Recently I've experienced an onslaught of thoughts composed poetically. I'll share some of those here, transcribed from the back of receipts and shards of paper. Thank you for reminding me of this outlet.
After a recent time I spent meditating, I wrote this. It was a waking experience, but encumbered by things that I found and the consequences of finding them there. I'm still learning how to take it all in, and how to deal with letting it out.
At the base of the willow tree,
where the root is centered,
the darkest hole
and the deepest splinter.
Breathe deep unsettled mind as time
and distance meet
under waves of wanting,
nothing is and always is.
Your fire kept darkened,
smothered far from surface air.
In cracks and in fissures,
the emptiness steeps
keeping safe the source.
Hardwired, breaking through
a fortuitous expanse to find a vast
and lonely space.
Upon returning, shaken by visions
shared and lost
visions permeative, separating,
entangled
creating a rift and a narrow bridge
upon which a wind
about me as I make my way
sharing what I've found and the
distance it's created.
Late at night, my mind sometimes speaks in french.
Un jour, quand le soleil ne lavera pas en mer,
il dansera avec les etoiles
tous les monde fera l'amore,
et je serai content.
Mais aujourd'hui je passer
mon temps en noir et brun
et sans bonheur,
j'aurais le froideur
et oubliera mes mains.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Department of Community Destruction
The latest in the saga of All Star has now turned into an ongoing battle over proper english grammar writing. I received this letter earlier this week, retyped here:
"Dear Ms. Lay; After further review, it has been determined that you Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) application request does not meet the minimum requirements for a special exception to be heard by the BZA. The expansion or alteration of the convenience store/deli to include tables and chairs will require additional parking, resulting in the noncompliance with the aforementioned parking requirement and is prohibited by Section 114-1040.3(7(c)).
If you wish to continue to use the property for a restaurant (sit-down) use, a Special Use Permit will be required. Please contact the Land Use Admin...." ending with names and numbers of the zoning planner and administrators.
The fact that I am denied the option to appeal the decision is based upon the following Zoning Code outlining the restrictions of appeals to be heard by the BZA; if an appeal falls into one of these categories, it can not be heard by the BZA:
"(7) Nonconforming use: enlargement, extension or alteration. Enlargement, extension or structural alteration of a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use; extension or expansion of a nonconforming use within a building or structure; or construction of an accessory building or structure to serve an existing nonconforming use; provided that:
c. There shall be no increase in the number of dwelling units on the property, nor shall the granting of such exception result in noncompliance with any yard, open space, parking or other requirements of this chapter or any increase in the degree or extent of any nonconforming feature;"
My confusion stems from the fact that this clause refers to adding "dwelling spaces" on the property, which does not apply to my case. When I asked for clarification from both the Planner and the Zoning Administrator, all I was given is this response: "The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has limited powers and under the exception, the BZA cannot hear this case due to noncompliance with the bolded section, below. The change from a take-out restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 150 sq. ft. of floor area to a sit-down restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 100 sq. ft. of floor area results in a net increase in the parking required. Parking is a feature of the use and, for this reason, is not permitted under the normal provisions of the nonconforming section of the Ordinance nor is it permitted under the Special Exception powers of the BZA." and the previous clause written again, but bolding only the second half of the sentence.
Their explanation relies upon this clause, but it is explained by skipping over the first half of the sentence and saying that the second half of the sentence applies to my case....? How can a compound sentence, with a subject and predicate and conjunction (which I will remind us are words such as: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), be separated? The purpose of the conjunction is to link the second half of the sentence to the first half of the sentence and explain it further. So, obviously, my application is denied because the zoning clause is able to be interpreted to fit the zoning administrator's decision, rather than read following the grammar rules by which it was written.
"Dear Ms. Lay; After further review, it has been determined that you Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) application request does not meet the minimum requirements for a special exception to be heard by the BZA. The expansion or alteration of the convenience store/deli to include tables and chairs will require additional parking, resulting in the noncompliance with the aforementioned parking requirement and is prohibited by Section 114-1040.3(7(c)).
If you wish to continue to use the property for a restaurant (sit-down) use, a Special Use Permit will be required. Please contact the Land Use Admin...." ending with names and numbers of the zoning planner and administrators.
