Peridyd's Progress

I just got back from a very brief trip to Seattle. Met with some very cool people; went out to dinner and had some great Thai food in Bothell at Pen. Had a wonderful garlic chicken dish, 4/5 spicy, and boy do they ever mean that it's spicy. Despite my heavy consumption of beverages due to the piquancy of the dish, I'd highly recommend it.

An interesting thing arises when I socialize with people for the first time. Someone will inevitably notice that I don't drink. Nonplussed by my abstemiousness (is that a word?), the individual typically gives me the once-over, waiting for me to provide the "why" behind this curious anomaly. "Am I an alcoholic?" Well, no. "Then why don't you drink?" Hmm.

Those who know me know that the pat answer is "Because I'm a meditator." Yet, truthfully, I think I could quit meditating, and I still wouldn't drink. Intoxication just flat-out doesn't appeal to me any more. It once did. Now it doesn't. Being high, even just a little bit, sucks.

My point is not to proselytize tea-tottling. Nor am I interested in bragging about the fact that I don't drink. I just find it interesting to live in a culture in which the only normal reason for not drinking is alcoholism. Other non-normative, but acceptable, answers are, "I'm a Mormon," or "I'm Muslim." (Interesting how neither of those communities is fully trusted or fully vested in white Americana.) Drinking isn't just acceptable, it's a marker of normative behavior. Performing a simple substitution of pot for a drink points to how strange this is. Or better still in terms of the danger of the intoxicant to the user/abuser, substitute cocaine for booze, and it gets to the heart of the problem. Imagine asking someone when there's an eight ball of coke or crystal lined on the coffee table, "I don't understand. Why is it that you don't you want any?"

Given the fact that it's somehow unthinkable to many that I wouldn't drink, isn't it obvious why I don't?

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Part of my job working at the Center for Writing and Learning at Oregon State University is to be the faculty adviser for the Craft of Writing Series. It's one of the more rewarding parts of my job, and it's given me the opportunity to work with a great group of students (they're the ones who pick who to invite to campus to speak to their peers), and I've had some unparalleled moments speaking with and listening to the writers we invite. The best moments are almost always unexpected: the luscious prose in Charles D'Ambrosio's essays (the best reading in the series so far); Sherman Alexie's generosity to the students on the Craft of Writing Committee--he gave them so much time; and, today, a gift from a writer whom I'm not even sure that we'll end up inviting to speak on campus.

Jane Smiley's agent contacted me, asking if we might be interested in bringing her to OSU. Smiley, of course, is huge. She won a Pulitzer in '92 for her retelling of King Lear, A Thousand Acres. I know her from her novel Moo, which is about the intrigues of an English department at an agricultural university. Not that I have any experience with that (cough, cough).

Since her agent is fishing for readings, I thought I'd put her name forward to the committee and see if they were interested, so I started doing my homework. Because I'm aware of the fact that we live in what I term the "Age of Google," I, of course, started with a search engine, and I found some astounding essays.

My favorite is "Notes for Converts." It was written back in March, for the Huffington Post. And like all great commentary, it has legs. In my opinion, it will have legs long into the next decade, which, in my opinion, is the first chance that we'll have to undo the damage that's been done since December, 2000, when George W. Bush successfully usurped the democratic process and was declared president by a pliant Supreme Court that didn't concern itself overmuch with context in the State of Florida.

Speaking to the recently-converted, conservative opponents of GWB, Smiley deftly delivers an indictment of Bush and, by extension, the converted since 2000. Here's a brief excerpt:

Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a "sense of entitlement". Bush is a man who has never been anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and cajoled into being president of the United States through his connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own purposes. He has a surface charm that appeals to a certain type of American man, and he has used that charm to claim all sorts of perks, and then to fail at everything he has ever done. He did not complete his flight training, he failed at oil investing, he was a front man and a glad-hander as a baseball owner. As the Governor of Texas, he originated one educational program that turned out to be a debacle; as the President of the US, his policies have constituted one screw-up after another. You have stuck with him through all of this, made excuses for him, bailed him out. From his point of view, he is perfectly entitled by his own experience to a sense of entitlement. Why would he ever feel the need to reciprocate? He's never had to before this. (emphasis added)

I hope we can swing the finances to bring Smiley to campus, just so I can thank her for having so perfectly captured the unparalleled absurdity and hubris of this man, his supporters, and of this cultural moment.

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In confusion, clarity is possible....

