Is Suffering Good?

Credit: stevekrh19

Suffering is something most of us run away from. We know it and, by definition, don’t like it. Many of us, in fact, define happiness as the absence of suffering. But a big part of life too is to seek out meaning. After all, what is happiness without meaning? If we simply try to avoid suffering, then we are, in a sense, deriving happiness from a sort of pleasure, which, as most of us know, is ephemeral. So, where does meaning come from? Sometimes, society or nature skews the directionality of meaning. Ultimately, however, it manifests from within. If we want to live meaningful lives, then, suffering is a powerful vehicle to get us there.

Unavoidable Suffering

Involuntary suffering is part of the human condition. We cannot avoid some suffering. Everyone we have ever loved, unless some hypothetical cure to death is discovered soon, will die. Half of the time, marriages don’t work out. Natural disasters, mass shootings, car crashes, cancer, incarceration – there is an endless list of potential suffering just waiting for us. Suffering is, like many things in life, information. We live our lives based on this kind of information, otherwise called experience. That is, we make decisions largely based on experience. We believe, generally, that we make better decisions with more experience. That’s why wisdom is associated with age.

The more profound the suffering, the more we want to run and hide from it. Senselessness can make suffering more profound. I think of learned helplessness, a concept from Intro to Psych. When a dog, say, gets randomly shocked in an experiment so that nothing it does has any consequence on the adverse stimulus, it learns that it is powerless and gives up; it becomes lethargic, apathetic. Even when some way to avoid getting shocked is presented, it does not stir the animal into action. We humans are not so different. Anyone who has experienced depression, for example, understands this sort of feeling well.

I was severely depressed around 2015. It took considerable time and effort to escape the inertia of negative thoughts and feelings – years, in fact, because depression doesn’t tend to pop out of nowhere. But having found an escape velocity, I find myself in a happier, more meaningful state than ever. How? Given the depth of my despair, I was either going to give up or live, and living was going to take a big change. So, I reflected. I leaned on what I had learned of the Stoics. I learned what was meaningful to me and found my resolve to not return to that gravity well of pain. What made sense was what I could control, not what I couldn’t. The senselessness, in a sense, was resolved. Like pressure making diamonds, suffering can make meaning. I think we should always strive to make the best use of our experiences to live, however briefly, happier, more meaningful lives. If we don’t, we die.

This isn’t easy what I’m advocating. You should not occult your feelings when suffering, despite temptation. Feel your pain. Process it slowly and dutifully. Understand it. It’s necessary to learn what can be learned from it. You can only grow stronger from finding the meaning within the pain.

Avoidable Suffering

Voluntary suffering is a different thing altogether. Instead of standing steadfast against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, you are searching for a sea of troubles and diving in headfirst. There are various philosophies that find this kind of volition appealing: sadism, masochism, BDSM, mortification of the flesh, and so on. Suffering seems to break down denotatively in these examples; pain is made pleasure. Mortification of the flesh is an interesting example. Pain is meant to be pain. But the meaning, to deaden desire or to suffer like Christ, is built in. Are these examples of suffering? How much suffering (mental, emotional, and physical) can there be in a process you engage in willingly? Further, where is the senselessness that effects the search for meaning?

Something is different here. What is torture, say, if it is chosen? Exercise, sacrifice, discipline. These things are good; they can yield good health, good morals, and good routines. This idea is mimicked in the biological phenomenon of hormesis, whereby small, limited exposure to negative stimuli can generally make an organism more resilient. Working out, sitting in ice baths, spending time in a sauna, even practicing penance can help make us stronger when exposed to harsher conditions. This is a useful concept, especially when life gets too easy, when we are likely to take things for granted and could use a good kick in the pants. The goal, however, is to keep exposure small, stress limited. That’s how it works. If suffering were truly the goal, our well-being would be at risk because we would seek out maximum pain. And we know that working out too much, for example, is bad for us, that our bodies are not able to recover from the damage, that we should rest and recoup what was lost. Or, likewise, that too much heat can cause heat stroke.

