Why is there such a lack of consistency among people today? I know this sounds naive and idealistic, but I just don't understand why people play mind games with others (with themselves is a whole other story and I will save that for another post). If you believe something, act in a way that actually reflects your belief. I think that the old adage: "Say what you mean, and mean what you say" is appropriate here. Consistency is believability, reliability, and plain easier to deal with than trying to figure out what a person means or what they may do because they never act the same way twice.
Obviously, I cannot stand people who are unpredictable-- in a certain way. For instance, I may be doing the same action in multiple situations, but the person may not react the same way each time. It makes no sense which way they'll go. One just has to hope it doesn't end badly, I suppose. Ahh, I'm not really making sense. A better, more concrete example: I say something about a political figure (take Ron Paul) and mention something that I like him. That's all I say. This happens on two different occasions. Both times, I am merely speaking in general to the room at large. One person is present in both situations. The first time I mention Paul, they say nothing or say something trivial. The second time, they freak out completely and berate me for liking him. What am I supposed to do in a situation like this? An easy excuse is to say that I should just not say controversial things, but why should I curb my speech when it isn't inflammatory or in bad taste? Perhaps these people are just unstable and I shouldn't pay attention to what they say at all. But this problem is compounded when there is accountability involved-- that is, the person has some sort of power or authority (professors, supervisors, and government officials, mainly), and things I say or do may have a negative effect if the things are the wrong thing. Regardless, when I don't know how they will react to my actions, I get very stressed out. And this is a bad thing, because I don't know why people are inconsistent in the first place.
Certainly everyone is inconsistent here and there. I understand this. After all, if consistency in life and beliefs was easy to achieve, it wouldn't be something that I remind myself to live for every day. But it seems to me that inconsistency fills the world and is especially rampant in positions of authority. Why do authority figures/organizations make rules that can't (or won't be) enforced? This makes no sense. It instills a sense of wrongfulness into everyday life and if the rules aren't going to be enforced, this sense of uncertainty is reinforced. The rule-follower feels obligated to follow the rule, even though there is no guarantee that the enforcement of the rule will occur. This can have the effect that most people will uphold the rule just to save themselves the trouble of dealing with the authorities.
I am more concerned with the rule-breakers, however. Some will get away with the action, others will be caught and punished. Now, some will say that the rule-breaker who is not caught is just smarter than the person who did get caught breaking the rule. But is he? What if the authority figure (the rule-maker) knows both people broke the rule, but only chooses to pursue one suspect (ceteris parabis, of course) over the other? It seems to me that inconsistency regarding the enforcement of rules only causes inequality to ensue. And everyone knows that inequality is intolerable, right?
Ah, I don't know how I got into this ridiculousness. Frustrated, I suppose, with the other people in my life and trying to talking about one of the three words for which this blog is named (I think I was thinking about mind games that people play with others. Another issue for another day, as it doesn't fit completely into this topic. Perhaps more in tune with confidence...). Stay tuned for a post on clarity, another on coherence, and one on mind games.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Brownie Experimentation, Part One
So today, in the midst of making a pot of tea, I decided that I was in a baking mood. All I had to cook with was a couple of boxes of brownie mix (not from scratch-- brownie mix is pretty much all the same, so I'd rather just buy the box), so I really had no choice in my selection. Now, I approach brownie-making as my own personal chemistry lab. I love to experiment with different things to put into my brownies.
In the past, I have used Reese's Pieces (great because the shell keeps the inside of the candy intact), chocolate chips (always a favorite), caramel (another favorite), and Hershey's Kisses (not so great-- they melt off of the top and recongeal into a lump of waxiness in the middle of the brownie). This time, I had a little less than half of a bag of chocolate chips, a little peanut butter, and about three-quarters of a jar of Nutella. Now, I was unsure about the peanut butter at first and then decided against it because I didn't think it would be a good texture. But I was definitely going to use the chocolate chips and figured the Nutella would be an interesting addition.
And so, I decided to make Nutella chocolate chip brownies (cue the mmmmm's).
Side note: when I make brownies, I like them fudgy, gooey, and melt-in-your-mouth. I like to use as few eggs as possible, and I like olive oil because it tends to make the brownies more moist. In addition, I like to taste the brownie mix as I make it, so I always add and the mix everything except the eggs first. I taste, and then I add the eggs before putting it in the pan.
