Is Starbucks Too Pretentious?

Your latte is ready

I'm a caffeine addict, and I have to get my Venti drip, room for cream, every afternoon. 24 ounces of brewed coffee. This week's blend is Yukon. Then, if I'm at West Village Starbucks in Uptown Dallas, I take my seat among the extremely beautiful, hip and well-dressed patrons around me.

This location is popular, so forget finding the best comfy chair or space at a table for your laptop. Just as well, because most of these people have 17" Powerbooks or the latest creations from Dell or HP. I have a 5-year old Toshiba that makes noises and looks like sensible shoes compared to these other sleek machines. When not logged on to T-mobile Hot Spot, these beautiful people whip out their Samsung global phones, to finish that conversation with a friend or lover that was left undone, prior to coffee time.

Looking around, the customers could be models for GAP, Banana Republic or J. Crew. The only one that might be having a bad hair day is me. It occurs to me, you really need to have a nice trendy outfit to really fit in. What is the allure? Why am I spending $1.95 for a 24 ounce coffee that would cost me 49 cents at Race Track? Conan O'Brien does nightly jokes on how expensive Starbucks is, and everyone laughs heartily. Then when the show is over, one can be sure, that they all go to Starbucks. Here are my coupla (new word) theories on it:

The Cadillac Syndrome: Sometimes the very best of something costs a fortune. Think BMW, yacht, mansion, designer clothes. Starbucks must represent some epitome of caffeine beverages, the summa cum laude of latte. But for a mere $1.95, you can be the best! Why be a cheap 49 cent date, when you can spring for the big two dollars?

The Don't-Want-To-Get-Drunk-But-Do-Want-To-Make-The-Scene Syndrome - In the 70's and 80's, people went to singles bars. The known diseases were curable with antibiotics, and AIDS was unknown. Out-of-control binging and bed-hopping were the behaviors of that bygone era. In the more sedate double-aughts (nobody has yet thought of a good name for the 00's) we are more cautious, more circumspect. We know that danger lurks in unprotected sex, and extreme intoxication is likelier to bring about unsafe behavior.

So, yes - Starbucks is terribly pretentious. How dare they laugh at my shoes! But I need another Venti drip (even the serving sizes are pretentious) and maybe a lemon crumb bar. I can catch up on the "Dallas Observer" and see what type of clothes and computers the sexy, beautiful people are into.

I Get, I Run, I Do

Alphabet soup

I'd like to talk about something we all take for granted; it really gets no examination except by grade school teachers. I'm talking about the English language itself.

I've studied French for four years and Latin for two. Have always been struck by the fact that language is simultaneously a denotative conveyor of meaning, and also an artistic flow of verbal, poetic expressions. English is interesting, in that it's the bastard child of at least five different cultures: Old German, Latin, French, Scandinavian and Gaelic. It's interesting that an aspiring universalist, L. L. Zamenhof, created a whole new language called "Esperanto" at the end of the 19th century in hopes that it would be adopted as a universal language, much as was recently done with the Euro for continental currency. Turns out there's really no need for Esperanto, because English serves that purpose. English is the unholy alliance of Romance language and Germanic languages -- two strains that have seldom ever met or gotten along elsewhere.

What do I hate about English? Several things, most of them German in origin. We have too many irregular verbs, and they are the most commonly used ("to get", "to run", "to do"). We have too many words with silent consonants ("night", "should", "daughter","school"). We have too many words spelled alike but pronounced differently: "prove" vs "love". Or how about "bough" vs "enough" vs "cough" which was good for a comedy bit on "I Love Lucy". The German-based words tend to be harsh and guttural; they don't flow like music to the ears. Some very forward-thinking English monks and courtiers saw the messiness of all this several centuries in the past. They Latinized our alphabet and banished one German letter (representing the "th" sound I think). Along with French wine, they imported many French words too. Thank you, monks for all the bon mots!

What do I like about English? I do like the fact that it ties into so many other cultures. It's a grab bag of words from everywhere. I like the fact that compared to other Germanic languages, it has a few vowels between the consonants and you can speak or sing without harshness, without sounding like you want to invade Poland. When I buy new electronic gadgets, the instruction booklets frequently have the most common European languages. Interesting that I can nearly decipher Italian or Spanish; the German mystifies me completely. How can they need so many words for one simple thought? How can they cram that many consonants into one word? If you're German and reading this, you must have fluency in both and maybe you can explain it. But for now, I'll speak English and try to say "obtain" when I mean "get", because "obtain" is a prettier word.