Suffering can kill us. It should not be taken lightly. It is Shylock, demanding skin to give; it leaves scars, in various forms. I’m uncertain how many scars one can obtain and still have skin to give. But it’s not something I’m willing to find out. Yes, when we survive, it helps us grow, and we can be grateful for it. But we are human, and suffering is taking a risk. In taking that risk, we are not appreciating the good, because we are not protecting it. I am grateful for my suffering, for the times when I did not want to continue, though I wouldn’t want to relive them. Because of them, I am better able to calibrate my good fortune, what I have. Today, I am happier, more resilient. In the words of J. Cole, “you ain’t never gon’ be happy ‘til you love yours.”

Life 10,000 years ago, a time we are better adapted for, was not like today; it was not comfortable; stressors abounded. That doesn’t mean you’d want to go back there. I’d take living today, any day, over living in the Stone Age. We can be grateful for suffering without wanting it. It can make us better; but that doesn’t mean it does so without, at least temporarily, making us worse. There’s never a guarantee with suffering that you will make it out the other side of the proverbial tunnel. Don’t bet on that. Commit to nicks and bruises instead of slings and arrows to build resilience, gratitude, and happiness – think hormesis. When suffering does occur, and it inevitably will, you’ll be in a better place to battle it, and to find meaning. And that’s all any of us is trying to do half the time, anyway.

The Problem of Trust

Credit: befresh

The Gift of Trust

Trust is one of the greatest inherited gifts of humankind. It is a glue of sorts; it makes society, and, therefore, civilization, possible.

 In our prehistoric past, we trusted our fellow villagers enough that we could coexist in proximity without killing each other - or, at least, without killing each other to such a degree that would’ve made such cohabitation impossible or impractical. Perhaps we were inclined to do so because these others, mostly our kin, looked a lot like us. Or, maybe we were simply more biologically predisposed to trust, because communities with trust outcompeted communities without it.

You might argue, to the contrary, that trust derives primarily from logic. Sometimes, the incentives line up with how we would like others to act. People tend not to murder each other, for example, because they don’t want to be punished by society. As a result, most people walk calmly down the street, instead of run from one location to the other for fear of being killed. Or take the philosophy of mutually assured destruction, which has kept us safe from nuclear annihilation - so far. Nations do not nuke each other - that is, other nuclear-armed nations - because they understand that the response would likely be to retaliate in kind; and there are no winners in nuclear winter.

Whatever the reason, trust is something we tend to do.

Yes, there are many contexts in which we tend not to trust others, especially if we don’t know someone or if they hold no position of authority or influence. Yet, in our modern lives, trust is indispensable. All the important interpersonal relationships we have involve trust: our parents, our children, our friends, and our romantic partners. Not all of us trust our romantic partners. There are, for instance, a plethora of dating apps and opportunities in the real world to potentially fight against. And we can’t be with our significant other 24/7 - nor would we want to. It wouldn’t take too long to cheat either. So, what do we do? Well, we either learn to trust our partners, or we leave. Tragically, some do neither. That’s a choice, too. To trust someone is to be vulnerable because our trust may prove unfounded. There is beauty in that vulnerability. It is easy to see why we often trust the ones we love; they have the metaphorical key to our hearts. And when they validate our trust, by being faithful and loving back, it’s like a reaffirmation of our love for them.

Further, when we lose our trust in others, we tend to move away from them, from society. The glue degrades. Ted Kaczinski comes to mind. It’s not that we necessarily become dangerous. But we become less useful to society. I’m pro-society. Collectively we solve problems better than individually. And, biologically at least, most, if not all, of us need each other.

The Problem of Trust

We trust because we have no better alternative. It’s almost synonymous with faith; we can’t know everything, so we trust. I’m not advocating for the elimination of trust. As stated, it is terribly useful. I do believe, however, that there are some circumstances in which the reduction of the need for trust, where it would be possible and practical, would help to create more efficient systems.