So, the ingredients:
There was a lot of Nutella for me to use, so in the end, I decided to use a large dollop (a full spatula) of the stuff, mix it in, and see if I could taste the hazelnut. I mixed all of it very well (by then, everything wet had been absorbed, and the addition of the Nutella caused the batter to have a rough, chunky texture. It was weird, but the nature of the batter facilitated the ability to eat bits of the yummy stuff) and concluded that the hazelnut spread was not at all discernible. So, I added a large teaspoonful of Nutella and set to mixing once again. This time, I tasted the taste of Nutella and figured it might be overkill to continue to add more. So I added the eggs and mixed very thoroughly one last time (I hate seeing chunks of eggs in the batter).
Finally, it was time to bake. I had already set the oven to 325 degrees Fahrenheit (and boy am I lucky that the school oven is well-calibrated. That thing is sketchy as hell), so I proceeded to pour the batter into an ungreased baking pan. This, you may expect, is a no-no, but I always forget. Plus, I think my brownies tend to be gooey enough to not need the spray. I've never had a problem with sticking. Anyway, I chucked the batter into the oven for 52 minutes and settled down to wait at my computer. While the brownies were cooking, I thought I smelled a little hazelnut, but I have chalked that up to wishful thinking, in retrospect.
So when I took out the brownies after nearly an hour of wonderful brownie smells, I noticed that the brownies were puffed up more than the average batch. I found this odd, but perhaps the brownies were always like this and I didn't usually notice? You can see evidence of the puffiness in the first posted picture.
Of course, the brownies had deflated by the time I went to test them. I had let them cool for about an hour and a half, and they were still quite soft on the inside when I cut them (I will update this later to see if this changes once they have truly set tomorrow). Goo was oozing out of the cut and when I went to lift my piece out of the pan, it tried to stick with its brother (as you can see from the missing chunk in the picture below), but otherwise came out without a hitch. I am pretty sure the reason why the brownies never stick is because I use the olive oil, which not only increases moistness, but also acts as a greasing agent (but not in a gross way).
So, the part everyone has been waiting for-- was the Nutella able to be tasted? First, I cut myself the corner, as you can see from the picture. It turned out to be the gooey-est (yes, I am making that a word), most chocolatey brownie ever. I found this interesting, because corners tend to, well, not be gooey. Now, the gooeyness may be due to the fact that the brownie was still warm, but that issue will also be cleared up tomorrow. The brownie was almost sickeningly sweet (which I always think is a good thing), and none of the chocolate chips had reformed into their normal shapes from their melted state. The crust was hardly noticeable on the bottom and the sides had an extremely think layer of hard brownie (almost crunchy, but not quite). Unfortunately, I couldn't really taste the Nutella. I caught a hint in one bite, but that was all (perhaps things will change as I sample other parts of the brownie later). But all in all, it was a very tasty brownie..
I also used two testers to try my brownies, which they described (glowingly) as incredibly chocolatey. They, too, did not notice any Nutella. I am slightly disappointed by this and I hope that the situation resolves itself tomorrow. If it doesn't, however, I do have a plan to figure out this situation. Next time I try to make Nutella brownies, I shall be adding much more of the stuff (two dollops, in fact) to see if that makes a difference. If that doesn't even work... I will probably get the Nutella nice and warm and spreadable and layer it into the brownie (as one would with icing in a cake). Hopefully, the increased Nutella will work. Frankly, the layering method sounds messy and difficult to accomplish. But the real wish here is that the Nutella flavor ferments itself overnight and tomorrow I wake up to wonderfully hazelnut goodness.
UPDATE: The next morning... The brownies seemed much more willing to hold their shape. They no longer ooze (unsurprisingly. They are cold now). The interesting thing is that they are still incredibly gooey and fudgy. They usually harden up a little by the morning.