The fact that I am denied the option to appeal the decision is based upon the following Zoning Code outlining the restrictions of appeals to be heard by the BZA; if an appeal falls into one of these categories, it can not be heard by the BZA:
"(7) Nonconforming use: enlargement, extension or alteration. Enlargement, extension or structural alteration of a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use; extension or expansion of a nonconforming use within a building or structure; or construction of an accessory building or structure to serve an existing nonconforming use; provided that:
c. There shall be no increase in the number of dwelling units on the property, nor shall the granting of such exception result in noncompliance with any yard, open space, parking or other requirements of this chapter or any increase in the degree or extent of any nonconforming feature;"
My confusion stems from the fact that this clause refers to adding "dwelling spaces" on the property, which does not apply to my case. When I asked for clarification from both the Planner and the Zoning Administrator, all I was given is this response: "The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has limited powers and under the exception, the BZA cannot hear this case due to noncompliance with the bolded section, below. The change from a take-out restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 150 sq. ft. of floor area to a sit-down restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 100 sq. ft. of floor area results in a net increase in the parking required. Parking is a feature of the use and, for this reason, is not permitted under the normal provisions of the nonconforming section of the Ordinance nor is it permitted under the Special Exception powers of the BZA." and the previous clause written again, but bolding only the second half of the sentence.
Their explanation relies upon this clause, but it is explained by skipping over the first half of the sentence and saying that the second half of the sentence applies to my case....? How can a compound sentence, with a subject and predicate and conjunction (which I will remind us are words such as: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), be separated? The purpose of the conjunction is to link the second half of the sentence to the first half of the sentence and explain it further. So, obviously, my application is denied because the zoning clause is able to be interpreted to fit the zoning administrator's decision, rather than read following the grammar rules by which it was written.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The wind is in from Africa, and last night I couldn't sleep.
Maybe it's just the rain today, or maybe other events that have stirred me, but I'm feeling restless, again. I feel like the snow globe of my mind has been picked up and shaken swirling flurries of white through the cerebral spinal fluid, making it cloudy and confusing in here. I spent the last seventy two hours engrossed in awe-inspiring ideas about living sustainably and growing a life that, to me, feels more complete. Now the challenge, and difficulty, and confusion that I feel is in balancing that vision with my current state of mind and living situation. It's a process that I've done before; picking up and moving, changing my focus, aspiring towards something new, but this time is not as easy. This time I can not throw down what I am doing and start something new, turn over the leaf, cut the cord and start again. I'd prefer to be more eloquent with changing, this time. It's just more difficult to do it that way, perhaps. The slate can not be so easily wiped clean because this time there are other factors involved too, not just my own path. I'm not used to this process, and am feeling frustrated by it.
It's like this sweater I was just now beginning to knit. I got to the end of the third row, 300 stitches into it, and saw the mistake that I had made about 100 stitches back. The only way to fix it is to take out all the stitches to that point and rework it. So I began unraveling all the stitches, and saw another mistake even further back, which prompted me to make the decision to take out all of the stitches and start over again. Starting over again, now, is starting with the experience of how I lead to the mistakes I made before, so that this time I am more aware of the steps that lead to those mistakes and can now actively avoid that path. But starting over again also means taking apart what I have made, even though it had a few rough spots in it. Taking the whole thing apart takes more time to get to the place that I was only moments ago, but starting over this way does get rid of the two holes in my work that made it incomplete. I guess the ultimate question, when a mistake was made at some point in one's work, is whether or not to continue on with the holes that were made, or to unravel the work back, fix them and start stitching again.
It's like this sweater I was just now beginning to knit. I got to the end of the third row, 300 stitches into it, and saw the mistake that I had made about 100 stitches back. The only way to fix it is to take out all the stitches to that point and rework it. So I began unraveling all the stitches, and saw another mistake even further back, which prompted me to make the decision to take out all of the stitches and start over again. Starting over again, now, is starting with the experience of how I lead to the mistakes I made before, so that this time I am more aware of the steps that lead to those mistakes and can now actively avoid that path. But starting over again also means taking apart what I have made, even though it had a few rough spots in it. Taking the whole thing apart takes more time to get to the place that I was only moments ago, but starting over this way does get rid of the two holes in my work that made it incomplete. I guess the ultimate question, when a mistake was made at some point in one's work, is whether or not to continue on with the holes that were made, or to unravel the work back, fix them and start stitching again.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thanks for using me.