Jan 6, 2021, is a good example of the problem since government is the most powerful institution we implicitly trust. Most of us had trusted in the electoral system, that the other side would accept the results, in the integrity of democracy. We survived, yes. But the problem of Trump was obvious - to me and to many others. I understand some have found him to be charismatic. People like confident people, especially if they’re rich and famous. Social media played a key role, too. Tristan Harris, former design ethicist at Google, blames social media algorithms for making people more susceptible to believe in the Big Lie in the first place and for greater polarization. Trump had said, clearly, that he wouldn’t accept the election results if they didn’t proclaim him victor. Before the election, Trump was trying to stop mail-in ballots from happening by rigging the post office, knowing that mail-ins lean Democrat). He had been building the case for years, in fact, in the way an insecure person, knowing he would lose, would do. We should have all seen it coming. And yet many of us, including the Capitol Police, were taken by surprise on Jan. 6. Trump and his sycophants came terrifyingly close to fucking up this democracy thing. I don’t know what would’ve happened if the rioters had gotten their hands on Mike Pence, who they said they wanted to hang, or Nancy Pelosi.

And what saved us? It seems our democracy was kept intact by a relatively small number of people. What would’ve happened, for example, if the man who shot Ashli Babbitt had been an avid Trump supporter instead? What if there were more cops on Trump’s side that day? What if the Georgia officials Trump had tried to coerce had given Trump what he wanted? What if Mike Pence had done what Trump had asked and refused to certify the election results? It’s not clear how many more people Trump would have had to fire or replace or coerce to get what he wanted, but it’s not absurd to think he could’ve done it with just a bit more effort. He certainly tried. And now we have in front of us, for future wannabe dictators, the blueprint: How to Destroy Democracy.

One thing seems clear: leaving democracy up to the character of people who we vote for based on a popularity contest isn’t ideal. Put another way, the necessity of trust in individuals who govern us, in place of something better, is the problem. The President can say he has no desire to destroy democracy; it would be better if such a thing were not possible, or as unlikely and impractical as possible.

Toward a Solution

In considering a solution to this intractable problem, I draw my inspiration from two key sources, both from computer science: zero trust architecture and Bitcoin.

Zero trust architecture (ZTA) is based on the principle of “trust but verify” (also: “Never trust, always verify”). It’s a cybersecurity approach that seeks to eliminate the need for trust and instead seeks out to validate all interactions. The problem ZTA identifies is that organizations’ networks have tended to assume that everything inside its corporate walls should be implicitly trusted, making it easy for malicious actors to move freely and access sensitive materials once they’re on the inside. Because many organizations today don’t have a clearly defined perimeter, due to the advent of the cloud, mobile devices, and IoT, ZTA seeks to protect a corporation’s network from anywhere and at any time.

Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous creator of Bitcoin, was largely motivated by the problem of trust, too - in his case, within financial transactions. He wrote: “While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust-based model. ... What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.” How does Bitcoin resolve the problem of the trusted third party? Instead of “the fate of the entire money system” depending on who runs the mint, with “every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank. ... transactions must be publicly announced [with] . . . a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received”; so, the payee gets proof of “the time of each transaction . . . [when] the majority of nodes . . . [agree] it was the first received.” It is resolved through transparency, through community, and through math. (More on this below.)

These two key developments demonstrate the difficulty and complexity of the issue at hand – bad trust – and, therefore, the need to be comprehensive in a solution.

Firstly, ZTA suggests an obvious utility in ensuring election integrity and efficiency, making it practically impossible for people to say they won when they didn’t. I do not see any substantial reason why we couldn’t vote digitally. Companies have endeavored to ensure you are who you say you are for decades and have many useful and still evolving techniques, such as two-factor authentication. ZTA would further help us identify critical components of the network and develop strong methods for user authentication. For example, this approach becomes stronger with more users. This means more verification, which means a safer network, which means less trust is needed in individuals, though, ironically, more trust will be gained in the process, which is vital; trust is the currency of democracy. This idea is not new; ZTA is already being advocated for use in this way.