I still can't taste the Nutella. Go figure. I thought the lighter band of brown you can see on the right-hand top corner of the brownie below was a strip of Nutella, but if it was, I couldn't taste it. I'm beginning to think that I shouldn't have put the chocolate chips in, because every time I get a good chunk of brownie, there is an inevitable chocolate chunk, which tends to skew my taste of the actual brownie. So... next time, no chocolate chips if there will be Nutella. :( However, I did notice that the addition of the Nutella has made my brownies much more gooey than usual. And for that, I am ecstatic.
Thanks for reading! I do love experimenting with brownies. See you for part two, coming the next time I decide to bake (and I'm asking for muffin tins for Christmas so I can make cupcakes next semester!). Hahah.
In the past, I have used Reese's Pieces (great because the shell keeps the inside of the candy intact), chocolate chips (always a favorite), caramel (another favorite), and Hershey's Kisses (not so great-- they melt off of the top and recongeal into a lump of waxiness in the middle of the brownie). This time, I had a little less than half of a bag of chocolate chips, a little peanut butter, and about three-quarters of a jar of Nutella. Now, I was unsure about the peanut butter at first and then decided against it because I didn't think it would be a good texture. But I was definitely going to use the chocolate chips and figured the Nutella would be an interesting addition.
And so, I decided to make Nutella chocolate chip brownies (cue the mmmmm's).
 |
| Here is a picture of the finished masterpiece as it cooled (a preview of what's to come). |
So, the ingredients:
- A box of Betty Crocker fudge brownie mix (Family Size)
- 2/3 cup olive oil
- 1/4 cup water
- 2 large eggs
- A little less than half of a bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chips
- A large dollop and a large spoonful of Nutella
There was a lot of Nutella for me to use, so in the end, I decided to use a large dollop (a full spatula) of the stuff, mix it in, and see if I could taste the hazelnut. I mixed all of it very well (by then, everything wet had been absorbed, and the addition of the Nutella caused the batter to have a rough, chunky texture. It was weird, but the nature of the batter facilitated the ability to eat bits of the yummy stuff) and concluded that the hazelnut spread was not at all discernible. So, I added a large teaspoonful of Nutella and set to mixing once again. This time, I tasted the taste of Nutella and figured it might be overkill to continue to add more. So I added the eggs and mixed very thoroughly one last time (I hate seeing chunks of eggs in the batter).
Finally, it was time to bake. I had already set the oven to 325 degrees Fahrenheit (and boy am I lucky that the school oven is well-calibrated. That thing is sketchy as hell), so I proceeded to pour the batter into an ungreased baking pan. This, you may expect, is a no-no, but I always forget. Plus, I think my brownies tend to be gooey enough to not need the spray. I've never had a problem with sticking. Anyway, I chucked the batter into the oven for 52 minutes and settled down to wait at my computer. While the brownies were cooking, I thought I smelled a little hazelnut, but I have chalked that up to wishful thinking, in retrospect.
So when I took out the brownies after nearly an hour of wonderful brownie smells, I noticed that the brownies were puffed up more than the average batch. I found this odd, but perhaps the brownies were always like this and I didn't usually notice? You can see evidence of the puffiness in the first posted picture.
Of course, the brownies had deflated by the time I went to test them. I had let them cool for about an hour and a half, and they were still quite soft on the inside when I cut them (I will update this later to see if this changes once they have truly set tomorrow). Goo was oozing out of the cut and when I went to lift my piece out of the pan, it tried to stick with its brother (as you can see from the missing chunk in the picture below), but otherwise came out without a hitch. I am pretty sure the reason why the brownies never stick is because I use the olive oil, which not only increases moistness, but also acts as a greasing agent (but not in a gross way).
 |
| In their deflated state, but still majestic. |
 |
| In all of its glory, a gooey piece of my baked goods. |
UPDATE: The next morning... The brownies seemed much more willing to hold their shape. They no longer ooze (unsurprisingly. They are cold now). The interesting thing is that they are still incredibly gooey and fudgy. They usually harden up a little by the morning.
I still can't taste the Nutella. Go figure. I thought the lighter band of brown you can see on the right-hand top corner of the brownie below was a strip of Nutella, but if it was, I couldn't taste it. I'm beginning to think that I shouldn't have put the chocolate chips in, because every time I get a good chunk of brownie, there is an inevitable chocolate chunk, which tends to skew my taste of the actual brownie. So... next time, no chocolate chips if there will be Nutella. :( However, I did notice that the addition of the Nutella has made my brownies much more gooey than usual. And for that, I am ecstatic.
 |
| I had such a hard time getting pictures of this silly thing that I got a stomachache from all of the tummy growling. |
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sex and the City-- Existential Conspiracy?
