color que sugiere color

Oct 2009 30

Seriously unsure as to whether or not I want to keep this up. I don’t know what it is, or where it came from. Enjoy, or don’t. Better yet, don’t read it. Or do. Whatever.

fog settling nonchalantly around the streetlamps

parking lot across the street covered in eerily fake white light

wet, but not too wet, dare I say enjoyably wet

copper haze encircling the the lamp sitting atop a metal pillar

rain: constant, grounding

fog: eerie, but somehow reassuring

night: dark, eveloping, colorless

it’s stabilizing, the lack of color. Real.

Nature doesn’t pretend, “this is what the world is

no false, unreachable goals” color is, or isn’t, nothing more

day: trees pretending to lead to something beautiful, brilliant.

just brown. dying leaves, grass, always rain.

————–

¿Porque la lluvia? ¿Porque las mentiras, esperanza falsa?

Prefiero el noche oscuro, real, basado en realidad. Hermoso.

Mañana todos volveremos al mentira, al color que sugiere color.

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »

the time is now

Oct 2009 28

Gay marriage is an issue pushing it’s way towards the forefront of the political playing field, and an issue that really shouldn’t be ignored. There are now six states that currently allow same-sex couples to be married, and a 7th that did at one point. However, this number is at risk of slipping on November 3rd.

On November 3rd, the state of Maine has a People’s Veto up for vote. This vote acts very much in the way that Proposition 8 did in California, a “yes” vote means “repeal the legalization of same-sex marriage” and a “no” vote means “do not repeal the legalization, keep it legal”. I’ve ranted and raved enough about this particular vote, but as someone who spend a large portion of his life in Maine, I have a connection there that native Minnesotans may not.

I don’t want to rant more about this specific vote, but I do want to discuss same-sex marriage as a concept. The opposing viewpoint, that marriage is between a man and a woman, puts forward a number of different arguments for why same-sex marriage should remain illegal, but it seems as though none of these hold much water, and this is what I want to talk about today.

Same-sex coupling/marriage is unnatural, animals in nature don’t do it. This decidedly not true. There are species of apes (Bonobos, to be more precise) that exhibit very homsexual behavior, entirely within their natural habitat.

The word “marriage” is strictly a religious word, and the government shouldn’t be deciding what my religious beliefs can be. Clearly it’s true that the government shouldn’t be imposing religious viewpoints on the general public. I wouldn’t like it anymore than someone who believed the opposite of what I do. Separation of church and state is an important part of the principles this country is founded on. However, the idea that the word “marriage” is only a religious word also is just patently false. The word marriage derives originally from the latin word maritus, which means lover or nuptial. The verb form of this word, maritare, means “to marry” or “to give in marriage”. The english language came by this word through french, but the origins are latin. While it’s possible that all of these were religious ideas (the Roman Catholic church possibly had a very large influence on latin), it’s important to note that none of these root words specify gender, or a religious context. Furthermore, the term “marriage” is used all the time in a secular context. If the religious people of this country want to claim “marriage” as a religious word, wonderful. However, all civil marriages need to be called “civil unions” and it seems as though religious organizations should hold separate ceremonies for their marriages.

Being gay is a choice, and we as a society shouldn’t have to cater to every single person’s lifestyle. Tell me, if you’re putting forward this argument, when did you choose to be straight? At what point in your life did you decide that you preferred the opposite gender to your own? What’s that? You didn’t? That’s right, you didn’t. Just as you don’t choose to be inherently introverted, or you don’t choose to like some foods. Clearly people can choose to act on their tendencies, or to not act on their tendencies. I regularly choose not to eat vast amounts of candy, despite the fact that I love candy. I also choose to be more out-going in a social setting, despite the fact that I’m a relatively introverted person. People can choose to act a certain way, either with or against the way they are naturally, but this doesn’t make homosexuality a choice or a whim.