Secondly, when possible, decreasing the size and scope of government is generally a good thing. Just like Bitcoin addresses the problem of the middleman by getting rid of him; whenever possible and practical, removing the need to trust in government officials is imperative. Obviously, many of them lie. It’s also clear that we are not trying to create oligarchs. We’re trying to live happy, meaningful lives. Bureaucracy is slow and inefficient. While there may always be a need for cops or judges, there might not always be a need for a large body of usually aloof individuals who get rich from their insider knowledge and donors, and, therefore, do not have a strong incentive to represent their constituents’ needs.

Direct democracy, having people vote for the laws they want, is one more direct path. If implemented at scale, it should encourage greater awareness and participation from the public, instead of trust in charismatic leaders. And with our modern technology, it isn’t particularly difficult to do. It should eliminate the problem of gridlock in Congress. And with ranked-choice voting, we can better make sure each vote matters, that the best option is chosen. In turn, we’d need less red tape: fewer political bodies to count votes and implement elections, generally. Obviously, such an approach would take time and some convincing. We should be talking about this. Perhaps some laws make more sense than others to vote on directly. Even so, we would be moving in the right direction: away from a bloated, slow, inefficient, and generally untrustworthy government.

Finally, one futuristic idea is to replace government, the middleman, altogether with some sort of super algorithm, an artificial intelligence (AI). Again, let’s look at Bitcoin. Algorithms enable Bitcoin transactions from one person to another without either needing a third party, or to reveal their identities, while, at the same time, enabling both parties involved to trust in the system because the double spending problem is nearly impossible to occur; in other words, they don’t need to trust each other.

AI is certainly a work in progress. But progress involves our greatest minds, community, math, and science. AI, like our children, inherits our values; we just must be careful about what our values are. Tristan Harris has brilliantly shown us, time and again, the innate problems in having powerful algorithms spurred by seemingly innocuous incentives, such as profit seeking. He writes of one powerful example, “YouTube’s recommendation algorithms, which determine 70% of daily watch time for billions of people, “suggest” what are meant to be similar videos but actually drive viewers to more extreme, more negative, or more conspiratorial content because that’s what keeps them on their screens longer.”

We must be careful. We could get this wrong. We should take our time. Bitcoin is inherently open source. It is built by community. The best ideas win. It is a good metaphor for a more hopeful future. With all our problems, we often look at technology or government to save us. These things are tools. We need tools. But we won’t get everything right. If we can be as transparent as possible, however, and increase trust in the governing system overall, by decreasing the need to trust, where possible and practical, then we can move humanity in a better direction.

No man is an island, said Donne. We rely on each other. We trust each other. And that’s a beautiful and necessary thing. It’s nice to feel you can leave your door open because you believe that nothing bad will happen. It would be better, though, if you knew, as much as it is possible to know, that nothing could.

What Is God?

Credit: andyh1988

Context

I was raised by God-fearing Latinos, mostly by my mother. So, I got plenty of the God-and-Devil talk. I spent a lot of time, especially nights, terrified of the Devil, of Hell, and of El Cucu (“the Bogeyman”). I inherited this Caribbean form of Catholicism; it was a way many uneducated people chose to keep their children from being naughty.

Around 16 or so, however, I began to question. I debated my atheist friends. Luckily, I was open-minded; I sought the truth. I realized, through educating myself, that science made more sense than religion. So, I became agnostic, not atheist, because, in the end, the point was, I didn’t know.

I grew older. I made friends with Christians and Muslims. I studied religion and philosophy in college. Both of these things taught me, among other things, the utility and complexity in religious belief.

I also went through difficult shit. I got severely depressed in 2015 and attempted suicide. I don’t like to talk about exactly what was going on at that time; it would require a lot of explanation. But these past experiences made me more open to the possibility of a God. Clearly, I wanted there to be a God because I wanted help. But I like to think, given my knowledge of science, that I remained aware of my likely bias and didn’t let it cloud my thinking. I simply held an open mind and paid attention.

Do I Believe?

If I had to wager, Pacal aside, I would bet on there being a God.

First, though, let me acknowledge that it’s a hard belief to justify purely rationally. You could try. You could talk about the beauty of the Universe, the cosmological constants, and so on. I’m not going to do that. (There are equally valid arguments on the other side.)