It is your own awareness right now.
It is simple, natural, and clear.
Why say "I don't understand what the mind is"?
There is nothing to think about,
just permanent clear Consciousness.
Why say "I don't see the reality of the mind"?
The mind is the thinker of these thoughts.
Why say "When I look I can't find it"?
No looking is necessary.
Why say "Whatever I try doesn't work"?
It is enough to remain simple.
Why say "How can I do nothing?"
It is good to be a non-doer.
Why say "I can't achieve this"?
The void of pure Consciousness is naturally present.
Why say "Spiritual practice doesn't reveal it"?
It is spontaneous and free from cause and effect.
Why say "The search is futile"?
Thought and liberation exist simultaneously.
Why say "All medicines are impotent"?
This awareness is the medicine.
Why say "I don't know"?

--Padma Sambhava

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 06:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of us who whetted our appetites for online gaming with MOOs and MUDs, there's something very special about the text-based online role-play game. I played one, Legend of the Green Dragon, last year when I was utterly enmeshed in World of Warcraft, which I have, at very least, temporarily abandoned (going on 6 months now).

Since giving up WoW, one of my best friends reminded me that there was still some MMORPG action out there that entertained without draining away your personal life. Loss of time with family and self being my main complaint with World of Warcraft, it was refreshing to be gaming (and leveling) again.

But what I most enjoy about LotGD is its creative spark, its playfulness, its willingness to risk being obscure in order to make some of its players laugh.

You have encountered SCO Lawyer which lunges at you with Court Papers!

Level: 8
Start of round:
SCO Lawyer's Hitpoints: 22
YOUR Hitpoints: 31
A huge fist of earth pummels SCO Lawyer for 10 points.
You hit SCO Lawyer for 3 points of damage!
SCO Lawyer tries to hit you but MISSES!
Next round:
A huge fist of earth pummels SCO Lawyer for 13 points.
There's one lawyer who'll never trouble you again!
You have slain SCO Lawyer!
You receive 10 gold!
You receive 88 total experience!

Text-based games need to design randomness into the gaming experience, and this is where LotGD excels. You're blazing along, grinding (as it were), when all of a sudden a troll will pop out of the woods and challenge you to solve a riddle or play a game of rock, paper, scissors--best two out of three. The PvP action is good, but not obsessively so, and the world is rich, rewarding those who explore it with knowledge that the unadventureous will never receive. Yet, I'm finding that it is the random encounter that keeps me coming back for more.

You have encountered Pirate which lunges at you with Jokes!

Level: 8
Start of round:
Pirate's Hitpoints: 13
YOUR Hitpoints: 53
You hit Pirate for 7 points of damage!
Pirate hits you for 2 points of damage!
Next round:
You hit Pirate for 1 points of damage!
Pirate tries to hit you but MISSES!
Next round:
You try to hit Pirate but are RIPOSTED for 3 points of damage!
Pirate tries to hit you but MISSES!
Next round:
You hit Pirate for 2 points of damage!
Pirate hits you for 1 points of damage!
Next round:
You hit Pirate for 2 points of damage!
Pirate tries to hit you but you RIPOSTE for 7 points of damage!
What do you call 1000 pirates in a room? Avast conspiracy!
You have slain Pirate!
You receive 63 gold!
You receive 89 total experience!

I highly recommend this.

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

For those of you who think that PBS' Lehrer New Hour is balanced, this study from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. I watch the News Hour occasionally, and the study's results seem pretty accurate. I know that I've complained before that it's difficult to get any real diversity in news coverage this side of Democracy Now.

How 'bout that liberal media and leftist Public Broadcasting Corporation? Yeah. Right....

For you progressive TV watchers (if that isn't an oxymoron), Democracy Now is the only real choice.

From Feministing

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 09:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My favorite music player and one of my favorite open source projects, Amarok, is having a fund raiser during the month of "Roktober." They need donations for their servers and to fund continued development of what is a truly great player.

I know that a few of you are KDE/Linux users, which means that you (like me) are undoubtably using Amarok. If you pony up with a donation of at least $10 US, then you're eligible for the iPod Giveaway.

Support Open Source software.

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I got half my wish. The Padres won the N.L. West, but it's the Phillies who'll be eating cheese steak sandwiches on South Street tomorrow rather than the Dodgers wolfing down Tommy Burgers in Santa Monica.

Given how strong the Padres and the Dodgers are playing right now (hot and searingly hot, respectively), and given the fact that the Cardinals and Mets backed into the playoffs, the NLCS could very well end up being a rematch of the two top teams in the West.

'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished. There's nothing I'd rather see than the Padres denying the Dodgers a trip to the World Series. It's been an awfully long time (the Kurt Gibson miracle series in 1988) since Los Angeles has been there.

The probable pitchers for Tuesday's game in San Diego are Peavy and Carpenter. Given the way the Padres handled the defending Cy Young award winner last time they met, I'd give us the edge.

Since neither team's the New York Yankees, the game will be played when all of us working stiffs are preoccupied with earning a living. Sigh. Guess I'll have to bring a radio to work.

Enjoy the playoffs.

Peridyd

Posted by Dennis Bennett at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)