I've just spent the better part of two hours re-reading old blogs, on Myspace. My initial purpose in opening them was to export them into this current expanse of written thought, but alas there is no tool yet invented in which this can be accomplished (Myspace is an asylum). So, I'll merely reference them here, and suggest that further reading can be found there.
My other purpose, spawned and inspired from revisiting past thoughts and writings, is to practice some of my previous styles of writings in which I spent many minutes and hours composing just the right patterns to convey a certain meaning. I can see that that deliberate practice has now produced a certain unconscious behavior. The experience of writing, now, is rather passive, though the end result is still achieved. This may be akin to how a musician feels when transitioning from focused practice to playing without having to think about each component of the piece. In presenting it that way, the latter sounds more appealing; which is to say that thinking less is more appealing than struggling with something. I may be sadistic in this respect, but I prefer the struggle.
These previous blogs tended to focus upon one specific thought or idea. I would think of this idea and then connect it with other ideas and in a sense create a metaphor by applying it to something tangible in which I had experience. The title was also very important in that it presented a twist of information, or a dynamic layer to the rest of the writing. I tried to use words to create imagery through their association with our own personal experiences. For example, the word "tree" presents a common image as well as a personal image for each of us, but the tie that binds is the common elements of our images associated with that word, such as "leaves" "branches" "trunk". Using the common elements, I would link images together to create depth and layers and build upon the original idea to make it a solid, a structure. I can't recall if I was this thoughtful and direct in my original writings, but hindsight has a way of making things more clear, thus I can elaborate now on how I thought then.
I've had many arguments with myself and with others about the nature of relationships; relating with other humans. I specify humans because I want to exclude the relations that we may consider similar, such as those with our pets or with ourselves; relationship specifically refers to the relation between humans. These arguments tend to drift toward determining the purpose of relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint, I perceive relationships to be necessary for survival. Survival not only encompasses the present living generation but also the future generations; relationships are necessary specifically for survival long enough to achieve procreation and further the survival of our genes. In this respect, I am referring to relationships that are necessary for the survival of ideas, which is focusing more on the present need for the nature of relationships. (As an aside, the present need for relationships helps the procreation aspect as well, but that perhaps is a topic for another blog.) Ideas are similar to a seed in the proverbial growth of a plant, from seed to flower. Relationships nurture that growth, and prolong its life at every stage. An idea can occur from the thought of a single human, but the input from others experiences and perceptions tends to nourish the idea as well as takes on certain responsibilities. I personally have felt the experience of rooting the seed of an idea, but being involved in a relationship that did not water it enough to sustain its nourishment, as well as the experience of nourishing an idea through personal interaction within a fruitful relationship. Thus, relationships are necessary for our ideas to grow and to thrive.
Relationships are also selfish in this respect. Our ideas, in a sense, are personal property, and the request for input about a personal idea is the request for that relationship to shift in focus towards one's side. This "selfishness" in a relationship, of course, coincides with the over arching theme that inclusion in a relationship is, in the end, for one's personal gain; and for one's survival because of the added benefit of accomplishment and prolonged sense of worth that is so necessary to human survival. ( I should specify here that I am referring to ideas that would encompass the positive aspects of survival, rather than negative aspects such as fighting or lethal activities, which would ultimately decrease the likelihood of survival!) My ultimate argument proposes that ideas, as an extension of human existence, need human contact to survive. Whether or not that contact is "selfish" does not diminish its importance for any person involved in the relationship. We learn about ourselves through our interactions with others, and therefore need each other to live.
My other purpose, spawned and inspired from revisiting past thoughts and writings, is to practice some of my previous styles of writings in which I spent many minutes and hours composing just the right patterns to convey a certain meaning. I can see that that deliberate practice has now produced a certain unconscious behavior. The experience of writing, now, is rather passive, though the end result is still achieved. This may be akin to how a musician feels when transitioning from focused practice to playing without having to think about each component of the piece. In presenting it that way, the latter sounds more appealing; which is to say that thinking less is more appealing than struggling with something. I may be sadistic in this respect, but I prefer the struggle.
These previous blogs tended to focus upon one specific thought or idea. I would think of this idea and then connect it with other ideas and in a sense create a metaphor by applying it to something tangible in which I had experience. The title was also very important in that it presented a twist of information, or a dynamic layer to the rest of the writing. I tried to use words to create imagery through their association with our own personal experiences. For example, the word "tree" presents a common image as well as a personal image for each of us, but the tie that binds is the common elements of our images associated with that word, such as "leaves" "branches" "trunk". Using the common elements, I would link images together to create depth and layers and build upon the original idea to make it a solid, a structure. I can't recall if I was this thoughtful and direct in my original writings, but hindsight has a way of making things more clear, thus I can elaborate now on how I thought then.