Me and the Mac Mini

Mac mini

Will admit it. Sometimes I have more money than common sense. I have no less than a desktop computer and two laptops, but all of them are Wintel machines and they bore me now. When Apple recently came out with the Mac mini for $499, I was intrigued. Have wanted to delve into Mac OS X for a couple of years now, but couldn't justify the money for what's basically a toy.

One must consider the total cost of the mini however. If you don't happen to have a display monitor and keyboard handy, and don't wish to dismantle your Wintel setup, you'll need to consider the cost of the extras. I decided to usurp a seldom-used laptop and use that desk space for the Mac mini. I had the need of a new display & keyboard. LCD displays start at $200 (for off-brand, 15" displays) and soar all the way up to $3000. Plain vanilla (not to mention bulky) CRT's start at $100. A USB keyboard will run about $30, and you might as well go with the Apple brand; same can be said of a USB mouse ($30). My aim was to keep the total configuration less than the $799 price of an emac. My final cost was:

$499 Mac mini + $99 ViewSonic CRT (great deal, after rebate) + $29 Apple keyboard = $627. Add $52 tax and you have $679. Was able to retain a mouse, printer and USB hub from previous Wintel laptop setup.

And now for the setting up. Apple declares that the mini will recognize any Wintel monitor. I realized that I'd be in very deep sh** if I booted the mini, and the ViewSonic remained dark. When all was connected and I first booted up, rivulets of sweat ran down the side of my face; the monitor was staying dark. Then, after a full minute, the Mac OS X splash page displayed on the screen. Praise the lord! After a few minutes of setup & registration questions, mac mini tried to connect me to the internet. Here, oddly, is where I ran into my problem. The mini doesn’t have AOL on it. It recommends Earthlink or .Mac for newcomers, but only provides a generic login for people who already have another dial-up service. The system furthermore assumes that you have a standard PPP service, which AOL is not. Thus, my sign-on wouldn’t work and I had no AOL software! As of today, I’ve obtained an AOL CD and will try the install tonight. Am wondering, did AOL and Apple have a fight? Usually it’s hard not to use AOL on a Wintel machine but Apple thinks different. Will probably post some updates to this new toy of mine. But I’ll have to get AOL working first! :-)

The Outing of SpongeBob

Spongebob

My coworker couldn't have expressed it better:

"First they came for Tinkie Winkie and I did not speak out because I was not a Teletubby. Then they came for Barney and I did not speak out because I was not a happy go lucky, carefree overweight purple reptilian children's show star.

Then they came for Spongebob Squarepants and this time I didn't keep my mouth shut because someone has to speak up for defenseless outted animated characters everywhere that are not programmed to protect themselves against the malevolent assault often waged by the fearful and uninformed.

Spongebob may not be gay after all. He lives in a pineapple under the sea, has a square head, only a few teeth, and no fashion sense. Sounds like Spongebob would be the "Straight Guy" in "Queer Eye for the straight Guy" "

Spongebob should be left alone, and Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family should learn to draw better distinctions. There's a difference between promoting tolerance of a lifestyle and promoting the lifestyle itself. First of all, it's questionable that sexual preference is a "lifestyle" (i.e, willful choice) at all. Promoting gayness would be like promoting blackness or femaleness. People are what they are, and what any of us gets in this life is due as much to the Wheel of Fortune as personal choice. Tolerance says, "I will not fire you, beat you up, discount your personhood or encourage others to do the same". It does not encourage any kind of "recruitment" process or "lifestyle" embrace. Tolerance, Mr. Dobson, is not a dirty word. And you make yourself look silly by impugning the motives of a cartoon character.

In closing, I feel a need to quote Sister Sledge: "We are family!" :-)

Why Conan O'Brien Rules

Conan

I must confess I'm a television addict. In fact I have 6 TV sets, including 1 in the utility room and 1 in the master bathroom. My hearing is less than it was, and I can't stand to miss an important line of dialog, while putting away folded laundry. One of the shows that I watch religiously, night owl that I am, is "Late Night with Conan O'Brien".

Conan himself is funny, and his inspired nutball writers throw many more logs on the comedy fire. Conan has a good resume; he was a writer and bit player on SNL back in the late 80's. Then, he was a writer for "The Simpson's" cartoon show in the early 90's. Why do I like Conan? Several reasons. His humor is cutting edge, conceptual and bright. He's not afraid to try things which might get you labeled as "schizo" or "seditious". Sometimes it might fall flat, or you might miss the point of the joke, but so much more often, you fall off the couch from laughing so hard. His show is on 5 times a week (with usually a rerun or two) and is easily as funny as SNL or MAD TV which are weekly.