Now, being the curious and thoughtful philosophy major that I am, I wonder about many of the things I experience. Ever since I saw the Sex and the City movie (a rather long time after it was released in theaters, I must admit), I became enamored with the show's reruns, as edited and pathetic as they are now that they've been confined to network television.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Candace Bushnell's ideas about Carrie Bradshaw-- the show's main character is meant to be Bushnell's alter ego. But remember, I'm a philosophy major. The conventional explanations don't sit well with me. Over the summer (when I watched Sex and the City rerun marathons almost every night), I developed an interesting theory about Carrie and the other three ladies on the show. Or, at least, I think it's interesting. Well, that's the point of the blog, I suppose
So here's the thing. Suppose that Carrie Bradshaw is actually a very disturbed woman. After all, she has been damaged many times by so many men. Look at the two major relationships she sustained on the show. Carrie and Aidan were very serious for a long time, then they broke up, got back together and then Aidan immediately wanted to get married. Carrie then got cold feet and left Aidan. She was completely heartbroken-- and I mean broken-- after that. It was actually painful to watch. And that's not even taking into account the antics of Aidan in the second movie. Who walks up to one's ex, finds out she is married, and kisses her? Clearly Aidan has no regard for Carrie's feelings. Carrie's second man was, of course, Big. Who can forget him? Big pushed her away repeatedly for the entire series and they didn't even get married until the first movie-- and the majority of that movie involved Carrie being depressed about his leaving her at the altar (and then they ended up married!). Mind you, I'm not trying to say Carrie is a saint. She does some pretty screwed up stuff, too. And I'm not saying that the romanticism isn't at all wonderful (I'm a sucker for romance). But, assuming that Carrie is a very messed up woman, her mental issues are only exacerbated by the men she dates.
Now, Carrie is an outwardly normal woman. No truly crazy delusions or odd compulsions. But what if the issue is bigger here? Existential, even? What if the existential crisis involves the most crucial thing in her life-- her relationship with her three best friends? Granted, it's not surprising to find women who are close, share everything with each other, etc. I admit it. Bear with me. What if Carrie's delusion is that the three other women on the show, that is, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda, don't exist? They are real only in Carrie's head, as projections of her personality. Specters, perhaps, of different facets of her psyche, purer qualities than the full amalgamation of her character. They exist to help Carrie make sense of twisted and entangled relationships with men, to give her guidance in the most complicated situations. Samantha, the most confident in herself-- she encourages Carrie to fully embrace her sexuality and become the strongest woman she can be. Charlotte, the conventional one and the romantic-- she continually gives Carrie hope that her knight on a white horse is out there, waiting to sweep her off of her feet into a perfect relationship. And Miranda, the career-oriented one, grounded and practical-- she keeps Carrie (forever flighty) from slipping off into scatterbrained oblivion and is the model of the stable career that Carrie wishes to emulate.
Essentially, in order to hold herself together, Carrie creates these projections, which give her advice and ultimately even out the various extremes in her personality profile. I know it's crazy and fantastical, but, hey, it's fun to dream and wonder, right? That's the theory. Take it as you will.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Candace Bushnell's ideas about Carrie Bradshaw-- the show's main character is meant to be Bushnell's alter ego. But remember, I'm a philosophy major. The conventional explanations don't sit well with me. Over the summer (when I watched Sex and the City rerun marathons almost every night), I developed an interesting theory about Carrie and the other three ladies on the show. Or, at least, I think it's interesting. Well, that's the point of the blog, I suppose
So here's the thing. Suppose that Carrie Bradshaw is actually a very disturbed woman. After all, she has been damaged many times by so many men. Look at the two major relationships she sustained on the show. Carrie and Aidan were very serious for a long time, then they broke up, got back together and then Aidan immediately wanted to get married. Carrie then got cold feet and left Aidan. She was completely heartbroken-- and I mean broken-- after that. It was actually painful to watch. And that's not even taking into account the antics of Aidan in the second movie. Who walks up to one's ex, finds out she is married, and kisses her? Clearly Aidan has no regard for Carrie's feelings. Carrie's second man was, of course, Big. Who can forget him? Big pushed her away repeatedly for the entire series and they didn't even get married until the first movie-- and the majority of that movie involved Carrie being depressed about his leaving her at the altar (and then they ended up married!). Mind you, I'm not trying to say Carrie is a saint. She does some pretty screwed up stuff, too. And I'm not saying that the romanticism isn't at all wonderful (I'm a sucker for romance). But, assuming that Carrie is a very messed up woman, her mental issues are only exacerbated by the men she dates.
