted under the auto and aristocrats, if a nobleman wanted to put your son in his personal army, or have his way with your wife, or use your house as his stables, he could do it. And you had no recourse save violence. In the "democratic" world you have "rights" that prevent the polity from voting away your son's freedom, your wife's body, or your personal property. Although I must applaud these "rights" for going on paper and showing up in official documents. I must also chastise all of humanity and this notion of democracy as a whole because no one ever respects these "rights" and they effectively become place-holder privileges to be removed at the convenience of the state. Our "rights" I could list for you have been removed repeatedly and those violations have throughout America's existence have been thoroughly upheld. Every right in the Constitution has been usurped, some more than others, but at no time has any judge stopped and simply declared "no further may government intercede" despite their original wording demanding such response immediately. Though again to be fair sex has never been forced upon people by the American government, in strong part due to the opposite culturally bound draconian laws to the contrary that cause anyone with a sexuality to suffer at some point, from laws against anything but heterosexuality, to laws forbidding heterosexuality in every way but between a man and a woman who are married and alone and in a secluded place and in the missionary position (and I'm not even far enough, let alone exaggerating, I don't have room to bring up drugs, alcohol, insurance, age, intelligence, mental competency etc.)
Stage 3 again offers a mutually excluding liberty that is merely a backdrop of absolute authoritarianism. That is the liberty of social interaction, the kind of interaction that was forbidden in aristocracy between classes, no social exchange was allowed, no education amongst equals. It is strictly forbidden to a T in many instances within the democracies, disallowing people from interacting based on race, religion, sex, gender, sexuality, age, intelligence, pretty much everything that can divide people has been divided by law in America and other democratic states. Communist influences more than appeals to liberty have changed much of that in America as we drift into Communism. Again there is an underlying hypocrisy in Communism when they extol how the black man and the white woman and the poor ignorant farmer and the homosexual are all equally able to interact as adults, and that's because in these Communist states, as freely as they may interact across what would be social divides elsewhere Communism introduces a monumental set of restrictions that are certainly "colorblind" but happily screw everyone "equally". Great, the poor man and the rich woman "can" interact. The homosexual and the polygamist can have their sexual freedom. However the system destroys notions of individuality, there is no rich woman, there is no homosexual, there is only the state, the 'us', the 'we'and sure you are "free" to try, but you better not, because you should be thinking about 'us' and not yourself.
I see the subversion of the words "freedom" and "equality" all the time in America. From both major political parties who tend to seek authoritarianism in different ways. The Republicans with their efforts of aristocratic and theological authoritarianism, and the Democratics with their efforts at Communist authoritarianism. Both use democracy as their tool and neither necessarily want to go "all the way" in the directions, that is, a Republican may be accused of wanting social ordered laws of old or religious doctrine in the courts, but I doubt many Republicans are absolutist, the same goes for Democratics who attempt to pass Communistic laws while crying that people are crying wolf about Communism, to this point that simply using the term Communism or Socialism seems archaic and out of style. But you can't really define it any other way when you hear a Republican talk about "family values" and putting them into "effect" (i.e. turning social goals into laws, like mandating stores close on Sundays for Christianity's sake) or when a Democratic representative has spent her entire career introducing legislation to regulate or eliminate guns or people being able to possess or carry them, while saying she "supports" the Second Amendment and "responsible gun ownership".
My argument is that for most of our history, and especially today. Government in all its forms relies particularly on wool, and the ability to pull it over as many people's eyes as possible.
I know there are authoritarians. I know many people love and desire authority, in any and all forms. However I believe that if people spoke plainly in their desires, if the subversiveness were eliminated, I think liberty seekers would have a stronger foothold. It is an unfortunate reality that humans are great liars, and authoritarian states rely on lies, while it is the hallmark of liberty and individualism to be as honest and forthcoming as possible. This puts liberty at an inherent disadvantage. However the main advantage this does give to individualists is that humans learn eventually that lying sucks, and it's hard to trust, and perhaps if it could be done, it might be better to have a form of government that punishes liars and demands honesty in the most honest way possible.
If you were presented with the two definitions in their most bold and realistic ways, which would you choose?
Definition A:
Freedom - Each person chooses his or her own life, to act on his or he own accord and make the best decision he or she desires.
Equality - Every person has equal treatment under the law. No person is afforded privilege or prejudice based on any quality they possess other than the exact matter at hand, no amount of wealth, fame, or influence is weighed, only the intrinsic value of human life.
Definition B:
Freedom - The people can pass any law they desire. No old custom or archaic beliefs can block the will of the majority. The state may do what is necessary to secure its continued existence and maintain order among the people.
Equality - No one may be different.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
One Date
The way I tally it, I've only ever been on one date in my life, and the girl had asked me out. We were in junior college. I found her very attractive for reasons I can't remember. She was in my Economics class. I wanted to know her name. Attendence wasn't taken verbally, and no one had a chance to socialize in class, so I grabbed the sign-in sheet and counted back the names until I found hers. But being the socio-sexually repressed person I am, I didn't do anything with her name. Leastways talk to her.
I turned 19 years old. This would be a long year. After class the day after my birthday I was about to go drive to a bank and cash my birthday money from my grandparents when she stopped me. She asked me to go to lunch with her, and If I hadn't already oddly been interested in her; If it had been any other girl in the world, I would have said no. I've rejected every advance every girl has ever made. It took me a long time to even realize this.
I will now list for you every one of those times (because Baby, there aren't that many).
In 4th grade a cute girl I really liked and talked with alot dispatched her friend to ask her if I liked her. I said no. Pretty muched killed things there.
In 5th grade this beautiful girl I'd tease/joke with and talk to all day really obviously liked me and I was completely oblivious, it would be a chapter in itself listing all the ways she tried to get me to show any reciprocity.
In 6th grade another cute girl dispatched a friend to say she had a crush on me. I ignored the information and never talked to her. Until, well, things were much worse socially for me.
In 8th grade a gorgeous and lovely new girl to school asked me if I would go to the school dance with her. I literally laughed in her face while telling her no.
Now at this point you must be thinking A. What the hell is wrong with this guy? and/or B. What a dick.
But the story is a bit more complicated. Certainly my actions were stupid, but I didn't know this at the time.