I've had many arguments with myself and with others about the nature of relationships; relating with other humans. I specify humans because I want to exclude the relations that we may consider similar, such as those with our pets or with ourselves; relationship specifically refers to the relation between humans. These arguments tend to drift toward determining the purpose of relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint, I perceive relationships to be necessary for survival. Survival not only encompasses the present living generation but also the future generations; relationships are necessary specifically for survival long enough to achieve procreation and further the survival of our genes. In this respect, I am referring to relationships that are necessary for the survival of ideas, which is focusing more on the present need for the nature of relationships. (As an aside, the present need for relationships helps the procreation aspect as well, but that perhaps is a topic for another blog.) Ideas are similar to a seed in the proverbial growth of a plant, from seed to flower. Relationships nurture that growth, and prolong its life at every stage. An idea can occur from the thought of a single human, but the input from others experiences and perceptions tends to nourish the idea as well as takes on certain responsibilities. I personally have felt the experience of rooting the seed of an idea, but being involved in a relationship that did not water it enough to sustain its nourishment, as well as the experience of nourishing an idea through personal interaction within a fruitful relationship. Thus, relationships are necessary for our ideas to grow and to thrive.
Relationships are also selfish in this respect. Our ideas, in a sense, are personal property, and the request for input about a personal idea is the request for that relationship to shift in focus towards one's side. This "selfishness" in a relationship, of course, coincides with the over arching theme that inclusion in a relationship is, in the end, for one's personal gain; and for one's survival because of the added benefit of accomplishment and prolonged sense of worth that is so necessary to human survival. ( I should specify here that I am referring to ideas that would encompass the positive aspects of survival, rather than negative aspects such as fighting or lethal activities, which would ultimately decrease the likelihood of survival!) My ultimate argument proposes that ideas, as an extension of human existence, need human contact to survive. Whether or not that contact is "selfish" does not diminish its importance for any person involved in the relationship. We learn about ourselves through our interactions with others, and therefore need each other to live.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Saga Continues...
This past Friday afternoon, with our heads held high and armed with an arsenol of witty commentary and pertinent questions, Jamie and I marched straight in to city hall with the sole intention of standing our ground and only leaving once we had gained more information and a better plan of action. We quietly approached our unsuspecting vicitms in the Zoning Commission's office, and once given the chance, we opened fire with a barrage of demands for written documentaion and better explanations. It took some time for the desk clerks to regain their ground once we had strategically deployed our logical arguments. Their only defense was to present us with a document of appeal in which to address the next in their chain of command, the Board of Zoning Compliance. Upon presentaion of the document, we agreed to accept this as a gesture of truce, pending their retreat. We left the office unshaken and feeling victoriuos at our accomplishments. But the victory in this battle is only one of many that we must endure to ensure the preservation of our way of life.
We remain with strong spirits, and we are steadfast in preparing our minds and hearts in anticipation of a second (and final) battle. This next pursuit will be met with a much greater force, and we will need more support as well as dynamic planning in order to achieve a swift victory. In these next few weeks we will be preparing our defenses. We will draw up plans for our demands to remain as a deli/convenience store with the addition of tables and chairs. This "variance" tactic is our best possible defense and one in which we must make every effort to be completly accurate in pinpointing our target. We are asking for customers to sign petitions, we will need architecturally detailed floor plans, and we will present the board with many pictures of the proposed space with the happy faces that rely on All Star for their survival. We are confident that these tactics will capture and criple our enemies defenses, thus claiming our victory once again.
We remain with strong spirits, and we are steadfast in preparing our minds and hearts in anticipation of a second (and final) battle. This next pursuit will be met with a much greater force, and we will need more support as well as dynamic planning in order to achieve a swift victory. In these next few weeks we will be preparing our defenses. We will draw up plans for our demands to remain as a deli/convenience store with the addition of tables and chairs. This "variance" tactic is our best possible defense and one in which we must make every effort to be completly accurate in pinpointing our target. We are asking for customers to sign petitions, we will need architecturally detailed floor plans, and we will present the board with many pictures of the proposed space with the happy faces that rely on All Star for their survival. We are confident that these tactics will capture and criple our enemies defenses, thus claiming our victory once again.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Oh All Star, where art thou??