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. The bible also says that you’re not supposed to eat shell-fish, or wear clothing that mixes fibers, or eat fruit from a tree that is older than three years of age. These parts of the bible are ignored all the time, because they’re not relevant to our society anymore. If we’re allowed to ignore parts of what the bible says, doesn’t this sort of remove the authority that the bible has on what we can and can’t do?

If same-sex marriage is legalized, my children will be taught that it’s ok for men to marry men, or women to marry women in school. My children might become gay! I know I turned into a zebra when I first learned about them. In fact, I’m still a zebra. No, your children won’t turn gay because they’re being taught that it’s OK. Homosexuality isn’t something one becomes if exposed to it, one cannot catch homosexuality like one does with the flu. Furthermore, you children may already be gay or lesbian, they may already know that they prefer people of their own gender to people of the other gender. This is OK!

These seem to be some of the primary arguments opposing same-sex marriage laws. As one can see, there are responses to all of them (I know, I know, everything has a resopnse to it), but I hope my responses have caused people to think about the position they are putting forward.

Same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, and it’s a matter of love. No one is harmed when straight people get married, marriage between people of the same gender isn’t different. The sanctity of marriage won’t be affected by same-sex couples marrying, particularly given that the sanctity of marriage is already arguably under attack (consider the rate of divorce in the United States).

I know I promised I wouldn’t rant about Question 1 on the Maine ballot, but this feels important. If you’re from Maine, go vote No on Question 1. If you’re from Maine, but not there currently, request an absentee ballot. If you’re not from Maine, but you know someone who is, go urge them to vote, urge them to make their voice heard for equality and justice. If you’re not from Maine, and don’t know anyone there, but this issue is important to you, donate money to the No on Question 1 campaign. There are 6 days left before this is put to a vote, I’m sure the No on Question 1 campaign could use monetary support in the last sprint before voting day. UPDATE: Colin (@weikaolun ) on Twitter, directed me towards a way to help the No On 1 effort in Maine, even if you’re not in the state. Check it out

This issue isn’t about religion, it’s not about removing rights from other US citizens, it’s not about turning the children of this country into homosexuals, and it’s not an attack on the American Way of Life. It’s about people who love other people wanting to be able to commit themselves to the other person for life. It’s about people yearning to be able to have a way to show their love to the world in the same way that other people in this country can.

Those of you in Minnesota reading this? Let’s do what we can to get Minnesota up to speed with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and hopefully Maine.

tl;dr Gay marriage isn’t bad, and the reasons people give for why it is are wrong. Do what you can to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine.

general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

what do you love, what drives you?

Oct 2009 11

I’ve had two separate people ask me (and a room full of other people) a pretty simple, straightforward question: “What are you passionate about?” The first was @thingles , and the second was Andrew Sims, from @DOOMTREE .

The questions itself is pretty simple. Everyone has a passion, right? Everyone has at least something that they care about. But it raises a good point, and as @thingles said (paraphrased), “it throws people off guard when you ask them that”.It got me thinking, what am I passionate about?

I know things that make me act passionately, things like social justice issues, gay marriage, religion, technological ethics, and I’m sure some other list of thigns that I’m not aware of. So, I act passionately about things, but is that really what passion is?

For instance, things like abortion rights, if I get started, I can come across to others as very passionate. While I think abortion rights are very important, I don’t do anything about it, except vote. While I think the environment is very, very important, I’m not a member of Greenpeace (or other organizations working to further environmentalism). So how do we define passion? Is it a belief? Is it acting on a belief?

If passion is acting on a belief, does having a belief but not acting on it make someone ambivalent, or lazy? And if just having a belief is passion, am I incredibly passionate about everything in my life?

At this point, the definition of passion is just semantics, and there’s an argument to be made that passion (as a belief) doesn’t unless you act on it, just as there’s an argument to be made that nothing matters unless it’s affecting something, and that a system of beliefs without action is useless, let alone passion. But I don’t want to go there.

So, the question remains unanswered, what am I passionate about? I’m a Computer Science and Spanish double major, is that my passion? No, probably not. I’ve known forever that I wanted to study computers, but that’s just becaue they make sense to me.