Jump to high school and by then I was a social wreck. I made no new good friends. I played water polo, I socialized at lunch, but otherwise I was completely withdrawn. Most teens were becoming social beings, learning their "place" in society. All I knew was that I didn't feel comfortable existing.
I had crushes of my own. One girl I held a crush from 3rd grade until 8th grade. She was as smart, if not smarter than me (which is unsual in a human, not bragging by any means, this whole story is about how much I suck as a human. But I have a relatively high IQ, a decent memory, and enough wit to weave myself a facade of a genius. However I am often too stubborn to ever be wrong, to my own detriment). Laura was her name. By 5th grade I was infatuated with her. She asked me to "couple's skate" once at a class trip to the skating rink. I held her hand while skating in a circle, and that my friends is the most sexual contact I had with a girl until I was 23. Sexual not even being remotely the right word, more like held hands as classmates, not even friends. I meant to ask Laura to dance with me once in 6th grade, but the opportunity never arose. A couple years later Laura went off to another school and stories trailed back of her turning into a boozey slut. While this wouldn't be the last time a girl chose liquor and cheap sex over me, the nature of school rumors must temper that claim to be being only "probably true". And I do have to give a bit of leeway in that she technically didn't choose "over me"'rather "beside me" as I was little more than a stump as far as I or she was concerned.
After Laura left there was a void and I filled it with a couple other smart cute girls as my default "crush". A girl named Allison took top spot eventually and by default held that title throughout high school, as I really was dead inside by then. By sheer coincidence Ally's boyfriend in high school became a friend of mine. He didn't know I knew her; and he'd tell me all about his continually unsuccessful attempts to have sex with her. All he ever got by the end of sophmore year was making out and some breast play. Kind of a hallmark of what a dipshit I was (probably still am) when Ally asked me to sign her yearbook in 8th grade I wrote (this was 15 years ago, and I still remember) "I don't know you, do I?" Two years later when her boyfriend asked me the same thing, on the spot I wrote him a short story about Vikings and Viagra.
It wasn't until college that I began to feel some self confidence. First of all I managed to graduate high school, a daunting task considering my fucked up family life that I'll have to get into to tie all this crazy shit together. Secondly I had my own car I paid for from a job I'd been working at since I was 13. Third I was a college student, free to succeed or fail at my choosing. Finally I was pretty good looking, having been on a swim team and then getting on a good diet. I was literally self made from head to toe. Yet all that gave me just about enough confidence to only talk to a few people in the quad, and rail about politics and philosophy which I was increasingly interested in.
Back to this girl I liked asking me to lunch. I said ok and we start walking to her car. On the way it comes up that I had just turned 19. She proceeded to punch me in the arm 19 times. This was a ritual I was unfamiliar with, but it was also the most a girl had touched me in my life (except holding hands, which is more like one long touch).
The One Date In My Life
We go to Chilis. I order a burger, but I was too self conscious of looking gross eating it so I let it sit there and I talked instead. But let me back this up, make it more real, she ordered the burger, I was too self conscious to even read the menu, I looked at it, but I couldn't read it. I just ordered what she did. I have good table manners, or more precisely I am capable of fine etiquitte. My French Canadian grandmother and my hyper-intelligent social butterfly mother both embedded me with the necessities of good table manners and how to not gross out a dinner date. But burgers, American to their messy core, are like a middle finger to good manners. The only proper way to handle a burger is to not. No food in hand, no shoving all my food at my mouth at once, no letting dripping ingredients spill about, no having to put down what I couldn't finish, no food on my face, and oh lord no crunchy squishy chewing sounds of a half dozen ingredients at once.
She mercifully went to the restroom and I quickly ate most of the burger in a matter of a minute. Of course when she returned she pointed this out, and I was even more embarassed than I could have imagined. Things went only downhill from here. She insightfully pointed out that I never asked her for her name. And like a lamb to the slaughter I told her why I already knew it. Then for the love of God I tried to steer the discussion away from pointing out all the stupid shit I was doing, and proceeded to get into a tirade about gun control.
She never talked to me again.
While there have been times in my life that I have gone places and done things with women with which I had romantic interest/sex with/one night stand/deep feelings of love/etc. There were never 'dates' proper, that is that much lauded cultural practice of courting. I hardly think post coital meals, or snacks between girls I just met, or elaborate evenings with women I loved who entirely had no idea I was doing my absolute best to show affection could possibly count as "dates". Dates are something definable, they are in pursuit of getting to know someone, often someone practically or completely a stranger, where each can examine the other. Well borne acquaintances, and cheap meetings with lustful and brief interludes just can't fit the bill.
I turned 19 years old. This would be a long year. After class the day after my birthday I was about to go drive to a bank and cash my birthday money from my grandparents when she stopped me. She asked me to go to lunch with her, and If I hadn't already oddly been interested in her; If it had been any other girl in the world, I would have said no. I've rejected every advance every girl has ever made. It took me a long time to even realize this.
I will now list for you every one of those times (because Baby, there aren't that many).
In 4th grade a cute girl I really liked and talked with alot dispatched her friend to ask her if I liked her. I said no. Pretty muched killed things there.
In 5th grade this beautiful girl I'd tease/joke with and talk to all day really obviously liked me and I was completely oblivious, it would be a chapter in itself listing all the ways she tried to get me to show any reciprocity.
In 6th grade another cute girl dispatched a friend to say she had a crush on me. I ignored the information and never talked to her. Until, well, things were much worse socially for me.
In 8th grade a gorgeous and lovely new girl to school asked me if I would go to the school dance with her. I literally laughed in her face while telling her no.
Now at this point you must be thinking A. What the hell is wrong with this guy? and/or B. What a dick.
But the story is a bit more complicated. Certainly my actions were stupid, but I didn't know this at the time.
Jump to high school and by then I was a social wreck. I made no new good friends. I played water polo, I socialized at lunch, but otherwise I was completely withdrawn. Most teens were becoming social beings, learning their "place" in society. All I knew was that I didn't feel comfortable existing.