Now, Carrie is an outwardly normal woman. No truly crazy delusions or odd compulsions. But what if the issue is bigger here? Existential, even? What if the existential crisis involves the most crucial thing in her life-- her relationship with her three best friends? Granted, it's not surprising to find women who are close, share everything with each other, etc. I admit it. Bear with me. What if Carrie's delusion is that the three other women on the show, that is, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda, don't exist? They are real only in Carrie's head, as projections of her personality. Specters, perhaps, of different facets of her psyche, purer qualities than the full amalgamation of her character. They exist to help Carrie make sense of twisted and entangled relationships with men, to give her guidance in the most complicated situations. Samantha, the most confident in herself-- she encourages Carrie to fully embrace her sexuality and become the strongest woman she can be. Charlotte, the conventional one and the romantic-- she continually gives Carrie hope that her knight on a white horse is out there, waiting to sweep her off of her feet into a perfect relationship. And Miranda, the career-oriented one, grounded and practical-- she keeps Carrie (forever flighty) from slipping off into scatterbrained oblivion and is the model of the stable career that Carrie wishes to emulate.
Essentially, in order to hold herself together, Carrie creates these projections, which give her advice and ultimately even out the various extremes in her personality profile. I know it's crazy and fantastical, but, hey, it's fun to dream and wonder, right? That's the theory. Take it as you will.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Technological Woes
As evidenced on my Twitter (link here), I was about to click on the news (and was relieved) that Sarah Palin had decided not to run for the presidency when I saw the second headline-- Steve Jobs had passed away. I was shocked and was inclined to disbelieve the initial report (even though I was looking at an article from the BBC). Jobs? Dead? Yeah, right, had to be a prank by those who knew he suffered from cancer (it's happened before, after all). And then I attempted to get onto Twitter... and it was over capacity. Only then did I realize the reports of Jobs's death were true.
Is it sad that Twitter crashing is what finally hit home about Jobs? What does this say about the state of the world in general? Are we too connected to our online lives? How is it possible that an MTV reality star of partying fame broke the news on Twitter of Jobs's death before official news corporations updated their profiles? These questions and more surprise me. I never expected to be asking myself these sorts of things. I'm a child of the '90s, for God's sake-- I remember when computer screen displays could only show black and green colors. The Internet was in my household when dial-up was still widely used. Shouldn't I be taking the miracles of technology for granted?
After all, connectivity is something that I take for granted. When I am not on the Internet, checking up on what my friends are doing or whatever it is, I actually feel disconnected. I have not yet acquired a smartphone-- those hours on campus when I am not near my computer or in the rare instances when all access to the Internet is cut off in a storm are almost torturous. I feel as though I am missing tons of important information by not having instant connection to email, Facebook, or Twitter. When I can't access my email or calendar, I hesitate to commit to things because my central planning tool is not in front of me. Not to mention the fact that sometimes I get to class and realize that I have missed an email about the homework for the day. Or worse-- the class has actually been cancelled. Of course, the latter situation hasn't happened much, but I still disconnected.
What is so great about 'being connected?' All it seems to do is give me reasons to continually buy more and more gadgets. They get smaller and more powerful, but they give me more excuses to bury myself in the touchscreen of some machine that tells me what everyone is writing on their own gadgets. I'm afraid of missing things that happen online, but what about missing out on what's happening in the real world?