Does passion mean what “clicks” with you? Is passion manifested in music? Or is passion manifested in one’s significant other? How can passion be related to another human? Doesn’t that mean we’d be entirely dependent on the other?

I’m inclined to think passion is “what truly matters” to someone, something that someone would really, absolutely, have a difficult time living without. If that’s the case, passion becomes much more personal. I would say, if that’s the case, I’m not passionate about all the things listed above.

“What are you passionate about?” My answer, @thingles and @DOOMTREE , is that I’m passionate about humans, and I’m passionate about life. I’m passioante about the creation that comes out of being human, and I’m passionate about the interactions and lack thereof that every person goes through. I’m passionate about being, and about doing, and about being able to continue to be and do.

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »

liberty and justice for all

Oct 2009 10

I wrote this for the University Register, last week.As such, those of you in $small_town may have already read this.

Over the summer, the State of Maine legalized same-sex marriage, and became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage. After what was a pretty easy battle in the scheme of political fights in the state house and senate, the bill was put on Maine Governor Baldacci’s desk, and was signed into law.
In Maine, like in California, there is an option for a “People’s Veto”, wherein the citizens of the state have the option to petition to put the decision to referendum, and get voted on during the next general election. Like in California, citizens of the state of Maine collected the amount of signatures to get the decision put to referendum, and now (like in California) there will be a vote in November over the legalization of same-sex marriage in the State of Maine.
Clearly, in terms of process, there are quite a bit of similarities between the situation in Maine right now, and the situation in California before the 2008 election (as though you couldn’t tell from the previous paragraph). However, these are not the only similarities. In California, the Church of the Latter Day Saints poured a significant portion of money into pushing the political campaign “Yes on 8″ (remember that a “yes” vote meant same-sex marriage would be illegal, and “no meant that same-sex marriage would stay legal). Similarly, in Maine, we are seeing a big push by the Catholic Church and Catholic-based “for the family” organizations to similarly advocate for “yes” votes (illegalizing same-sex marriage).
This trend towards tax-exempt religious groups pushing very, very hard in one direction on political issues is, quite frankly, disturbing. Unfortunately, in our society, money can make or break a political campaign, and these religious groups did, and continue to, pour large amounts of money into these campaigns. Why do I find this disturbing? A pretty simple concept, and one made pretty clear in the First Amendment to our Counstitution.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is a political issue, plain and simple. There are arguments to be made that “marriage” is a religious term, but it’s not. Or, it is, but it’s also a very secular term, used very widely in our society. Therefore, these arguments will be ignored for the duration of this article. Religious groups are allowed to be tax-exempt, with the stipulation that they do not participate in political activity, this is what political action groups are for. The idea that religious groups are allowed to use their tax exempt status to help fund a very public, very political, and ultimately very unjust campaign goal seems wrong.
Yes, I understand religion is very crucial to many people in our country, and I understand that people’s religious view permeate their opinions on public policy. I’d like to consider a fairly harsh example, but I think there are a number of parallels. In the South, during the civil war era, there was a sentiment among many southern Christians that Africans were descendants of Ham (the son of Noah who was punished, and told he would forever serve his brothers), that slavery was therefore entirely justified from a biblical/religious perspective.
What seems to be at the crux of the anti-same-sex marriage sentiments is that in some form or another, the religion of the people pushing this idea dictates the way they feel about same-sex marriage. This is wrong, just as justifying slavery through religion is wrong, just as getting stoned (with rocks, not marijuana) for eating shellfish is wrong.
Religion, at a personal, self-centering level, doesn’t bother me terribly much. I respect that people get to their conclusions about their creator (or lack thereof) through their own way, and that is entirely valid. I don’t dispute people’s right to believe in god, just as I wouldn’t want my right disputed. I do however, take issue when religious groups, particularly very powerful religious organizations, start pushing their ideals into public policy. If religious groups are going to be turning themselves into, or setting up and funding, political action groups, then they don’t deserve tax-exempt status, and they should be subject to the laws and regulations surrounding political funding.