I had crushes of my own. One girl I held a crush from 3rd grade until 8th grade. She was as smart, if not smarter than me (which is unsual in a human, not bragging by any means, this whole story is about how much I suck as a human. But I have a relatively high IQ, a decent memory, and enough wit to weave myself a facade of a genius. However I am often too stubborn to ever be wrong, to my own detriment). Laura was her name. By 5th grade I was infatuated with her. She asked me to "couple's skate" once at a class trip to the skating rink. I held her hand while skating in a circle, and that my friends is the most sexual contact I had with a girl until I was 23. Sexual not even being remotely the right word, more like held hands as classmates, not even friends. I meant to ask Laura to dance with me once in 6th grade, but the opportunity never arose. A couple years later Laura went off to another school and stories trailed back of her turning into a boozey slut. While this wouldn't be the last time a girl chose liquor and cheap sex over me, the nature of school rumors must temper that claim to be being only "probably true". And I do have to give a bit of leeway in that she technically didn't choose "over me"'rather "beside me" as I was little more than a stump as far as I or she was concerned.
After Laura left there was a void and I filled it with a couple other smart cute girls as my default "crush". A girl named Allison took top spot eventually and by default held that title throughout high school, as I really was dead inside by then. By sheer coincidence Ally's boyfriend in high school became a friend of mine. He didn't know I knew her; and he'd tell me all about his continually unsuccessful attempts to have sex with her. All he ever got by the end of sophmore year was making out and some breast play. Kind of a hallmark of what a dipshit I was (probably still am) when Ally asked me to sign her yearbook in 8th grade I wrote (this was 15 years ago, and I still remember) "I don't know you, do I?" Two years later when her boyfriend asked me the same thing, on the spot I wrote him a short story about Vikings and Viagra.
It wasn't until college that I began to feel some self confidence. First of all I managed to graduate high school, a daunting task considering my fucked up family life that I'll have to get into to tie all this crazy shit together. Secondly I had my own car I paid for from a job I'd been working at since I was 13. Third I was a college student, free to succeed or fail at my choosing. Finally I was pretty good looking, having been on a swim team and then getting on a good diet. I was literally self made from head to toe. Yet all that gave me just about enough confidence to only talk to a few people in the quad, and rail about politics and philosophy which I was increasingly interested in.
Back to this girl I liked asking me to lunch. I said ok and we start walking to her car. On the way it comes up that I had just turned 19. She proceeded to punch me in the arm 19 times. This was a ritual I was unfamiliar with, but it was also the most a girl had touched me in my life (except holding hands, which is more like one long touch).
The One Date In My Life
We go to Chilis. I order a burger, but I was too self conscious of looking gross eating it so I let it sit there and I talked instead. But let me back this up, make it more real, she ordered the burger, I was too self conscious to even read the menu, I looked at it, but I couldn't read it. I just ordered what she did. I have good table manners, or more precisely I am capable of fine etiquitte. My French Canadian grandmother and my hyper-intelligent social butterfly mother both embedded me with the necessities of good table manners and how to not gross out a dinner date. But burgers, American to their messy core, are like a middle finger to good manners. The only proper way to handle a burger is to not. No food in hand, no shoving all my food at my mouth at once, no letting dripping ingredients spill about, no having to put down what I couldn't finish, no food on my face, and oh lord no crunchy squishy chewing sounds of a half dozen ingredients at once.
She mercifully went to the restroom and I quickly ate most of the burger in a matter of a minute. Of course when she returned she pointed this out, and I was even more embarassed than I could have imagined. Things went only downhill from here. She insightfully pointed out that I never asked her for her name. And like a lamb to the slaughter I told her why I already knew it. Then for the love of God I tried to steer the discussion away from pointing out all the stupid shit I was doing, and proceeded to get into a tirade about gun control.
She never talked to me again.
While there have been times in my life that I have gone places and done things with women with which I had romantic interest/sex with/one night stand/deep feelings of love/etc. There were never 'dates' proper, that is that much lauded cultural practice of courting. I hardly think post coital meals, or snacks between girls I just met, or elaborate evenings with women I loved who entirely had no idea I was doing my absolute best to show affection could possibly count as "dates". Dates are something definable, they are in pursuit of getting to know someone, often someone practically or completely a stranger, where each can examine the other. Well borne acquaintances, and cheap meetings with lustful and brief interludes just can't fit the bill.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Every lane but yours is moving
I was listening to the semi-scientific Podcast for howstuffworks.com on "Murphy's Law" and they mentioned the psychological belief that while you are driving, you might find that every other lane around you is moving but yours seems to stand still.
I know people believe this, and some of them are those jerks that have to cut into any lane that is moving. But to claim that all lanes move equally, or that there aren't slower lanes is simply wrong. Having driven up and down California in the the hearts of the worst traffic America has to offer I have gained a great personal understanding of how traffic flows.
The allusion that this idea is on par with "the grass is always greener on the other side." fails to acknowledge that grass is greener on someone's lawn. It's either yours or your neighbors, on average if you have two neighbors there's a 66.66% chance the grass is greener on the other side. With that in mind, I would like to list a few real-world conditions that might elicit this supposed false psychological condition.
Rubbernecking I hate you rubberneckers. Really I do. Combine rubberneckers, with most driver's moronic propensity to tailgate even on the highway, and you get a ripple effect. The ripple appears in the form of a slow-down. And if there are enough cars coming steadily, the slow-down will ripple on for hours long after whatever on the side of the road has left. What annoys me the most is that having a car simply pulled over to the side will cause a slow-down as every person has to look at the car.
How it slows down one lane more than another: Rubbernecking requires actually being able to see what's so interesting. I've found that if a slow-down occurs on the right, then the right lane(s) will slow more than the left lanes, and if an event occurs on the left, the right will less likely be affected. So you might find that you're just driving along, both lanes moving smoothly, then for no damn reason you have to slow down because the car in front of you is slowing down. The other lane(s) might just keep going, after a period of slower driving, sometimes for a few miles, you'll reach some magic point, and be able to speed up again.
How to avoid, solve this problem:
1. STOP RUBBERNECKING!!!
2. If you see a car off to the side of the road in the distance, get in the farthest lane from it.
3. Keep at least two car lengths from the car in front of you while you're at a good speed. If you see the car in front of you starting to slowly brake, don't brake, take your foot off the gas for as long as you safely can. This will create a buffer that will help to ease the slow-down. I have a theory that would require actual science or testing, but I believe if enough cars kept a decent buffer the occasional moron rubbernecker could be negated and a slow-down ripple could be eliminated.