And yet... these technological advances have made me much happier than one would expect, given the examples from above. One situation which is particularly important in my life is the capability to video-chat. A mere thirty years ago, if I wished to contact someone, I could call them on my house phone or write them a letter... no face-to-face communication. Even about ten years ago, I wouldn't expect to be able to call someone with video, though I'd be able to email them or chat instantly if I wanted. But now, as I grow older and want to maintain my relationships with others, video-chat platforms like those on Skype are becoming essential.
My boyfriend is currently studying in Belgium. We both have very busy lives. Sometimes email just isn't enough (even though it is one of the most time-efficient ways to communicate). The time difference is killer, because most of his downtime is when I'm asleep and most of my downtime is when he's out having fun with friends. We chat as much as we can, but it's usually pretty limited. By scheduling Skype time, we can plan out when we want to talk. Being able to communicate visually is really important for us to remain close.
And then I remember that my generation is the first that is even able to enjoy such a privilege. I am so grateful to be able to instantly video-chat. After all, not so long ago, those in long-distance relationships had to rely on the postal service to communicate with their loved ones. In order to remind myself of this, I have decided to also send letters to Belgium. It's not really that expensive (about $1), and it is actually pretty fun. I really enjoy putting all of my thoughts down on paper and know that within a week, he'll be reading the letter and holding the same paper that I so recently held. But we're still spoiled. In past years, letters took months to arrive... if they weren't lost on the way.
So in the end, Skype is a godsend, but is also indicative of the technological trends that are pushing us closer to total immersion in updating our online lives, serving to alienate those who don't follow the trends as closely as possible. I can only wait to see the newest advances (which are coming all of the time, who am I kidding?). Right now, I can talk to anyone, anywhere instantly... but what's coming next?
Is it sad that Twitter crashing is what finally hit home about Jobs? What does this say about the state of the world in general? Are we too connected to our online lives? How is it possible that an MTV reality star of partying fame broke the news on Twitter of Jobs's death before official news corporations updated their profiles? These questions and more surprise me. I never expected to be asking myself these sorts of things. I'm a child of the '90s, for God's sake-- I remember when computer screen displays could only show black and green colors. The Internet was in my household when dial-up was still widely used. Shouldn't I be taking the miracles of technology for granted?
After all, connectivity is something that I take for granted. When I am not on the Internet, checking up on what my friends are doing or whatever it is, I actually feel disconnected. I have not yet acquired a smartphone-- those hours on campus when I am not near my computer or in the rare instances when all access to the Internet is cut off in a storm are almost torturous. I feel as though I am missing tons of important information by not having instant connection to email, Facebook, or Twitter. When I can't access my email or calendar, I hesitate to commit to things because my central planning tool is not in front of me. Not to mention the fact that sometimes I get to class and realize that I have missed an email about the homework for the day. Or worse-- the class has actually been cancelled. Of course, the latter situation hasn't happened much, but I still disconnected.
What is so great about 'being connected?' All it seems to do is give me reasons to continually buy more and more gadgets. They get smaller and more powerful, but they give me more excuses to bury myself in the touchscreen of some machine that tells me what everyone is writing on their own gadgets. I'm afraid of missing things that happen online, but what about missing out on what's happening in the real world?
And yet... these technological advances have made me much happier than one would expect, given the examples from above. One situation which is particularly important in my life is the capability to video-chat. A mere thirty years ago, if I wished to contact someone, I could call them on my house phone or write them a letter... no face-to-face communication. Even about ten years ago, I wouldn't expect to be able to call someone with video, though I'd be able to email them or chat instantly if I wanted. But now, as I grow older and want to maintain my relationships with others, video-chat platforms like those on Skype are becoming essential.
My boyfriend is currently studying in Belgium. We both have very busy lives. Sometimes email just isn't enough (even though it is one of the most time-efficient ways to communicate). The time difference is killer, because most of his downtime is when I'm asleep and most of my downtime is when he's out having fun with friends. We chat as much as we can, but it's usually pretty limited. By scheduling Skype time, we can plan out when we want to talk. Being able to communicate visually is really important for us to remain close.