Let me also state that I don’t know whether or not a God exists. I believe. It’s a calculated belief, based on subjective feeling, based on my experiences; perceived possible intervention; and a few logical arguments. (For example, to paraphrase a friend, I do think there is, in contrast to the Problem of Evil, a Problem of Good, the phenomenon in which there is good in the world at all, when there need not be. In fact, many of us around the world live lives, on net, worth living, which is, in part, suggested by the global suicide rate, which is relatively low compared to the global birth rate). There’s something suggesting optimism in that comparison.)

What Is God to Me?

God is hope. He is the idea that there is some intention behind all of this, maybe in the origin of the Universe - that there should be existence at all. Perhaps He is behind the creation of intelligent life. I don’t know. I’m trying to describe a feeling that existence is better than non-existence, that this hope existed before existence, as we know it. It can also be stated thus: Somewhere some intelligence  knows I exist, and prefers that I do. (I am more certain of the first verb there than the second.) This implies my well-being is important to such an intelligence.

God is love. When I think about God, I think of eternal, unconditional love. Belief in a Creator, for me, is the feeling that someone - some intelligence somewhere - loves me no matter what, right or wrong, similar to a parent loving a child no matter what stupid shit the kid does. This is why the notion of God is so popular; it’s comforting. If I were certain that A) there’s a God and B) He loves me, it’s hard to imagine what I couldn’t live through. Hence, as we have seen repeatedly in history, people going through difficult times tend to move toward God. Despite the obvious counterargument of wishful thinking, to quote rapper Kendrick Lamar, “that’s just how feel.” I feel love. It’s not that how I feel is the best way of discovering truth. (Science is.) It’s that sometimes it’s all we have to discovery what may be.

God is also my feeling that there is an intelligence greater than mine - than all of humanity’s. This tells me that, again, there is hope beyond us; we are not limited to erroneous human cognition. Perhaps there are heights of knowledge out there that we may reach, that make us a better people. It also tells me that God gets us; that we need not explain; that there is room for redemption, for non-judgment. It sets the example for us.

What Is God Not to Me?

God is not a religious deity. The religious books are full of the telltale signs of their creators, ignorant humans. God is perhaps unknowable. If He speaks to you, let me know. Better yet, don’t.

God is not a genie I can count on to give me wishes. That’s wishful thinking. I also don’t think God meddles in the everyday affairs of humans, or other intelligent life forms in the Universe. That would probably make God rather petty, which would contradict my idea of God being intelligent. I also think this Bible-derived version of God is easily disprovable. If He existed in this way, why does He let children be routinely murdered and raped? One could argue to teach us through suffering. But what lesson did those children receive?

God is not, maybe most controversially, necessarily all powerful. I do believe God is good, as Joan Osborne sang in the ’90s. But when I reflect on all the suffering in the world, it seems to me that God would have to be committed to non-interference - at least, most of the time. This reminds me of a watchmaker. After making the watch, there only need be a few interventions every once in a while to make sure the thing keeps going. Many Christians argue that God’s commitment to free will explains the existence of evil. Yes, you would want to exist with free will, whether or not it is an illusion: to be fulfilled, to be an entity whose existence matters. Agreed. But I can’t imagine a good God not interfering at least some of the time; if God created the Universe for conscious creatures, if God is hope, then surely there are circumstances where humans take away all, or most, of the concomitant gifts from others (therefore, taking away aspects of free will). I can’t imagine a better time to intervene than before someone is murdered or raped after being tortured. This is truly a troubling thought for a believer. All I can say is that life is complicated. There are things we don’t see or know. Perhaps there are reasons that escape our myopic minds. Or, God doesn’t exist.

In the end, I choose to believe, knowing I may be wrong. A Godless universe fits with much of what I know about the universe as well. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful, if aware. Open-minded, if skeptical. If God does exist, I would like to know. Till then, I believe. Because I feel beauty. Hope. Reason. All beyond just me.

Note: God is a loaded term. It implies a personal religious diety. However, using other terms may be confusing. Keep in mind, I mean a hypothetical intelligence or creator behind the Universe itself. I also use the pronoun He, again, for the sake of clarity and ease of writing. It should not be taken literally.