4. While lurking about I found another blog with someone else's funny and rather detailed idea on how to break up a rubbernecking jam. Basically his idea is for a person to slow down even more than the rest of the group, forcing a large gap to form, then speeding up and getting out of the jam, hopefully setting the line of deceleration back far enough that people won't want to slow down to rubberneck. http://www.cockeyed.com/science/rubbernecking/rubbernecking.php
Highway Exits When you're on a highway that has critical exits and high traffic, you will hate this. Basically a lot of drivers want to get off the highway, perhaps in one of a series of important exits, and the traffic starts piling up. The best example of this is coming off the Bay Bridge going into San Francisco. San Francisco has an almost non-existent highway system. And all of downtown encompasses only a few quick exits. If you miss them, you're next exit is going to be literally across the street from Daly City.
How it slows down one lane more than another: All the downtown exits are on the right. Most people coming in to the city know this. So they preemptively get in the right lane. So as more people get into the right lane, the more it slows down. The more it slows down, the more people want to get into the right lane. The other lanes stay at a normal speed, and the right lane comes to a crawl. What's worse is those who want to come into the lane at the last second. They have to stop dead in their lane, causing cars to quickly stop and back up, and they require the already slow lane to come to a complete stop to let them in. If you're in right lane, and you don't have any plans of exiting any time soon, you are in hell, the only thing you're thinking about is getting out. The problem for you is, now you're going 5 miles per hour, and the lane next to you is doing 65. You have to risk life and limb flooring the vehicle to just change lanes.
How to avoid, solve this problem: The best thing you can do is time your entrance into the exit lane. Maybe 1 or 2 exits before your exit you should start trying to get in. This way you won't be that asshole blocking two lanes at your exit, nor will you spend 30 extra minutes sitting in the slow lane. I believe if most people followed this, then the exit lane wouldn't be as plugged up as it gets, but there's no social intelligence on the road except perhaps most red lights being followed and people usually driving in the right direction. You have to act on your own best interest.
Slow Drivers Whether it's a big rig, or an old lady, slow drivers have created an entire subculture in the long empty roads of this country. They serve to ensure every poor bastard who's ever driven on a highway has been forced to slow to some arbitrary speed like 59 in a 65 making each person question their choices in life as some asshole 50 feet in front of them has managed to take hours of their life.
How it slows down one lane more than another: Big rigs tend to stay in the slow lane. They are professionals, they don't hope to ruin your day, but if you let them they will. Slow drivers tend to be bad drivers. One has to be fairly oblivious as a human to drive too slow on the highway, and thus more often than not, you will find these morons sticking to the fast lane. I can tell you on a number of occasions I've had to stay in the slow lane going 80 passing up a row of them doing 50 in the fast lane. The concurrence of douchebag slow driver in the fast lane, big rig in the slow lane does occur regularly. Basically if you're on a highway with two or fewer lanes you will get screwed every so often, it isn't so much that they only effect one lane, but they only affect a small region of a highway. They create a pack of cars that is led and trailed by open road.
How to avoid, solve this problem: I mentioned that a subculture has spawned from slow drivers. It's really fascinating actually, because I've never heard anyone else talk about it, and I didn't realize it existed until I had driven a route across California nearly 500 miles about 5 or 6 times. In general when slow cars hover around big rigs, or you get that convoy of big rigs where they take turns passing each other, you end up with a pack of cars all going 54 miles an hour in the 65. The slow drivers don't care, they'll do this their entire life. The average driver doesn't enjoy this, but they'll wait it out. The speeder really hates this, he'll either be speeding up and then dropping back repeatedly, cutting people off trying to find the better lane, or just tailgating the hell out of people like that's going to convince the entire pack to speed up.
Then there are the lane changers. These are the true professionals. They don't get mad or complacent in a pack, they get good. The lane changer doesn't speed, they don't have to. The lane changer doesn't cut people off, nor will the lane changer willingly slow anyone down. The lane changer is the alpha driver on the highway. You must become one if you ever want to get out of these packs. To be a lane changer is very simple. Whenever you find yourself slowed down by a car, you get in another lane. If there's a car slowing you down there too, get in the next lane, repeat. If there are cars blocking all the lanes, look to the one that is going slightly faster, get behind that car and continue. Soon enough you'll be able to work your way through an entire pack of cars until you get in front of them. You will find it was just two assholes staying about the same slow speed, and everyone else unwilling to pass them up. While in the pack it may appear like the highway is just bumper to bumper full of traffic, as soon as you get out, you'll realize it's open for miles. Of course the longer you drive the more of these packs you'll run into. And that's how you'll realize you're part of a community of special drivers. As you work your way from pack to pack, you'll notice a few other cars are doing the same thing you are. You'll end up cutting about 1/6 off your drive or about 10 minutes per hour, this really adds up on long drives, it also helps you keep focused, as you have to actually think while driving where your next move in changing lanes is going to be. Another benefit is that you'll be spending most of the time in open roads, rather than being cramped in a pack of cars, subsequently you'll statistically less likely to be in a car accident.
Now it's important to make a fine point on the speeding. I find a hard speed limit to be a bullshit number. Whether it be 65 or 80. The DMV and the law is enough of a bureaucratic smartass system that they acknowledge road conditions determine actual safe speed. And while driving 50 in heavy fog and rain in the night is a stupid idea, the speed limit doesn't magically dictate the "safe" speed during sunny clear days with no one else around or any road hazards whatsoever. If you're in the middle of a valley with visual range 100 miles in every direction and there's no car for 10 miles around you and it's perfectly sunny and clear and the road is in great condition and you have a good safe car, you should be able to drive 250 miles per hour without the police giving you shit. Obviously that's not how it works out though. They're so logical when implementing max speeds during poor conditions, but when the conditions are good, all of a sudden we have to adhere to an inflexible number hammered out by lobbyists and politicians. Despite popular belief, if the speed limit says 65, then 66 is speeding. By that logic we're all criminals; almost every driver speeds every time they drive. I don't even know how no one has put a check on that. The number on the sign should not be the mathematical dividing line between "safe" and being pulled over and paying hundreds of dollars. If they want people going no higher than 65, the sign should say "Speed Range 55" and say you can manipulate your way up or down 10 mph based on conditions. But no, that would be A. assuming people have any self responsibility, and B. it would cut into ticket revenue, which is the real reason all vehicle and driving infractions exist at this point.