Uncategorized, general Twitter It! No Comments »

you fake it ’till you make it, that’s the story of your life

Sep 2009 09

I really need to stop using song lyrics as post titles. Like, they’re fitting, but seriously, kinda cliche.

The school year has started again, and droves of new freshman are back on the $small_school campus, as well as most of the people who were here last year. Some of the freshmen probably think they know what they want to study, many probably don’t. Of those that do, a good portion will probably change their mind in their (approximately) 4 years here at $small_school. This is all ok, that’s part of what college is, right? That’s what we’re told, or at least, that’s what it felt like I was told for the 13 years I spend in the public (and quasi-private, but that’s another story) school system.

We’re told from a very young age that school is preparing us for life. In high school (or at least my high school, others might’ve been different), we were told that by the end of our four years there, we would be prepared for college, work, military, or whatever we wanted to do with our lives. I knew about halfway through high school that I wanted to study one of my current majors. People tell me I’m one of the lucky ones that knew what they wanted to “do” coming in. Now, did that mean I knew what I wanted my job to be for the rest of my life? Of course not, that would be silly.

Is it so silly to assume that I’ll know what I want to do, given that I’ve been told for a long time that I’m being “prepared for life”? Is it silly to think that after spending 13 years studying general subjects, and at least another 4 on a more specified subject area that I’ll have a goal of what I want to do with all this education? It doesn’t seem that silly. At least of the premises behind the educational system is to prepare a person for what they will do in later years. Obviously it’s better to be prepared for a field you enjoy than for a field you hate. But, at least for me, it comes down to what “prepared” means.

At the end of my four years at $small_school, will I have the skills needed to go out into the private sector into a Computer Science related job? More likely than not. Will I have the pre-requisite training to continue my education in graduate school? Very possibly. Does this mean I’m “prepared” for life? Does preparation mean “having the requisite skill-set”, or is there something deeper?

In various conversations I’ve had, I’m not the only one who isn’t sure what they want to be doing once they get out of $small_school, $medium_school, or $big_school. Clearly there are students who know what they want to do, some want to be a doctor, some want to go to grad school, some are working towards a job in journalism, and some have accepted their fate as art students who will have more difficulty finding a job in their field, but are ok with that because they love their art. But it seems as though the people who don’t know what they want to do outnumber the people who have a goal.

Is this inherently bad? No, I don’t think it is. I don’t think it’s good, but I don’t think it’s bad. Is it the job of the educational system to get students to a place where they have a starting place, and giving them the tools they need to move from there? Or is the job of the educational system strictly to give students the training to suceed in the marketplace? It seems as though $small_school takes the approach that their graduates should be fully prepared to take whatever life throws at them.

I will say, I acknowledge that this might be me turning a non-issue into an issue, because I’m trying to justify my own world spinning out of control, but I honestly think students reaching the end of their four years fit into one of three categories. 1) The students who know exactly what they want to to, 2) the students who don’t really know, but will get a job or go to grad school because it seems like the logical next step, or 3) the students who have no clue, and don’t know how to start deciding.

What’s the right answer? I don’t think there is one. Should students be pro-active in this process? Absolutely. Is this whole issue outside the domain of what the school system is striving to do? Very possibly.

Quite frankly, education and learning the content is probably the easier part of this equation.  How does one train a student to set a goal, work towards that goal, adapt should something in their plan change? How does one train a student to know what they want, or to know how to discover what they want? I’m not sure one can, but the school systems should stop professing to producing fully prepared students, or perhaps be more clear about what “prepared” means. Or maybe I should sleep more, and think less.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

i’m sick and tired of being sick and tired

Aug 2009 30

I was, initially, very unsure of whether or not I wanted to come back to $small_town, because I’ve been living in small towns for far too long, seemingly. I still don’t like small towns, and I don’t have plans to live in one for the rest of my life (clearly).