The other guys are good too - a close runner-up would be David Letterman. David once had the mantle of "conceptual funny madman", but age, heart problems and fatherhood have all mellowed him quite a bit. He's still good, but not as daring and crazy as he once was. I loved Jay Leno before he became permanent host on "Tonight Show". I now refer to it as "Jay Lamo", because his humor is noticeably tame and dumbed down. He's not as far gone as Johnny Carson was by '92 ("How hot was it?"), but his clever-o-meter is showing maybe a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Back to Conan. He takes nothing too seriously, himself included. He is frequently the butt of his writers' jokes. His sexuality, manly attributes and love life (or lack thereof) are the frequent targets. Conan is straight, married and probably "gets" as much as anyone, but his willingness to play along is hilarious. Absolutely nothing is sacred on the show. Where else will you see Jesus playing ice hockey, or other precious symbols blasphemed in ways unmentionable? Where some comics might bang a political drum, (Bill Maher, Dennis Miller), Conan's only master is whatever gets laughs.

Here are a few of my favorite things: If They Mated, Kids Drawings, New Stamps, Max Weinberg 7 (Conan's excellent band), In the Year 2000 (Yes, 2000), Triumph the Insult Dog, Preparation H Raymond, Masturbating Bear, Dr. Joyce Brothers and Abe Vigoda as backup players, Actual ads ... and so much more!

If you've had too much coffee and are staying up late, turn the dial to NBC's Conan O'Brien. You may be insulted, scandalized, horrified and all the while laughing. That's a good way to end a late night! :-)

The Decade that Taste Forgot

I was in the eighth grade in 1970, and a graduate student at UT Austin by 1979. In that pivotal 10 years, I witnessed the nadir of American taste. The 1970's was a harvest gold, avocado green, polyester, pimped out period where, for some reason, everything became truly tasteless. I do have a theory about 1970's tackiness. The 1960's brought us genuine war protest, and angst against the establishment. People became hippies or wore faded jeans and peace signs as a symbol of protest. The 1970's corporate execs took this impulse and tried to commercialize it. Thus the faded jeans worn at Woodstock morphed into the hideously laughable prewashed Britannia jeans made entirely of denim patches. (I must confess to having these, and wearing them in 1976). Almost every human endeavor of that decade resulted in insane, inane tackiness. I'll list some exceptions at the bottom, but they are not enough to ease these horrible 70's flashbacks. Lets look at the 70's in just 3 areas:

Cars - At the end of the 60's, cars were arguably at their best. The '69 model year was the greatest: the Mustang, the Camaro, El Dorado, Riviera, Ford Thunderbird - all beautiful automotive sculpture. And then for reasons unknown, the 70s auto execs decided that everyone needed a pimp mobile. Some 1970's car had these deluxe features: padded landau roof, opera windows, faux Rolls Royce grille, and a coat of arms on your hide-away headlamps. Even less luxe models had extremely thick chrome and vinyl cladding, harking back to the 50's. Rich Corinthian leather was offered on the Chrysler Cordoba. My coworker had a 1978 Bonneville with red, velour tufted pillow seating. It was like a bordello on wheels. These cars, like latter day Elvis, were self parody.

Architecture - The decade of the 60's was in some ways a culmination of modern architectural trends. The 70's, on the other hand, brought us an endless barrage of me-too buildings in brown brick with polaroid glass windows. Folded paper architecture at its dullest. Pebble conglomerate prefab buildings (now seen only in industrial parks) were offered up as legitimate office space. Tacky, poor quality, stick-built apartment complexes sprang up everywhere. These fake stucco mediocrities and faux Spanish villas are still trashing up our cityscapes today.

Clothes and hair - Where to begin? The 70s showed the power of trends - the moniker of "cool" was more important than what you saw in the full-length mirror with your own eyes. We were wearing leisure suits, disco shirts, gold chains, Levis movin' on jeans, platform shoes, and shapeless frizzy hair. Where were the fashion police when they were most needed?

By the end of the decade, the wackiness started to abate. Hard to say what happened to turn it all around. "The Preppy Handbook" came out circa 1980, touting the benefits of 100% cotton shirts. The Reagans came into office, and Nancy set a more tasteful tone (Designer gowns, Chippendale chairs) at a national level. Or maybe, just maybe, a few people actually looked in the mirror and saw that the Emperor was wearing purple hip-huggers.