So when I say a lane changer doesn't speed, I'm not talking about the state's police version of speeding, I mean the lane changer isn't doing 90 around cars doing 60. It's not safe. Lane changers are decidedly safe. And that I want to hammer in. Because you probably never notice the Lane Changer proper, most people notice the shitty driver who has to do no less than 90 like their life is the movie Speed 3. Those psychos will kill someone, they speed too damn fast for the cars around them, they are forced to make rapid and dangerous lane changes simply to prevent from colliding with other vehicles, and they don't give a crap about cutting you off. I'm also not talking about those dipshit overly aggressive drivers who feel that if they aren't cutting in front of you, you're somehow wronging them, those are the people who will flip you off while nearly smashing into you getting in front of you. I've seen them when they get in front of everyone, they don't go any faster, they just wait for more cars to screw with. Those aren't lane changers, those are assholes, and I wish they would be sent to jail or fined their car for that.
When I first started changing lanes, when I'd get out of a pack I'd speed up to about 90 in the open road, and have to come back down to 60 when I'd reach the next group. After going through several packs, I noticed I wasn't shaking the other lane changers who were doing about 70 in the open road. There I realized speeding does very little for cutting down the hours. It does help somewhat, but as a practical matter there's no point risking the ticket when the guys not topping off 20 mph slower than me are sticking with me because by the time I reach 90 I have to slow down again for another pack. Of course I did drive fast as hell a couple times getting lucky with the traffic and managed to make a good 8 hour drive (with no traffic, no stops) become a 6 hour drive literally averaging 80 mph even after making a couple stops. I was about to beat the 6 hour on the return making about a 5 1/2 hour run (averaging 87 MPH over 480 miles) but a cop car came up beside me flashed its light, and the guy gestured for me to slow down, so I slowed to 65 the rest of the way and still did it in 6 hours. When I get up to this speed, it becomes increasingly harder to shave off hours. 8 to 6 is great, and I'm moving the average from 60mph to 80mph which is pushing it like a beast, but to go from 6 to 5 hours I'd have to jump up to average 96 mph which simply isn't happening. Even If I floored it across the entire state of California going 110 whenever I could, the traffic would force me back down to 60 or 55 every few miles and there's no way to make that up. So I have learned from thousands of miles of driving across thousands of miles of California through the biggest cities and the emptiest valleys that the most efficient long distance driving is to just ride that safe comfortable high speed limit, occasionally taking advantage of opportunities to go maybe 5 to 10 over, and popping out of every pack trying to get me to go 60 or less.
That's my wisdom for those who don't want to always be the guy in the slowest lane. One final point, if you're in a real traffic jam. Not like the false ones I've listed, but one like where the only highway to the Bay Area is literally backed up two valleys inland about 70 miles from the actual shorline, there's no trick. At least not one that I've seen. You can try lane changing, but you're never getting out of the pack. And ultimately if you keep lane changing in bumper to bumper, you're going to piss yourself and others off needlessly as you come to realize the futility of your efforts. The best thing to do is just take the opportunity to relax. Don't be that one crazy asshole who snaps and drives on the shoulder at about 80 trying to weave into traffic 100 cars per bound. Of course if you're late for something that won't forgive you, meh I can't deride you unless you're unsafe. The worst I had it was one time I had a job in San Francisco working a Fleet Foxes concert, I left extra early just so I might get a chance to enjoy the city for a little while, and lo a jam backed me up on the Bay Bridge for 40 minutes. 40 MINUTES ON THE BRIDGE! If you've ever crossed it you know it takes 5 minutes even in heavy traffic. And what would have been the worst traffic jam I've ever seen took place in San Diego after the Warped Tour. I was at the Coor's Amphitheater which is located in the middle of the desert, the parking area has ONE EXIT for thousands of cars. We left before the concert was over, in fact the biggest band of the night, the Dead Kennedys had just got on stage when we left. But even then with only ONE FREAKING EXIT FOR THE PARKING LOT OF THE BIGGEST THEATER AREA ANYWHERE NEAR SAN DIEGO it was a pure roadblock. Long story short my friend was driving, we waited nearly an hour just to be able to back out of our parking spot, no exaggeration, and then he just said fuck it, moved some traffic cones, and floored it, cut in front of a thousand cars by plowing through the center cone area and popped out in seconds. Sometimes you got to do what you got to do. But come on man, really? You're in the fucking desert, there's literally nothing else out there, the parking lot is surrounded by 4 roads, and there's only 1 god damn exit, which actually faces the road with all the loading/unloading traffic right in front of the amphitheater. They bring this on themselves. That's what you have to realize. Be safe, try not to get ticketed and fund their idiocy, but otherwise take every opportunity to get out of the pack. They might say the idea of thinking you're always in the slowest lane is a psychological fallacy, but that's because those sons of bitches are always in the slowest lane, and they have no clue there's a way out.
I know people believe this, and some of them are those jerks that have to cut into any lane that is moving. But to claim that all lanes move equally, or that there aren't slower lanes is simply wrong. Having driven up and down California in the the hearts of the worst traffic America has to offer I have gained a great personal understanding of how traffic flows.
The allusion that this idea is on par with "the grass is always greener on the other side." fails to acknowledge that grass is greener on someone's lawn. It's either yours or your neighbors, on average if you have two neighbors there's a 66.66% chance the grass is greener on the other side. With that in mind, I would like to list a few real-world conditions that might elicit this supposed false psychological condition.
Rubbernecking I hate you rubberneckers. Really I do. Combine rubberneckers, with most driver's moronic propensity to tailgate even on the highway, and you get a ripple effect. The ripple appears in the form of a slow-down. And if there are enough cars coming steadily, the slow-down will ripple on for hours long after whatever on the side of the road has left. What annoys me the most is that having a car simply pulled over to the side will cause a slow-down as every person has to look at the car.
How it slows down one lane more than another: Rubbernecking requires actually being able to see what's so interesting. I've found that if a slow-down occurs on the right, then the right lane(s) will slow more than the left lanes, and if an event occurs on the left, the right will less likely be affected. So you might find that you're just driving along, both lanes moving smoothly, then for no damn reason you have to slow down because the car in front of you is slowing down. The other lane(s) might just keep going, after a period of slower driving, sometimes for a few miles, you'll reach some magic point, and be able to speed up again.
