Starting My New York Minute

It really doesn't matter what time you arrive, New York is always alive and happening. Our plane didn't land at JFK until nearly 11, so, after fetching bags and lining up a town car who then flew us along the Van Wyke through Queens until we approached the Queensborogh Bridge where we started getting our first views of the city...and I started getting that lump in my throat...that New York lump.

Ok, I admit it, I am a rube when it comes to New York. This is only my second visit (the first being two years ago for the marathon) and it was in that first visit that I became intoxicated by the place, and intoxication that has carried me over to today. This is THE place.

This is THE CITY. This is New York.

Right now K is pulling up various NY songs, especially Alicia Keyes brilliant and haunting Empire State of Mind and I am getting chills.

Defending Bill O'Reilly

Already the title of this blog has me cringing, but in this instance, I feel that Mr. O'Reilly, the Fox News scion of conservative bombast needs someone to agree with him that is not in his camp.

Recently Mr. O'Reilly posted a video commentary positing that the motion of the tides was proof of God's existance. Apparently some people took issue with this statement and called him on it, to which Mr. O'Reilly posted this response:

Bill O'Reilly on the Tides

Essentially, Mr. O'Reilly states that while we know that the moon causes the tides, we don't know where the moon came from, or where the solar system came from or anything.

Well, scientists were quick to jump all over these statements and label them as typical ignorant conservative creationist-theory rhetoric, thus perpetuating the kind of polarizing debate that Fox News and Mr. O'Reilly thrive upon.

But what is missed in this type of black and white, either/or debate is the subtlety that I think Mr. O'Reilly actually was pointing out, which is that while science can indeed explain how the tides are affected by the moon, and provide theories as to how the moon came to exist as a satellite around the earth, the thing that science has yet to explain if the overriding question of "why the universe (and everything within it) exists in the first place."

The universe is a incredibly complex and wondrous place, filled with intricate systems and processes that scientists have been exploring for centuries, and will continue to explore. As humans, we have been endowed with minds that are curious and driven to continually ask "Why?" and "How come?". As we learn more, we also discover that there is ever more to learn.  In addition to our curiosity, humans have also been endowed with a remarkable capacity for faith, in essence faith is the ability to believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, things like a greater intelligence or supreme being that is the ultimate creator of all things. This idea of a creator of the universe crosses almost all religions and cultures.

So why is it so hard to reconcile these two human capacities? Scientific exploration and faith in a supreme creator? The two are by no means mutually exclusive as some would argue, rather if we look at our scientific curiosity as a way to continually discover the incredibly sublime mechanisms and complexity of a universe that was created by an intelligence far far superior to our own, then these two human capacities of curiosity and faith can be reconciled.

I'll take the analogy down a few levels to where it is more clear for me to understand, maybe it will help. Say I have a natural aptitude for mechanics and come across a vehicle that I have never seen before. Being curious I start to examine the vehicle, even start to disassemble and reassemble it. Along the way I discover that it runs on a certain type of fuel, that it has a navigation mechanism, that it has safety features and other systems that regulate and optimize its operation. In short, I find out all sorts of things about this vehicle except for who made it.

Obviously it was made. Obviously the vehicle exists for me to examine, disassemble and reassemble, and obviously it was manufactured somehow,,,therefore implying a manufacturer. So, even though we are unable to identify the creator of the vehicle through examining its parts, we can imply that the creator exists.

The disconnect seems to come when that same analogy is applied to natural systems and objects. A tree, for instance, has many component parts, utilizes intricate systems that facilitates its growth and development, and the tree interacts with the environment around it, which in turn presents even more intricate systems and interactions. Scientists are still exploring these inter-dependencies and systems...but none of their discoveries identifies who the creator of those systems and inter-dependencies is.

Why then, is it so unacceptable to imply that there is indeed a creator, and then continue our explorations. Nothing is lost by accepting this idea, except that in accepting the idea that there is a supreme intelligence that ultimately created everything, we become humbled and awestruck by the possibility.

This is where the real divergence takes place. Some who are awestruck by this supreme intelligence, then decide that there is no reason or merit in further exploration, and thus shut down the curious part of their minds to just accept that all things were created by God. While others, who see this kind of behavior are appalled that someone would willingly close such a valuable human capacity without question...and thus, in a kind of retaliation, shut down the idea that such a creator can exist at all.