***

As I promised, some good things from the 70's (leaving some things out, I'm sure):
Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, Elton John, Nixon resigning, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Sonny and Cher Show, David Bowie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Saturday Night Live. (Post a comment if I left something out, or you disagree with a 'good' designation). I know there was more that was good).

Give Me Back the 60's

I listen to the pop music of today, and I truly mourn for the decade of the 60's. At 47, I can track the musical trends of the last few decades, and the trend is downward, most of the way.

The 1960's were an awe-inspiring decade, musically. We went from "Blue Velvet" to "Eight Miles High", from "She Was Just 17" to "Day in the Life". The rock music of the late 50's and early 60's was awesome to be sure; think of Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, Little Richard and some of Elvis' offerings. But much of what got radio play was an ersatz mix of rockabilly swagger, teen princess angst and tragic car crashes. It really took something like the Rolling Stone's "Satisfaction" to slap some sense into American listeners, to wake us musically to the fact that American youth were actually more than life-size Ken and Barbie dolls.

The decade of the 60's blossomed into one of the most spectacular periods in America's musical history. The British invasion, the new sounds of the Beach Boys, and the Motown sound, among many other developments, took us all to emotional and philosophical places we'd never visited. Perhaps the fact of the Cold War, the threat of World War III and the Cuban Missile Crisis all caused the human spirit to rise and react. Other pressures were the Viet Nam War and the Civil Rights movement, of course. If God speaks through impassioned artists, he spoke loud and clear in that troubled decade. I think it would be safe to say that artists such as Credence Clearwater and the Beatles truly did raise the consciousness of people everywhere, even conservatives who thought they were immune to such forces.

And then we had the 1970's - the first stage of musical devolution. Even the 60's wunderkinds started giving us schlock. Paul Simon went from "Sound of Silence" to "Kodachrome". Paul McCartney went from "Eleanor Rigby" to "Silly Love Songs". Pop music in general went in the direction of bland bands and polyester disco. Again there were exceptional bright spots - Sir Elton, Rod Stewart and David Bowie among them. But the 70's music does not stir the heart or the soul the way 60's music makes you want to restage a Love-In. The 1980's saw further devolution -- New Wave was actually an interesting new twist, but it was a twinkling of the early eighties, and was subverted by other musical trends. By the mid-90's, we were mired in violent, misogynistic rap music, and the highly depressing grunge sound of Seattle. The mid 00's has barely moved half an inch away from the mid 90's.

There’s enough social fomentation right now (war in Iraq, Red/Blue state schism) that the musical genie might be coaxed out of the lamp one more time. But with all due respect to Green Day, it hasn’t really happened yet, and if ever a world needed good Rock ‘n Roll music it’s now.

Beauty and the Beast

"It was beauty killed the beast."

I must admit that I can move between different social groups. There's a party crowd that I sometimes "hang" with. On more reflective days, I may go to a Unitarian church service and talk to my friends there. I can operate at a profound philosophical level, and sometimes at a superficial level. And today we'll be superficial. Why is it that if someone is drop-dead beautiful (male or female) and dressed to the nines, they probably aren't a Rhodes Scholar? And if they've just completed work on the Human Genome project, they probably aren't modeling for any fashion magazines? Do beauty and brains have to be mutually exclusive? I polled some friends informally, and the answer is "Yes, mutually exclusive". People had trouble coming up with any exceptions.

More along the same lines: There's the body that God gave you. Then there is clothing, grooming, jewelry, accessories, etc, that can embellish God's handiwork. The smart person, already not winning any beauty reviews, is far less likely to be a sharp dresser. The smart person is more likely to suffer in other areas such as hygiene and grooming. You might think that nature would try and compensate one trait with another, but no. The already beautiful person is the one who will be wearing the beautiful clothes. Obviously, a smart person is showing a preference for the profound over the superficial. The clothing is a diversion from worthy pursuits and deep thoughts. For a smart person, clothing conceals the naked body; for a beautiful person, it's an extension of the self.