How to avoid, solve this problem:
1. STOP RUBBERNECKING!!!
2. If you see a car off to the side of the road in the distance, get in the farthest lane from it.
3. Keep at least two car lengths from the car in front of you while you're at a good speed. If you see the car in front of you starting to slowly brake, don't brake, take your foot off the gas for as long as you safely can. This will create a buffer that will help to ease the slow-down. I have a theory that would require actual science or testing, but I believe if enough cars kept a decent buffer the occasional moron rubbernecker could be negated and a slow-down ripple could be eliminated.
4. While lurking about I found another blog with someone else's funny and rather detailed idea on how to break up a rubbernecking jam. Basically his idea is for a person to slow down even more than the rest of the group, forcing a large gap to form, then speeding up and getting out of the jam, hopefully setting the line of deceleration back far enough that people won't want to slow down to rubberneck. http://www.cockeyed.com/science/rubbernecking/rubbernecking.php
Highway Exits When you're on a highway that has critical exits and high traffic, you will hate this. Basically a lot of drivers want to get off the highway, perhaps in one of a series of important exits, and the traffic starts piling up. The best example of this is coming off the Bay Bridge going into San Francisco. San Francisco has an almost non-existent highway system. And all of downtown encompasses only a few quick exits. If you miss them, you're next exit is going to be literally across the street from Daly City.
How it slows down one lane more than another: All the downtown exits are on the right. Most people coming in to the city know this. So they preemptively get in the right lane. So as more people get into the right lane, the more it slows down. The more it slows down, the more people want to get into the right lane. The other lanes stay at a normal speed, and the right lane comes to a crawl. What's worse is those who want to come into the lane at the last second. They have to stop dead in their lane, causing cars to quickly stop and back up, and they require the already slow lane to come to a complete stop to let them in. If you're in right lane, and you don't have any plans of exiting any time soon, you are in hell, the only thing you're thinking about is getting out. The problem for you is, now you're going 5 miles per hour, and the lane next to you is doing 65. You have to risk life and limb flooring the vehicle to just change lanes.
How to avoid, solve this problem: The best thing you can do is time your entrance into the exit lane. Maybe 1 or 2 exits before your exit you should start trying to get in. This way you won't be that asshole blocking two lanes at your exit, nor will you spend 30 extra minutes sitting in the slow lane. I believe if most people followed this, then the exit lane wouldn't be as plugged up as it gets, but there's no social intelligence on the road except perhaps most red lights being followed and people usually driving in the right direction. You have to act on your own best interest.
Slow Drivers Whether it's a big rig, or an old lady, slow drivers have created an entire subculture in the long empty roads of this country. They serve to ensure every poor bastard who's ever driven on a highway has been forced to slow to some arbitrary speed like 59 in a 65 making each person question their choices in life as some asshole 50 feet in front of them has managed to take hours of their life.
How it slows down one lane more than another: Big rigs tend to stay in the slow lane. They are professionals, they don't hope to ruin your day, but if you let them they will. Slow drivers tend to be bad drivers. One has to be fairly oblivious as a human to drive too slow on the highway, and thus more often than not, you will find these morons sticking to the fast lane. I can tell you on a number of occasions I've had to stay in the slow lane going 80 passing up a row of them doing 50 in the fast lane. The concurrence of douchebag slow driver in the fast lane, big rig in the slow lane does occur regularly. Basically if you're on a highway with two or fewer lanes you will get screwed every so often, it isn't so much that they only effect one lane, but they only affect a small region of a highway. They create a pack of cars that is led and trailed by open road.
How to avoid, solve this problem: I mentioned that a subculture has spawned from slow drivers. It's really fascinating actually, because I've never heard anyone else talk about it, and I didn't realize it existed until I had driven a route across California nearly 500 miles about 5 or 6 times. In general when slow cars hover around big rigs, or you get that convoy of big rigs where they take turns passing each other, you end up with a pack of cars all going 54 miles an hour in the 65. The slow drivers don't care, they'll do this their entire life. The average driver doesn't enjoy this, but they'll wait it out. The speeder really hates this, he'll either be speeding up and then dropping back repeatedly, cutting people off trying to find the better lane, or just tailgating the hell out of people like that's going to convince the entire pack to speed up.
Then there are the lane changers. These are the true professionals. They don't get mad or complacent in a pack, they get good. The lane changer doesn't speed, they don't have to. The lane changer doesn't cut people off, nor will the lane changer willingly slow anyone down. The lane changer is the alpha driver on the highway. You must become one if you ever want to get out of these packs. To be a lane changer is very simple. Whenever you find yourself slowed down by a car, you get in another lane. If there's a car slowing you down there too, get in the next lane, repeat. If there are cars blocking all the lanes, look to the one that is going slightly faster, get behind that car and continue. Soon enough you'll be able to work your way through an entire pack of cars until you get in front of them. You will find it was just two assholes staying about the same slow speed, and everyone else unwilling to pass them up. While in the pack it may appear like the highway is just bumper to bumper full of traffic, as soon as you get out, you'll realize it's open for miles. Of course the longer you drive the more of these packs you'll run into. And that's how you'll realize you're part of a community of special drivers. As you work your way from pack to pack, you'll notice a few other cars are doing the same thing you are. You'll end up cutting about 1/6 off your drive or about 10 minutes per hour, this really adds up on long drives, it also helps you keep focused, as you have to actually think while driving where your next move in changing lanes is going to be. Another benefit is that you'll be spending most of the time in open roads, rather than being cramped in a pack of cars, subsequently you'll statistically less likely to be in a car accident.
Now it's important to make a fine point on the speeding. I find a hard speed limit to be a bullshit number. Whether it be 65 or 80. The DMV and the law is enough of a bureaucratic smartass system that they acknowledge road conditions determine actual safe speed. And while driving 50 in heavy fog and rain in the night is a stupid idea, the speed limit doesn't magically dictate the "safe" speed during sunny clear days with no one else around or any road hazards whatsoever. If you're in the middle of a valley with visual range 100 miles in every direction and there's no car for 10 miles around you and it's perfectly sunny and clear and the road is in great condition and you have a good safe car, you should be able to drive 250 miles per hour without the police giving you shit. Obviously that's not how it works out though. They're so logical when implementing max speeds during poor conditions, but when the conditions are good, all of a sudden we have to adhere to an inflexible number hammered out by lobbyists and politicians. Despite popular belief, if the speed limit says 65, then 66 is speeding. By that logic we're all criminals; almost every driver speeds every time they drive. I don't even know how no one has put a check on that. The number on the sign should not be the mathematical dividing line between "safe" and being pulled over and paying hundreds of dollars. If they want people going no higher than 65, the sign should say "Speed Range 55" and say you can manipulate your way up or down 10 mph based on conditions. But no, that would be A. assuming people have any self responsibility, and B. it would cut into ticket revenue, which is the real reason all vehicle and driving infractions exist at this point.