But the divergence does not have to take place. As humans, we are capable of reconciling these two capacities, faith and curiosity, and use both to fuel and drive the other. The more we discover about the workings of the universe, the more in awe we can feel of the omnipotent power of a supreme maker.

And perhaps one of the greatest realities of this reconciliation is that the discovery process is infinite.

So Bill O'Reilly is right, we don't know...but that doesn't mean that we won't keep trying to find out more.

My Cynicism

I have become quite cynical and I really don’t like it. It is easy to be cynical these days because everywhere I look, I see evidence to support my cynicism. The most recent examples were the revelations that only 10% of the money donated to the American Cancer Society actually gets used to support cancer research,  the other 90% is used to support and perpetuate the ACS itself (including providing the CEO with a $1.7 MILLION dollar a year salary…or the Susan B. Komen foundation using 20% of its income to sue other charities who use the words “for the cure” in their title.

These are just a couple of the most recent examples that have come to light. Look anywhere, politics, education, business, the media itself and you’ll find ample evidence of humans subverting ideals with base objectives and self-serving intent.

So why not be cynical? Cynicism is a defense against the absurdity and blatant hypocrisy that seems to infect any endeavor that includes more than a handful of people.

So is the common element people?

Of course, humans are flawed beings that while capable of nobility, heroism and altruism, are also subject to the baser qualities of greed, covetousness, fear and ego.  In our evolution and progression through the ages we have developed so many advances, many positive and beneficial, yet we still can’t seem to get beyond our lusts of power, and acquisition, or our need to piously tell others how they should live their lives while at the same time righteously opposing any of those others who dare to tell us how we should live our lives.

My religious friends would recommend that I find God and give my heart to Jesus, but to do so would seem to require that I also allow myself to believe in the organized churches that promote these beliefs…and time and again the hypocrisy of organized churches just further fuels my disappointment and anger. How can organizations that have as one of its foundational tenets: “Love Thy Neighbor”, also advocate the alienation or outright destruction of another faith whose believers interpret the supreme being differently?

The problem is that cynicism erodes the spirit and ultimately destroys the soul. It makes believing in anything feel like a childishly foolish pursuit that denies the intellect and subsumes common sense.

And yet, we humans have been endowed with the incredible capacities for faith and caring and trust. We have the ability to feel empathy and compassion for others, to feel love and the joy of altruism…all capacities that are also subsumed and eroded by the repeated onslaught of the evidence of human greed, avarice and evil.

So how do we balance our better capacities against our baser elements, and still maintain some kind of sanity?

The only answer that seems to offer some hope is on a purely personal level. I can control myself and how I treat others. I have a mind that allows me to make my own decisions, and a soul that guides my actions using a moral compass of my own creation. I cannot make anyone else act in any way, nor do I feel that I have the right to judge someone else, even though I may feel those judgments are justified according to my own moral beliefs.

Conversely, I can’t stop others from having their own judgments about me, though I don’t believe that they have any right to impose those same judgments on me. But if they try to impose those judgments, then I reserve the right to accept or deny them as I feel is right.

Is this enough? Does it free me from the weight of my cynicism?

Yeah right.

Smumb...Smug+Dumb

So I was shopping today, and as I walked through the busy Marin parking lot, I happened to look over and see a bumper sticker that caught my eye. It read:
 
"Spill Baby Spill! How's that whole offshore drilling thing working out for ya?"

Now, I have never been a fan of Sarah Palin's whole Tea Party cadre of angry conservatives, and this bumper sticker is obviously a direct jab at her "Drill Baby Drill" catch phrase refracted through the lens of the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill disaster...but there is one other salient fact about this bumper sticker that has driven me from the grumbling depths to tap words to blog...that being that this particular bumper sticker was slapped on the rear of one of the many SUVs crowding the busy Marin parking lot that I was carrying my groceries through.

Marin County, along with being one of the wealthiest counties in the country, is also a heavily liberal place. Election results regularly run 60-80% Democrat, with the Progressive arm of the party being strongly represented.

So it is not surprising that a Marinite would feel compelled to take a bumperstickered shot at Sarah Palin. The problem is that this self-same Marinite seems to be oblivious to the irony of placing that bumperskicker on the back of a vehicle that desperately relies upon the whole "Drill Baby Drill" ethos, regardless of how many carbon offsets the owner may smugly wave about in their own defense.