What Is Happiness?

I don’t know that there is one universal answer. I can only speak for myself. And I seem unable, especially the older I get, to separate the concept of happiness from that of gratitude. And gratitude itself seems intimately tied to the notion of purpose. 

What Is Gratitude?
Gratitude, to me, in its simplest form, is the feeling that I am lucky more than I am unlucky in any meaningful way. More bad things can happen than good. This isn’t a simple comparison and contrast. I could, for example, get wrongfully arrested and spend the rest of my life in prison. That would lead to an immediate nosedive in my sense of overall happiness, of course. But, I suspect, because of the meaning I hold in my existence (more below), I would find a way to be happy even in such a circumstance. Gratitude, then, is about appreciating the good. It is easy for a rich man to be grateful, for example. That’s not what I’m talking about here. My gratitude derives not from material possessions or societal approval or even self actualization, I dare say. Outcomes cannot be the cause of happiness because outcomes cannot be controlled. Anyone who receives happiness from things he can’t control will find himself at the mercy of external factors. That is not happiness to me; it isn’t particularly useful either. Happiness derives from effort, from purpose. 

What Is Purpose?
Purpose comes from meaning. But is there meaning in the chaos of the Universe? I don’t know. Perhaps not. It’s a pretty big place and a lot happens, seemingly randomly. So, I am not talking about innate purpose, or meaning. There may not be such a thing. Saussure would approve. There might not be a God, or fate. It seems that way to me, most of the time. Therefore, I am talking about my own purpose here, derived from my own meaning. 

What Am I Grateful For? 
I am grateful for many things that happen to be in my favor; they don’t have to be so. In that way, I am lucky.

I am grateful to be alive; life is an opportunity to do things. These things have effects. Neither of these has to be so. What a wonderfully empowering thing! And, using reason, I may act in such a way that my effects are more good than bad, as I define them.

I am grateful that I have, and have shown, the ability to endure. I have suffered a lot of pain in my life; I was severely depressed for years for many reasons. But through considerable effort, I have developed into a tougher, stronger individual. It doesn’t always happen that way. 

I am grateful that I have in-built value to others, principally my parents. And that they tried more than they did not. 

I am grateful that my ancestors kept trying; that they survived weather extremes and famines and wars and pandemics and every thing the world threw at them; that I am a recipient of that effort. 

I am also grateful for the ability to learn from my mistakes, and, in that way, try to get closer to the bullseye. Ben Franklin said it well in his Autobiography, “. . . on the whole, tho' I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by the endeavor, a better and a happier man than I otherwise should have been if I had not attempted it . . .” 

I am grateful that there is beauty when there need not be, that I can appreciate it. When I look at nature, I see myself, a product of natural laws working relentlessly for eons to make slightly better adapted things. 

But, truly, my gratitude is not about looking at the cup as more full than empty; it could even be more empty, for that matter. My gratitude stems from my purpose, regardless of whether or not there is a God, or fate, regardless of whether or not I have succeeded. 

What is My Purpose? 
My purpose is to help others live lives with less necessary suffering, or, in short, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, to make the world a better place for my having been in it. Maybe it sounds cliché. But there’s little more that makes absolute sense to me. Think about it. If the Universe has no meaning, which seems a strong possibility, this dictum would still carry weight. Let’s explore. Suffering is, by definition, not good. I do not mean meaningful pain. That can be sacrifice or growth. I mean pain that causes a lack of meaning, such as someone who is a devout Muslim being force-fed pork. The subsequent suffering here is a result of, I argue, an inability to live meaningfully for this person. Of course, suffering depends on a person’s understanding. He might reason that his suffering brings him closer to Allah. Fine. But the suffering most Muslims would feel here is due to a breakdown of the values - the meaning - they hold dear. Let’s go further now. Suffering is part of life. It’s not going anywhere any time soon. And my existence, like all those who came before me, is finite. And I am but one among a seemingly infinite number of human beings. Therefore, if I can do something, even if it requires my own suffering, to make it more probable that the world in which my fellow humans live in is such that, as a result of my existence, is less likely for more people to have more suffering, then that is good - absolutely. And I have the ability, and desire, to live my life trying to do that.  