So when I say a lane changer doesn't speed, I'm not talking about the state's police version of speeding, I mean the lane changer isn't doing 90 around cars doing 60. It's not safe. Lane changers are decidedly safe. And that I want to hammer in. Because you probably never notice the Lane Changer proper, most people notice the shitty driver who has to do no less than 90 like their life is the movie Speed 3. Those psychos will kill someone, they speed too damn fast for the cars around them, they are forced to make rapid and dangerous lane changes simply to prevent from colliding with other vehicles, and they don't give a crap about cutting you off. I'm also not talking about those dipshit overly aggressive drivers who feel that if they aren't cutting in front of you, you're somehow wronging them, those are the people who will flip you off while nearly smashing into you getting in front of you. I've seen them when they get in front of everyone, they don't go any faster, they just wait for more cars to screw with. Those aren't lane changers, those are assholes, and I wish they would be sent to jail or fined their car for that.
When I first started changing lanes, when I'd get out of a pack I'd speed up to about 90 in the open road, and have to come back down to 60 when I'd reach the next group. After going through several packs, I noticed I wasn't shaking the other lane changers who were doing about 70 in the open road. There I realized speeding does very little for cutting down the hours. It does help somewhat, but as a practical matter there's no point risking the ticket when the guys not topping off 20 mph slower than me are sticking with me because by the time I reach 90 I have to slow down again for another pack. Of course I did drive fast as hell a couple times getting lucky with the traffic and managed to make a good 8 hour drive (with no traffic, no stops) become a 6 hour drive literally averaging 80 mph even after making a couple stops. I was about to beat the 6 hour on the return making about a 5 1/2 hour run (averaging 87 MPH over 480 miles) but a cop car came up beside me flashed its light, and the guy gestured for me to slow down, so I slowed to 65 the rest of the way and still did it in 6 hours. When I get up to this speed, it becomes increasingly harder to shave off hours. 8 to 6 is great, and I'm moving the average from 60mph to 80mph which is pushing it like a beast, but to go from 6 to 5 hours I'd have to jump up to average 96 mph which simply isn't happening. Even If I floored it across the entire state of California going 110 whenever I could, the traffic would force me back down to 60 or 55 every few miles and there's no way to make that up. So I have learned from thousands of miles of driving across thousands of miles of California through the biggest cities and the emptiest valleys that the most efficient long distance driving is to just ride that safe comfortable high speed limit, occasionally taking advantage of opportunities to go maybe 5 to 10 over, and popping out of every pack trying to get me to go 60 or less.
That's my wisdom for those who don't want to always be the guy in the slowest lane. One final point, if you're in a real traffic jam. Not like the false ones I've listed, but one like where the only highway to the Bay Area is literally backed up two valleys inland about 70 miles from the actual shorline, there's no trick. At least not one that I've seen. You can try lane changing, but you're never getting out of the pack. And ultimately if you keep lane changing in bumper to bumper, you're going to piss yourself and others off needlessly as you come to realize the futility of your efforts. The best thing to do is just take the opportunity to relax. Don't be that one crazy asshole who snaps and drives on the shoulder at about 80 trying to weave into traffic 100 cars per bound. Of course if you're late for something that won't forgive you, meh I can't deride you unless you're unsafe. The worst I had it was one time I had a job in San Francisco working a Fleet Foxes concert, I left extra early just so I might get a chance to enjoy the city for a little while, and lo a jam backed me up on the Bay Bridge for 40 minutes. 40 MINUTES ON THE BRIDGE! If you've ever crossed it you know it takes 5 minutes even in heavy traffic. And what would have been the worst traffic jam I've ever seen took place in San Diego after the Warped Tour. I was at the Coor's Amphitheater which is located in the middle of the desert, the parking area has ONE EXIT for thousands of cars. We left before the concert was over, in fact the biggest band of the night, the Dead Kennedys had just got on stage when we left. But even then with only ONE FREAKING EXIT FOR THE PARKING LOT OF THE BIGGEST THEATER AREA ANYWHERE NEAR SAN DIEGO it was a pure roadblock. Long story short my friend was driving, we waited nearly an hour just to be able to back out of our parking spot, no exaggeration, and then he just said fuck it, moved some traffic cones, and floored it, cut in front of a thousand cars by plowing through the center cone area and popped out in seconds. Sometimes you got to do what you got to do. But come on man, really? You're in the fucking desert, there's literally nothing else out there, the parking lot is surrounded by 4 roads, and there's only 1 god damn exit, which actually faces the road with all the loading/unloading traffic right in front of the amphitheater. They bring this on themselves. That's what you have to realize. Be safe, try not to get ticketed and fund their idiocy, but otherwise take every opportunity to get out of the pack. They might say the idea of thinking you're always in the slowest lane is a psychological fallacy, but that's because those sons of bitches are always in the slowest lane, and they have no clue there's a way out.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Pineapple on Pizza
So I'm trying out new Podcasts, and I decide to listen to an episode of "Fresh Air" an NPR show hosted by Terry Gross. The guest is an American author named John Marianai, plugging his newest book How Italian Food Conquered the World . Immediately I'm annoyed by this asshole. He has this Peggy Hill way of over exerting himself pronouncing Italian words. In general trying to pronounce words correctly doesn't annoy me, what was annoying is that he'd stress the hell out the words, like each "parmigiano" was like climbing a mountain. To make it worse he kept saying Naples. Naples. Naples. THE CITY IS CALLED NAPOLI. If you want to insist on calling it "par-May-giiiiiiii-Aaaaa-nooooo" like you were just dragged out of a fucking vineyard in Sicily, you might want to call the Italian cities by their god damn actual Italian names. What made things even stranger, to the point I knew I had to tell someone, was that every so often during the interview he would break into Italian accent on completely English words. Now this guy is not Italian, his parents are not Italian, he's clearly not fluent, why the hell is he breaking into an accent he doesn't have?