The fact is that we: me, you, the smug Marinite in the stickered SUV, and the wingnuts from the Westboro Baptist Church, all share an addiction to refined crude that is only increasing. Sure, that shiney new Lexus Hybrid SUV sucks less of the stuff...but it still sucks...and sucks and sucks and lord knows you need the thing to run Aiden to his soccer practice after your Yoga class and before you pick up little Courtney from her jr. Pilates program.

So I say to you Mr or Mrs Smugginess, learn the meaning of "irony" and recognize that leveraging a horrific ecological disaster to make a weak political point (to an audience that mostly gets it already) is not clever or enlightened or any of the other qualities that I am sure that you embrace over tapas and Merlot with your friends.

Be smarter than that and realize that complex problems, especially those that you are contributing to, require far more thought that a snappy bumper sticker.

Heart Attack Grill

So, if you haven't heard of this place, it is real. Click here for one of it's ads:
Heart Attack Grill

Now, the fact that some entrepreneur has turned the current obesity epidemic in the US into a clever marketing campaign for a restaurant is not what I am writing about. I mean, people want to eat crap until their arteries explode in a gummy-bloody mess, that's fine with me...and if some guy is smart enough to give these same people exactly what they want, along with soft-core porn nurse-waitresses...well that's just fine with me also (though I can almost guarantee that the waitresses are forbidden to date any of the customers, as much as I am certain that they would like to).

No, what is causing me to write today is that when I first came across an article on this place, I happened to drift down and read through some of the comments that were attached to the article. In case you have never done this kind of exercise, you really should. It is an enlightening view into the current state of online discourse and intellectual acumen that burbles under the surface of our great nation...much like the enlightening world of slugs and pillbugs that is exposed when you turn over a rock in the garden.

The argument that was fomenting back and forth was between a commenter who opined that it was disgusting that the restaurant would hire a person who was grossly obese (6'8" and 600lbs to be exact) to be the pitchman for the place; and another, more sensitive individual who accused the first commenter of a range of prejudices including "body-image issues" and "buying into the mainstream fantasy of the anorexic super-model mentality".

It was a spirited debate that involved references to the supposed unattractiveness of commenter one's sleeping partner along with casting doubt upon commenter one's references to various medical facts regarding obesity, type II diabetes and the cost of treating those afflicted with the disease; these arguments were countered with equally sanguine arguments about the fact that someone so obese would actually cost less (in terms of medical care) because they are more likely to die sooner.

Now, I am a firm believer in one's right to choose the way that one wishes to live one's life. So, if one chooses to eat healthy, exercise regularly and adhere to the majority of medical literature regarding how to live a "healthy" lifestyle, then I fully support that choice...as do I support the choice of someone who chooses to eat buckets of lard-infused beef and potato products while sitting immobile for 23 hours a day watching "Jersey Shore" and secretly pining for Snooki.

I just hope that Snooki understands that should she happen to actually fall for the devil-may-eat-what-he-damn-well-pleases swain, her love will likely include the following:
Maneuvering her beloved onto his personal scooter so that he can accompany her to their weekly night out at the Heart Attack Grill, and then later, utilizing their personal lifting device to return that same beloved to his bed where he can lay in comfort and reduce the pain on his knees and back.

Snooki will also enjoy the nightly heaving and shoving of mountainous thighs required to attend to her beloved's personal evacuation needs (as self-same beloved will likely be unable to lift himself sufficiently off of the bed pan) and of course there is the attendant cleaning up afterward. Of course, this nightly ritual may be exacerbated by her beloved's paralysis, caused by his massive stroke (unfortunately, the heart attack comes later), and there is the joy that his family will experience getting to watch their father deteriorate into a huge, immobile mass that can neither communicate nor tend to his own basic functions.

I am sure that the family will continue to fully support his exercise of personal freedom to eat whatever and whenever he wanted to, because he was an American, and no one tells an American what they can and cannot do...certainly not some namby pamby doctor with obvious body-image issues.

So by all means, dig in and support the Heart Attack Grill and it's brilliant nod to total gastronomic abandon. After all, its your life...just remember that when your life ends up depending on someone else to support it, well, its that person's right to choose to do what they want as well.

My Revelation

I think that I understand why some people turn to faith in God and Jesus with such complete, and blind conviction, its because God is intangible and , being omnipotent, never has to be accountable for the anything that God does.

Basically, if your house burns down during the tornado that came right after the locust plague, while you are welcome (and probably right) to blame it all on God, God has the out of being all-knowing, so that you also have to admit that  "God works in mysterious ways and never does anything without a reason."

Living, corporeal people can't get away with that sort of blanket excuse.