What Is Happiness to Me? 
Happiness is this feeling: that I, who need not exist, however imperfect, am, on net, a positive force acting on the world, which itself need not exist; that good exists at all and that I am alive to witness its magic. Any sufficiently good act is indistinguishable from magic. 

Free Speech and Social Media

Credit: Tracy Le Blanc

Free Speech
Free speech is the right that enables all other rights. Without the ability to speak our minds freely, we would not be able to effectively shape this democracy. The Founding Fathers knew this. It’s the First Amendment for a reason. Breaking free from a monarchy, it’s unsurprising they chose this freedom as a means to protect citizens from government persecution. In other words, if you say something the government doesn’t like, it can’t then retaliate against you. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, anyway. As a result, we can voice our dissent from public policies or government officials. If we’re right, over time, more people will agree with us than not. In this way, we can have a true democracy. 

Unprotected Speech
Freedom of speech, however, does not give you the right to endanger others. You cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for example, because of the clear and present danger; it would cause panic and people would get hurt. It is not your right to say absolutely anything you want. So, the spirit of the First Amendment is that this power cannot be abused in such a way as to directly threaten others’s well-being. 

Also, freedom of speech is not protection against criticism. Sometimes prominent individuals who receive backlash over public statements say their free speech is being violated when, really, they’re just being criticized. Clearly, we need to be able to express ideas openly in a democracy. Part of that, though, is that we should also be free to criticize ideas frankly. (I prefer to criticize bad ideas, not people. I find ad hominems generally don’t help further conversation, only to instill in participants an idea of struggle: one will win, one will lose. I want to contribute to the growth of society.) It’s important for good ideas to win, and bad ideas to lose. 

Social Media
Social media complicates all this. A social media company does not only create its own extension of reality to the digital world, it magnifies voices; it curates content; it creates and enables. In this way, social media companies bear some responsibility when speech is used to directly harm others on the platform. The difficult part is, what should they do? And when should they do it? Let’s use an example. If some online group decides to launch an online bullying campaign involving thousands of people against some young person, which involves racist and derogatory comments, what should be done?  Ban[ Part of the problem is that, within the borders of Twitterstan, the executives are the ruling elite. They have a God-like role. ]ning those individuals from using the platform in this case seems like the right thing to do. Life, though, is often more nuanced, so a case-by-case approach makes sense. But, now, that means that someone has to make the necessary decisions. In the real world, we have a justice system. There’s evidence, a trail, arbitration, judges, and so on. Currently, most of the online somehwat analogous processes occur behind the green curtains of Zuck, or, as seems likely, in the future, of Musk. That’s a lot of power, and obscurity. So, when people get banned, narratives quickly propagate alleging bias. It doesn’t help such allegations that so many of these Big Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal.

You could argue, “Hey, that’s the free market! If all of these successful Big Tech companies are liberal, then those ideals are the ones that most people agree with and think are right!” The problem, though, is that many of these companies regularly engage in anti-competitive practices and have reached near monopolistic or duopolistic status. It’s hard to self-regulate because of pressure from the public when you don’t actually feel that pressure: because either your consumers have no alternative (think Comcast) or because they’re addicted (think Big Tobacco). Much of social media embodies both of these problems. Twitter, for example, currently has between 200 and 300 million mDAUs. So, it’s hard to say to some dissenter, “Hey, use something else.” Further, social media addiction in young people, paragons of the problem facing Americans, has been  increasing for some years.

Then there’s government regulation. To the capitalist, government should have a light touch, if any, on the operations of private enterprises. For the free market to work, it needs to be free. But the market can’t be truly free. We set some limitations. Slavery isn’t a thing, anymore, for instance. We know people make bad choices (remember 2016?). We also know that social media algorithms and current attention-driven incentives make it harder to even make choices, and harm our long-term mental and emotional health, especially for young people, as former design ethicist at Google, Tristan Harris, brilliantly argues. 