What's got me in a huff is what this interview culminated into. Marianai admitted that Italian food proper didn't conquer the world, real Italian food hasn't even conquered Italy, each region has its own dishes. It was Italian-American food that has spread globally. The very nature of Italian-American food is a modification on the original. Particularly bigger portions, with more and new ingredients. Not one damn item called "Italian" in America is pure to its Italian origins. And let's not begin to get into how tomatoes, an Italian staple, are originally from the Americas. So this guy has acknowledged that the food has evolved, and has continued to evolve. He specifically praises Wolfgang Puck for his innovative pizzas, like a "Jewish style" with caviar, salmon, and sour cream. Then this New York liberal host Terry Gross asks him "like I don't understand pineapple on pizza and things like that, um could you explain that?" (really, you don't "like um" understand pineapples? are you living in a fucking pineapple? it tastes good that's the long and short of most food, and when it doesn't taste good there's 2 other options 1. only choice, 2. Need the vitamins, I've solved all your inane food questions till kingdom come).
This fauxtalian dipshit's response is incredibly more snooty than the bitch's question "Well that is very typically American...corporate" and proceeds to rip into California Pizza Kitchen. Again, fucking tomatoes are American, you're cool with that. Puck puts fish eggs on a pizza, that's art. But pineapple goes too far!!!! In fact pineapple can't simply be an odd divergence, no it's a corporate America concoction. And we all know from being Americans that there's nothing more evil, disingenuous, and deplorable as that which is developed by American corporations. I would contend that even if he were right, what difference does it make who married pineapples with pizza? But there's a problem, he's dead fucking wrong, not only were Hawaiian pizzas not invented in America, they're NOT FUCKING CORPORATE you socialist self hating American wannabe Italian moron!
Hawaiian pizza was created in 1962 in Ontario Canada by a regular restaurant owner loooong before your precious Puck came along and started really making shit up.
He continues "let's as you say call it a Hawaiian pizza and put on pineapple, and I think at a certain point a pizza stops being a pizza, or at least stops being a good pizza, or anything like a good pizza." (emphasis mine)
Wow. 30 seconds later this "purist" says to use canned tomatoes to make marinara.
So altogether I don't think this would have set me off except it's at least the third time in the last couple weeks where I've heard somone say Hawaiian pizza isn't real pizza. I heard Adam Carolla going off about it too. Pizza, in America is a dough base, usually roundish, usually a tomato based sauce on it, often pesto or a cheese mix, cheese is usually a main ingredient, then you put on top WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT. Certainly if you broach a new level like putting entire sandwiches or lasagna on top it might gain a "hybrid" status based on bulk weight, but otherwise it's all fucking pizza. You want "pure"? It doesn't fucking exist! At this point people usually chime in with the Margherita style pizza, it's often called a "classic" "true" Italian pizza. While yes it was created in Italy, it was created as a GIMMICK!! A publicity stunt! Pizzas were already well established, the margherita was made just as a gift to the Queen of Italy, intentionally only using 3 toppings that matched the colors of the new flag of Italy. That's about as fake an origin as one can get! The Hawaiian has a more natural and honest origin than the hailed Margherita.
What's got me in a huff is what this interview culminated into. Marianai admitted that Italian food proper didn't conquer the world, real Italian food hasn't even conquered Italy, each region has its own dishes. It was Italian-American food that has spread globally. The very nature of Italian-American food is a modification on the original. Particularly bigger portions, with more and new ingredients. Not one damn item called "Italian" in America is pure to its Italian origins. And let's not begin to get into how tomatoes, an Italian staple, are originally from the Americas. So this guy has acknowledged that the food has evolved, and has continued to evolve. He specifically praises Wolfgang Puck for his innovative pizzas, like a "Jewish style" with caviar, salmon, and sour cream. Then this New York liberal host Terry Gross asks him "like I don't understand pineapple on pizza and things like that, um could you explain that?" (really, you don't "like um" understand pineapples? are you living in a fucking pineapple? it tastes good that's the long and short of most food, and when it doesn't taste good there's 2 other options 1. only choice, 2. Need the vitamins, I've solved all your inane food questions till kingdom come).
This fauxtalian dipshit's response is incredibly more snooty than the bitch's question "Well that is very typically American...corporate" and proceeds to rip into California Pizza Kitchen. Again, fucking tomatoes are American, you're cool with that. Puck puts fish eggs on a pizza, that's art. But pineapple goes too far!!!! In fact pineapple can't simply be an odd divergence, no it's a corporate America concoction. And we all know from being Americans that there's nothing more evil, disingenuous, and deplorable as that which is developed by American corporations. I would contend that even if he were right, what difference does it make who married pineapples with pizza? But there's a problem, he's dead fucking wrong, not only were Hawaiian pizzas not invented in America, they're NOT FUCKING CORPORATE you socialist self hating American wannabe Italian moron!
Hawaiian pizza was created in 1962 in Ontario Canada by a regular restaurant owner loooong before your precious Puck came along and started really making shit up.
He continues "let's as you say call it a Hawaiian pizza and put on pineapple, and I think at a certain point a pizza stops being a pizza, or at least stops being a good pizza, or anything like a good pizza." (emphasis mine)
Wow. 30 seconds later this "purist" says to use canned tomatoes to make marinara.
So altogether I don't think this would have set me off except it's at least the third time in the last couple weeks where I've heard somone say Hawaiian pizza isn't real pizza. I heard Adam Carolla going off about it too. Pizza, in America is a dough base, usually roundish, usually a tomato based sauce on it, often pesto or a cheese mix, cheese is usually a main ingredient, then you put on top WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT. Certainly if you broach a new level like putting entire sandwiches or lasagna on top it might gain a "hybrid" status based on bulk weight, but otherwise it's all fucking pizza. You want "pure"? It doesn't fucking exist! At this point people usually chime in with the Margherita style pizza, it's often called a "classic" "true" Italian pizza. While yes it was created in Italy, it was created as a GIMMICK!! A publicity stunt! Pizzas were already well established, the margherita was made just as a gift to the Queen of Italy, intentionally only using 3 toppings that matched the colors of the new flag of Italy. That's about as fake an origin as one can get! The Hawaiian has a more natural and honest origin than the hailed Margherita.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)