From an evolutionary perspective, what is the favored approach? At either extreme is something untenable - a brain in a jar versus a strutting peacock. But somewhere in the murky middle is an interesting thing to observe. Beautiful people are more sought after, and probably have more reproduction potential. A non-repulsive smart person can still reproduce. Smart people have greater creative potential, which frequently translates to higher income and stable employment. And the two groups are not walled off from each other; beauty frequently gets together with the beast. But why, even when that happens, do the children of such pairings come out as beauty or beast? I wouldn't say that intelligence is sex-linked, but it's certainly looks-linked. A thesis put forth by my coworker and myself is that the developing fetus is under material/time constraints. The trade-off is very real. You can be a rocket scientist or the belle of the ball. But not both. There are probably some very noteworthy exceptions, but not many.
Nature is still running her course. Perhaps in a few thousand years, this enigma will clear itself up. Perhaps mental prowess and beauty will dwell happily in one person. Or maybe a species of ugly, but super-brilliant people will have mastery over everything. Perish the thought! For now, beauty needs the beast and the beast needs beauty.

To Put Away Childish Things

From the first letter of Paul of Tarsus to the School at Corinth:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Chapter 13, verse 11

One interpretation of this quote is that "childish things" refers to spiteful emotions and child-like temper tantrums. But the quote does have some ambiguity, and my own father always assumed that it referred to any childhood relic - toys, games, dolls included.

My father, now deceased, was a rather grim person. He smiled three times and laughed twice over the many years he lived. He was a very bright mathematician, but humor and levity were beyond him. A certain self-consciousness governed his actions, and he would never do anything that could be termed silly, off-the-wall, or God forbid, age-inappropriate. His desire to be the adult role model superseded anything else. I have two adult friends that remind me of Dad, on a lesser scale. I asked if they'd either one ever watched "The Simpsons", a hilarious, long-running, socially satirical cartoon. Alas, they had not; the main reason, I fear, is that it's animated. Cartoons are by definition "juvenile". So, my friends will let this taboo prevent them from ever enjoying a touchstone of American popular culture.

There are many things one could say are childish. How about the mere act of getting excited - over anything. (A new car, a trip to an amazing new place)? Liking something so much that you let out a "yahoo!" or a "wow!". A simple expression of joy or enthusiasm is muffled and strangled if need be. One must be cool and sedate. Must have been there; have to have done that.

Extreme liking is a form of naivete, which is next door to childishness. Also, we live in a culture of "hip" where everyone needs to out hip the next guy. The ultimate hip style is to be stoic and unimpressed. To be honest, some roles do call for decorum and reserve: ministers, teachers and undertakers come to mind. One need only think of Dan Quayle jumping up and down at his 1988 veep announcement to understand "appropriate settings". But in familiar company, is it so wrong to have fun, or be funny?

Now lets talk about toys. What are they anyway? The dictionary uses the terms "plaything" and "trifle". As I look at my desk, I see a Palm handheld, an iPod, an Austin Powers action figure, and an Audi TT Coupe 1/43 scale car among other gizmos and trifles....and I'm 47! Others may have golf clubs, guns, boats, wood cutting tools at home. In my own mind, a toy is something which is not a total necessity, but which engages your dexterity and imagination. Many adults have them, but my father was not among those adults. He didn't like putting together or looking at the Christmas toys his own children received. Childish things. I, on the other hand, must be pulled out of Toys 'R Us. Of course, I'm there shopping for young relatives. :-) Toys can be big and small. Don't let the fact that your toy cost 33 thousand dollars diminish its toyfulness. If you didn't really need it, and it gives you a secret thrill, it's a toy.

In sum, I guess I would say that Paul's quote must mean "childish things" as childhood's malevolent emotions. Because, to quote John (actually, Johnny Carson from the "Tonight Show") we are all just an eyeblink from childhood. For some of us, it's less than a blink. And for that, I am truly grateful.

What Your Car is Saying About You

I was driving around with a friend one day, when a new Cadillac pulled up next to us. He derisively referred to the car as a "Capitalist-pig-mobile". I thought it was funny because my friend is very Republican and drives a Lexus himself. I've pondered the question since then -- what does you're car say about you? Do you want it to say anything?

If someone is strapped for cash, it's a moot point. His car is whatever runs, whatever is available. The question really centers on people who have discretionary income, and a wide variety of choices. Another friend once told me, "Your car isn't you, but it represents one aspect of you". I'm glad he said that, because the cars I've owned make a sad list, especially for someone who used to read "Motor Trend" and keep up with cars. My auto-biography follows:

1979 Ford Pinto - What can I say? It's all I could afford
1983 Buick LeSabre Limited Coupe - Dubbed the "pimp mobile", cruelly lampooned by all
1987 Nissan Stanza - Bland, boxy me-too car, that had A/C problems
1989 Mercury Cougar - Driven mostly by old ladies w/ big hair, serious maintenance troubles
1994 Honda Accord Coupe - At last, an agile, fun car that most people liked
2001 Toyota RAV4 - Cute, practical, agile; identified as mostly a "Lesbian" car by one friend

Clearly, I have failed in the car as an alter ego. Sexy and sporty usually isn't practical, so Corvettes and Crossfires fall quickly from my list. Gigantic and gas-gulping also falls off the list; I need something I can park and maneuver easily. My middle-classness rules out the expensive "trophy" cars, though I can't ever see myself in a BMW. (There is your true "Capitalist-pig-mobile"). Cadillacs have lost their capitalist cachet and are mostly driven by older, non-capitalists.