"The man" is trying to bring me down, man!
The city zoning commission sent a letter giving us a thirty day notice to "cease all operations" in the business because we are not in compliance with our "certificate of occupancy" that states we are zoned as Grocery/Convenience Market. The evidence of our non-compliance is the tables and chairs that we put in last year! Apparently, and I have yet to see this in writing, tables and chairs = restaurant (sit down) and are not permitted in a grocery/convenience market. Therefore, our options are one of the following:
1. Get rid of the tables and chairs and go back to being just a market (no draft beer either, obviously) and no sit-in customers to keep us company!
2. Pay $250 to appeal the decision made by the zoning commission and fight a losing battle to stay as we are.
3. Pay $200 and apply for a restaurant zoning certificate, but open Pandora's box of other regulations and costs that go into that as well
4. Go bankrupt and look for some thing else to do with my life!
I'm optimistic in going with option 3, but our lease is up at the end of this year, and I'm not sure that I want to spend a bunch of money making this a restaurant if I can't buy the building or renew the lease. This space is not particularly well suited for a restaurant. Some of the set backs will include requirements to make the entrance (an 8 inch stone step) and the bathroom (a 4ft x 4ft closet) handicap accessible, which may not even be physically possible in this building. We will also be required to have two to seven reserved parking spaces, also an impossible feat for this city neighborhood or it will cost five hundred dollars a month if we can convince a parking lot owner two blocks away. Thus, option 3 will be a long, arduous, expensive process.
Option 1 is looking ever more appealing, except for the defeatist feeling and letting "the man" win. Putting pride aside, there may be some better opportunities, and at an affordable rate, in focusing on the market side of things. One promising venture is in setting up an agreement with a local farmer for her to keep a case of fresh veggies and fruits on sale here throughout the season (I'll be meeting with her today!). By pushing the local produce and using some of it in our deli, we could capture the local market that is looking for this kind of opportunity as an alternative to the box-grocery store. Another idea that a good friend (Sophia) reminded me of is to make more prepared foods (especially using the local products) like salads and baked goods along with our sandwiches, and sell those in bulk containers. There was a woman, Annie, in our home town that made a decent living off of making salads and baked goods and selling them to local sandwich shops or direct from her house. She grew much of her ingredients in her garden, and made delicious combinations that were better than any store bought brand. That is something that I think AllStar could do as well, and maybe have some agreements with other local shops to sell or trade for their products (coffee for cookies!).
I like the thought of making more delicious foods, but I am not totally set on letting the seating go, yet. This fight is not over. I'll have to do some more research and get some more information on how to make the system work for us, again. But at the least this little incident has prompted me to be a bit more proactive with ideas for getting All Star to a better place. Any ideas or words of encouragement are always appreciated!
The city zoning commission sent a letter giving us a thirty day notice to "cease all operations" in the business because we are not in compliance with our "certificate of occupancy" that states we are zoned as Grocery/Convenience Market. The evidence of our non-compliance is the tables and chairs that we put in last year! Apparently, and I have yet to see this in writing, tables and chairs = restaurant (sit down) and are not permitted in a grocery/convenience market. Therefore, our options are one of the following:
1. Get rid of the tables and chairs and go back to being just a market (no draft beer either, obviously) and no sit-in customers to keep us company!
2. Pay $250 to appeal the decision made by the zoning commission and fight a losing battle to stay as we are.
3. Pay $200 and apply for a restaurant zoning certificate, but open Pandora's box of other regulations and costs that go into that as well
4. Go bankrupt and look for some thing else to do with my life!
I'm optimistic in going with option 3, but our lease is up at the end of this year, and I'm not sure that I want to spend a bunch of money making this a restaurant if I can't buy the building or renew the lease. This space is not particularly well suited for a restaurant. Some of the set backs will include requirements to make the entrance (an 8 inch stone step) and the bathroom (a 4ft x 4ft closet) handicap accessible, which may not even be physically possible in this building. We will also be required to have two to seven reserved parking spaces, also an impossible feat for this city neighborhood or it will cost five hundred dollars a month if we can convince a parking lot owner two blocks away. Thus, option 3 will be a long, arduous, expensive process.