However, upon arriving in said $small_town, and seeing people (some of whom don’t live here). I think I’ve reached an epiphany. Spending time with people, and seeing Cloud Cult, and watching people (different people than the people I was spending time with), it seems as though, wait for it: people are just people. I mean, let me rephrase that, sort of. Everyone is just a person, regardless of what they’re doing. The people in Cloud Cult are just that, people, despite the spectacular music they produce.

It seems as though the way people interact with others is defined by their interpretations of who the other person/people is/are. So, for instance, talking to a professor, most people (and I did) have predisposed ideas about what a professor is, and you treat the professor accordingly.

Deep, right? Well, it’s not, but it seemed that way when I “discovered” it. It struck me as interesting that we define our interactions based on our own ideas of who someone is. Not how that person defines themselves, and not going into the interaction with a completely open mind and seeing where it goes.

What this means, at least in my context, is that I’m now more conscious. I’m not interested in judging people based on “who they are”, I’m interested in having a conversation/connection with them, as people. Everyone has a life story, let that define them, not what your pre-conceived notions of them are. It’s refreshing, in a way, because a lot of my angst-inducing stuff recently (within the past year?) seems to be centered around what other people thought of who I was, sort of. Or rather, I never felt like I was getting enough out of whatever I was doing. I sort of felt like I was drifting aimlessly, not really finding anything meaningful (outside of one person who I don’t see enough, my family, and other select few).

So, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the way people interact gives meaning to that interaction, and then many interactions give meaning to day to day life. So, does this mean that my conclusion is that our lives are meaningless without interactions with others? No, but I’m not sure why. I’m sure I’ll get there, but that’s outside this scope.

In short, I need to re-adjust the way I’m looking at life. I don’t like this sort of “inherent instability” in the way life is happening.

general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

absence is, in and of itself, meaningful

Jul 2009 15

Or, something like that. I’ve been having a complete and utter lack of ideas to write on for the blog. I wish I were more creative, then I’d share some of that. Or maybe had viewpoints on things that haven’t already been said a hundred times.

Or maybe I need to stop thinking so much, and go back to my “I’m right, there are no other viewpoints that are valid” stance, but that doesn’t feel like me anymore. I’m not sure what does feel like me, but I don’t really know what does.

Anyway, I’m working a lot, and sitting a lot. I guess the point of this was to say “I’m not dead” to all 10 (if even) people who read this.

Uncategorized, general Twitter It! No Comments »

it’s official

Jul 2009 08

Dear world,

I screwed up. I missed a crucial deadline to study abroad, and let too much time lapse. I was not willing to gamble on not getting my visa in time, and so therefore have chosen to request deferment for the study abroad program until a later date.

I was not in a place where I felt as though I could put in the effort it would require to get a visa, and then have it come too late for me to attend the program I was going to attend.

I will be trying to study abroad later on in my academic career, but it will not be fall semester of the 2009-2010 school year.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Jake

Uncategorized, general Twitter It! No Comments »

[insert worthwhile post below]

Jun 2009 17

so, I was gonna write something useful tonight. That’s not happening. I’ve kinda blah lately, I think it’s the lack of human contact and the sitting in front of a computer all day long coding.

Something needs to change, I need to force myself on people (or something that sounds less creepy). I don’t like this up and down-ness that happens. I want stability.

meh.

Uncategorized, general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

this thing still exists?

Jun 2009 07

Apparently so. Past few weeks have been busy, what with spending time in the $cities (you’ll know what I mean by ‘the cities’, if you don’t, I’m not telling you) and going to a conference at Stanford University.

Time spent seeing my lady-friend was awesome, and makes the whole distance thing that much harder.

California was also awesome, good to see those people again, topics were informative, weather was nice and sushi was cheap. All around a good time.

I don’t really have a topic, I just realized I haven’t written in forever. Hopefully I’ll be able to come up with something soon.

TTFN

general Twitter It! No Comments »