What will my next car be? It probably won't be domestic unless I get the extended warranty. It will be larger than a RAV4 because I need a bigger engine (at least V6) and more space. It might be an SUV, might be a passenger car. I'll try to steer clear of cars with a negative identity, but who knows? My pragmatism and cost-limitations narrow the choices. Whatever it is, I don't necessarily want to be seen as a lesbian, a capitalist, or someone who's having a midlife crisis. Cars are a bit like clothing, and a safer choice (think Honda) will probably get you in less trouble than something dramatic or different. So.... I wonder if the car lots are open right now. One other limitation - they cost as much as a small house now. Lets nevermind about the car lots being open! I still have some miles left on the RAV4.

A Lookist Vegetarian

I'll start off by saying that I strongly support animal rights. I give lots of money to shelters, humane societies and yes, even PETA. Don't agree with all of PETA's tactics, but I figure animals need at least one extremist group to point out the issues, and piss off the establishment.

Talk to me about how Koreans kill cats and dogs for food, and I become pallid with shock. How can you kill Cocoa and Muffin for food? It seems barbaric. But then, about five years ago a woman brought two trained pigs onto "Jay Leno". Their names were Bacon and Pork Chop. They were cute and exhibited dog-like fealty and intelligence. They followed their owner, wagged their tails, and put their ears back. Not long after that I watched a Blue Bell commercial where a young girl was leading a cow down a trail. The cow looked serenely happy and was trusting of the girl. I threw down a gauntlet then and there: I will no longer eat the meat of sentient, feeling, trusting mammals. I was also tipping the scales at 200 pounds, so cutting out red, high fat meat made sense dietarily also.

With birds and fish, I've thrown no such gauntlet. They're further down in the taxonomical tree, and are mostly incapable of tail-wagging expressions of love. White meat and omega fats are good for the body. My brother termed my new diet restriction as "lookist vegetarianism". I was basing the decision on how the animals looked and behaved. I can't argue there, though I'd like to have something more solid to base it on. "Lookism" is a term I encountered in a politically correct usenet group. It is the callous behavior of someone who selects a date, in part, based on how they look. (Imagine that!)

At the other end of the spectrum are ants and cockroaches. I think nothing of spraying insecticide on ants, and stomping on every other roach I see. These are animals too, although they have exoskeletons and blown up to our size they would look like space aliens. How to explain these inconsistencies? To be sure, there are PETAns that won't step on a roach or eat fish. I can only say that my reactions are "lookist" in the extreme. Whether it's dating or eating.

My friend Eric further complicated things by saying chickens can show affection; he once had a hen that would roost lovingly on his shoulder. For now, I dispel such images. I would have to say goodbye to Popeye's and it can't be done. I will put forth a couple of ideas though. PETA is right in lobbying for humane farming and slaughter house conditions for all animals that are eaten. And if my conscience ever extends to lower rungs on the ladder of life, I'm open to a more Hindu approach (eat nothing with eyes). But for now, grilled chicken and blackened fish will remain on the menu.

A Blog is Born

Hello, everyone. ("Everyone" right now is me.)

Despite the title, this blog isn't about me - it's about you and your ideas. My initial desire was something approximating a usenet group, where people exchange ideas on a controversial matter of my choosing. But that's selfish in one way; boring and restrictive in another. The universe is way too big to confine things to a single topic. Therefore, I open the door to anything: science, politics, sex, morality, popular culture, religion and what have you.

About me: I'm a liberal, iconoclastic, "unusual" person living in Dallas, Texas of all places. My viewpoints are decidedly odd in a state that worships football and elects mostly Republicans. I seem to be extreme where moderation is the rule, and moderate where an extreme stance is what society expects. Well, I hate to disappoint, but I've got to be me!

In this space, I will let my eccentricities run amok, and welcome you to do so also. If you are off the trodden path in some interesting respect, here is where you might express your madness.

Robert :-)