And then I remember that my generation is the first that is even able to enjoy such a privilege. I am so grateful to be able to instantly video-chat. After all, not so long ago, those in long-distance relationships had to rely on the postal service to communicate with their loved ones. In order to remind myself of this, I have decided to also send letters to Belgium. It's not really that expensive (about $1), and it is actually pretty fun. I really enjoy putting all of my thoughts down on paper and know that within a week, he'll be reading the letter and holding the same paper that I so recently held. But we're still spoiled. In past years, letters took months to arrive... if they weren't lost on the way.
So in the end, Skype is a godsend, but is also indicative of the technological trends that are pushing us closer to total immersion in updating our online lives, serving to alienate those who don't follow the trends as closely as possible. I can only wait to see the newest advances (which are coming all of the time, who am I kidding?). Right now, I can talk to anyone, anywhere instantly... but what's coming next?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
I Wish Cigarettes Smelled as Good as Woodsmoke
So many times have I tried to start a blog. And so many times has it fallen by the wayside. Well, given that I am more connected to the Internet than ever before in my life (and I don't even have a smartphone yet!), I think the time is right to begin anew.
I suppose I was inspired by friends, mostly those who are abroad for the next few months, who have started their blogs to chronicle their lives so their friends at home can keep abreast of new developments. I'm doing nothing so interesting. Blogging is something I have always wanted to do, and given that I am pretty lonely this semester (my boyfriend being in Belgium), I figure now is a great time to start.
There isn't much to say right now-- but it seems that fall has finally made its way to Hawk Hill! There is nothing I love more than crisp, sunny days and the changing of the leaves. I have opened my windows wide in the hopes of catching a fall breeze, but at the moment, all I seem to be catching is the smell of smoke from cigarettes and the sounds of some sort of construction crew. -sigh-
It's amazing what a difference there is between cigarette smoke and woodsmoke. I so prefer smelling the latter. I have told the people who live in my building to please not smoke on the front steps, as it goes straight into my windows, but they cannot seem to grasp this fact. Now, I have no problem with people choosing to smoke. But when their right to pollute their bodies begins to interfere with my right to keep my body pure, I have a problem. And this problem continues to frustrate me, because people insist upon being lazy. I know it sucks to have to walk the fifty feet to the designated smoking spot, but it's there for a reason-- so the residents of the building don't have to be subjected to secondhand smoke. I have even asked them if they wouldn't mind moving over to the stone terrace, which is literally ten feet from the front door, but even that proves too far for some of the smokers. And rainy days... ugh. They're the worst. No one goes to the terrace-- they all sit on the steps and let the smoke trickle straight into my windows. I'm at a real loss about what to do about this.
And now that I have unloaded my little problem upon cyberspace, I shall take my leave of this blog and get on with my life. Until next time...
I suppose I was inspired by friends, mostly those who are abroad for the next few months, who have started their blogs to chronicle their lives so their friends at home can keep abreast of new developments. I'm doing nothing so interesting. Blogging is something I have always wanted to do, and given that I am pretty lonely this semester (my boyfriend being in Belgium), I figure now is a great time to start.
There isn't much to say right now-- but it seems that fall has finally made its way to Hawk Hill! There is nothing I love more than crisp, sunny days and the changing of the leaves. I have opened my windows wide in the hopes of catching a fall breeze, but at the moment, all I seem to be catching is the smell of smoke from cigarettes and the sounds of some sort of construction crew. -sigh-
It's amazing what a difference there is between cigarette smoke and woodsmoke. I so prefer smelling the latter. I have told the people who live in my building to please not smoke on the front steps, as it goes straight into my windows, but they cannot seem to grasp this fact. Now, I have no problem with people choosing to smoke. But when their right to pollute their bodies begins to interfere with my right to keep my body pure, I have a problem. And this problem continues to frustrate me, because people insist upon being lazy. I know it sucks to have to walk the fifty feet to the designated smoking spot, but it's there for a reason-- so the residents of the building don't have to be subjected to secondhand smoke. I have even asked them if they wouldn't mind moving over to the stone terrace, which is literally ten feet from the front door, but even that proves too far for some of the smokers. And rainy days... ugh. They're the worst. No one goes to the terrace-- they all sit on the steps and let the smoke trickle straight into my windows. I'm at a real loss about what to do about this.
And now that I have unloaded my little problem upon cyberspace, I shall take my leave of this blog and get on with my life. Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)