Option 1 is looking ever more appealing, except for the defeatist feeling and letting "the man" win. Putting pride aside, there may be some better opportunities, and at an affordable rate, in focusing on the market side of things. One promising venture is in setting up an agreement with a local farmer for her to keep a case of fresh veggies and fruits on sale here throughout the season (I'll be meeting with her today!). By pushing the local produce and using some of it in our deli, we could capture the local market that is looking for this kind of opportunity as an alternative to the box-grocery store. Another idea that a good friend (Sophia) reminded me of is to make more prepared foods (especially using the local products) like salads and baked goods along with our sandwiches, and sell those in bulk containers. There was a woman, Annie, in our home town that made a decent living off of making salads and baked goods and selling them to local sandwich shops or direct from her house. She grew much of her ingredients in her garden, and made delicious combinations that were better than any store bought brand. That is something that I think AllStar could do as well, and maybe have some agreements with other local shops to sell or trade for their products (coffee for cookies!).
I like the thought of making more delicious foods, but I am not totally set on letting the seating go, yet. This fight is not over. I'll have to do some more research and get some more information on how to make the system work for us, again. But at the least this little incident has prompted me to be a bit more proactive with ideas for getting All Star to a better place. Any ideas or words of encouragement are always appreciated!
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Late Bloomer
I just realized, today, this instant, that I have been living under a rock for quite some time, and that this age information in which we live is truly amazing. For example, this blog is awesome http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/. And this guy published a book from it last year. He simply started writing a blog and enough people in the world read it, and liked it, and he is now famous because of it.
Thinking back on the last ten years of my life, I can see how I've avoided all the media outlets and portals to information that so many people were accepting as a daily routine. I have not owned a TV, let alone watched one for more than an hour in the last nine years, and I only recently began to spend any time "surfing the web" for things other than school related topics. Granted, I did and do listen to the radio, but limit myself to NPR or the local public stations, so I'm not completely devoid of knowledge about the day-to-day news content. I realize now that I have viewed the media, to borrow a Marxist term, as "an opiate of the masses" and therefore have avoided allowing it to subdue me. I have always advocated for interpersonal communications, or reading a book, or direct experience to gain knowledge about the world rather than accepting what someone (especially" The Man made" media) tells you. But I am now coming to view media outlets as the tool, that I truly believe them to be, that can expand those original ideas. I guess, as with anything in life, balance and moderation are the best method, and skepticism and further research are never a bad way to go either. I am, obviously, still going to be selective of my choice of entertainment and knowledge bases, but I am, at this point, open to the idea that the human race is not going to immediately erase thousands of years of evolutionary progress in the development of the brain by clicking around on the internet and watching "Fail" videos on YouTube. Instead I can see how the internet is more of a portal to a world-wide media form (duh...www) that can show us the world and the ways that people think and live differently, which may ultimately lead to a greater acceptance of such differences. I guess this revelation sounds unremarkable to most people who have been up-to-date with the last few decades of technological advancement, but for me it's exciting to experience this new found world of communication and information.
Thinking back on the last ten years of my life, I can see how I've avoided all the media outlets and portals to information that so many people were accepting as a daily routine. I have not owned a TV, let alone watched one for more than an hour in the last nine years, and I only recently began to spend any time "surfing the web" for things other than school related topics. Granted, I did and do listen to the radio, but limit myself to NPR or the local public stations, so I'm not completely devoid of knowledge about the day-to-day news content. I realize now that I have viewed the media, to borrow a Marxist term, as "an opiate of the masses" and therefore have avoided allowing it to subdue me. I have always advocated for interpersonal communications, or reading a book, or direct experience to gain knowledge about the world rather than accepting what someone (especially" The Man made" media) tells you. But I am now coming to view media outlets as the tool, that I truly believe them to be, that can expand those original ideas. I guess, as with anything in life, balance and moderation are the best method, and skepticism and further research are never a bad way to go either. I am, obviously, still going to be selective of my choice of entertainment and knowledge bases, but I am, at this point, open to the idea that the human race is not going to immediately erase thousands of years of evolutionary progress in the development of the brain by clicking around on the internet and watching "Fail" videos on YouTube. Instead I can see how the internet is more of a portal to a world-wide media form (duh...www) that can show us the world and the ways that people think and live differently, which may ultimately lead to a greater acceptance of such differences. I guess this revelation sounds unremarkable to most people who have been up-to-date with the last few decades of technological advancement, but for me it's exciting to experience this new found world of communication and information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