If I walked up and burned down your house, and told you that it was "my will" and that "I have a reason for what I do, that you just can't understand because you cannot comprehend my mind" you would
A: Kick the hell out of me and
B: Have me locked up as a derange loony.

But for some reason, some people are capable of leaping beyond these basic perceptive realities and allow God to get away with (literally) murder with no accountability or even an explanation.

OK, why am I talking about this? Well, probably because the whole repeal of Prop 8 and all the arguments surrounding it is so prominent in the news right now. The Anti Prop 8 arguments (that won the reversal) are all fact-based, rational and grounded in sound legal precedent and documentation, while the Anti Prop 8 arguments seem to consist of purely irrational (from a legal standpoint) faith-based (or at least a slim interpretation of faith) screeds consisting of phrases like "It's evil" or "Its against God" or the wonderfully vague "Its destroying the institution of marriage"

...um How?

The Pro-Prop 8ers never seem to be able to answer that part of the question. If two men or two women marry each other, how does that physically, rationally and fundamentally threaten the institution of marriage, or your marriage for that matter? When the argument devolves to a purely faith-based, moral objection then the argument ceases to be an argument, and just becomes a yelling-match soundbite on the evening news.

The problem though, is that this just further reveals the underlying (and growing) neo-conservative/religious right sentiment among a lot of Americans. The tea-baggers and fundamental Christians that we on the coasts mock and laugh at, are gaining strength and power, and we smug coasters may wake up one day (maybe in 2012 after the next election), and discover that we have suddenly become a reviled minority.

I know, I never seem to be happy unless I am forecasting doom, and now that the Gulf oil leak has been plugged and all my dire predictions have come to naught (for the time-being), I need to find a new target for my pessimism, but this neo-conservative-religion based movement has been steadily growing and fomenting for quite a while, and seems to be gaining momentum as more people struggle to survive in the tanking economy.

I am haunted by this nightmarish vision of President Sarah Palin pointing her finger at me and saying "You're going to prison for un-American thoughts...you betcha!" and then some clean-cut young storm-troopers will come and haul me off to a gulag in Idaho where I will be brainwashed by relentless hours of watching Fox news and the 700 Club.

But, if that's God's will, he must have a reason...right?

What To Do With the Opo

This is an opo

So, as a challenge, I bought an opo at the farmer's market on Sunday. I also got a lot of other neat veggie-goodies, but the opo was definitely the most unusual. The busy Asian man behind the counter was little help when I asked him "How do you cook this?" and he just said "Its like zucchini."

Right, well it was a start. So I did the modern thing and posted a message on Facebook with a picture of the thing and a question..."Anyone know what to do with an opo?"

Well, I have a wide variety of interesting and multicultural Facebook friends and sure enough, two came through for me. Thanks to Tricia and Marvin for directing me to their Philippine roots and getting me started on some basic opo recipes.

If you know me at all, then you know that a recipe is just a nice reference point for me to jump off of. But I didn't stray that far. So here's the recipe that I built off of their great suggestions:

3/4 opo, cubed
1 medium tomato diced
1/2 onion diced (I used a sweet Maui onion...yumm!)
3 cloves of garlic chopped
1/4 cup diced pepper (I used a 'chocolate' pepper, but a bell pepper would be fine, or spice it up with an Anaheim or hotter variety)
1 cup chicken broth
1 chicken breast (boneless-skinless) cubed
2 tbls lite oil (I use a canola-olive blend by Smart Balance)
Salt
Chipotle pepper (or regular ground black pepper)

Step one:
Saute onions and 1/2 peppers in oil until onions turn brown at edges

Step two:
Add tomatoes, rest of pepper, garlic and opo along with 1/4 cup of broth
stir and blend all components

Step three:
Add chicken and rest of broth, salt and chipotle to taste
Bring to boil

Step four:
Reduce heat to high simmer, cover
Cook for 10-15 minutes until liquid is reduced by 1/3

The opo is mild tasting and picks up the flavors surrounding it well, while imparting a light vegetable/grassy scent that is not unpleasant. The opo has dense white flesh that turns soft and translucent when cooked like this.

Overall, I'd give this recipe about a 6. It was hearty and filling, and the flavor had a definite 'homey' appeal, comforting and non-threatening, especially when paired with brown rice.

I could see making more of a light-quick stew like meal as well, or even a hearty soup from this recipe.

So, that's my opo story and I'm sticking to it!