So, to me, it’s clear that A) we need companies to have some form of autonomy for the free market to function. They need to set their own rules. And because of that, they bear responsibility, too, for what happens on their platforms. And B) there needs to be some government regulation to prevent people from intentionally and directly harming others. 

None of these things is easy. What is a company’s responsibilities and what’s a government’s? What about hate speech? What about misinformation? How is that defined? What constitutes harassment or bullying? Should all these things be equally addressed? And what do you do with offenders? 

Solution?
What would I do if I ran Twitter, say? First, let me acknowledge that there are smarter people than me working there already and who will be working there in the future. They have thought about this for longer than I have. Generally, I believe in expertise. If 9/10 doctors or researchers hold a particular opinion about something within their field, I value that. I tend to listen to that. So that’s just an acknowledgement that I don’t have all the answers. I also think that, over the long term, the free market, assuming it is working right, meaning it is generally fair, tends to be on to something. We see, over time, better strategies/approaches win out. That’s just a bit of optimism from me. 

But this isn’t a cop out. I agree with Elon Musk in this regard: Free speech principles are good principles. A social media platform, like Twitter, should try to emulate the First Amendment as much as is reasonably possible. While acknowledging all of the potential problems above, I think we should largely be able to say what we want to say, no matter the politics, religion, or ideology. In addition, if our ideas suck, people should be free to say so. I think it’s more productive if those who do so, do so in a respectful and helpful manner. That way we all benefit and are less likely to become more atomized.

And where do we split the responsibilities? What is a private company’s role? What is the government’s role? I believe young people should be protected from being targeted online. I also think that overt racism should be banned online. A platform shouldn’t help you say derogatory, racist shit. Misinformation is more difficult. For me, it depends on how you define it. If you are knowingly spreading false information, and there is clear and present danger in spreading said misinformation, then, yes, I think that’s a problem that should be addressed, in proportion to the offense.

I think the government should probably focus on the spirit of the First Amendment, which is to protect others from harm - that is, specific claims of violence. Everything else should probably be within a company’s purview. Some will not agree with me on what problems should be addressed and by which party. But I do think the free market, in the long run, will help us get to a better place.

I’m curious how Musk will change Twitter, how he will address these issues. I don’t envy him in that.

The Problem of Policing

The Need for Police
We need cops. I am not one of those who wants to abolish the police. It’s a necessary job. There will always be people who want to do us harm, circumstances where we are vulnerable. It’s a point of view hardly worth arguing for me. To be brief, having a specialized local law enforcement agency keeps people safe. This requires training, money, and brave men and women. We are not all John Wayne, or John Cena, or John Jones; this isn’t the Wild West, the squared circle, or the Octagon. And we don’t all want to own guns, as some libertarians advocate. We, I think, are trying to live in a civilized world. That means not being scared to go outside or to be alone; the same goes for our kids and loved ones. It also means we are not obligated to seek out mob justice - as we see happen in some developing countries when some poor burglar is caught, say. Laws have to be enforced. Otherwise, the bad guys have the power. A police force gets that done. We delegate this responsibility, to enforce laws, we, as a society, recognize as important. This way, we can live in a peaceful world: preserving life, pursuing happiness, and enjoying property.

The Difficulty of Policing
Let me also acknowledge, as has been said a lot recently, that policing is a difficult profession. Ideally, to handle all situations, we want cops to be excellent grapplers (reducing the need for physical violence); well-trained to disarm, deescalate, and detain; and well-armed (to handle danger) while also being mental help experts; law experts; be street smart; excellent communicators and negotiators; and have incredible restraint, courage, and patience. The question, though, is, do we ask too much of our fellow humans we rely on to protect and serve? For me, it’s hard to imagine anyone but the top 1% of humanity fitting such a description. There are such people out there. But the job is too important to have so few who can truly do all that is demanded.

The Problem of Policing
And all these demands can cause problems. 

While I’m not a fan of the phrase “Defund the Police,” because it implies we need to reduce policing, or take away their money, I do think there’s an idea therein that makes sense. And that’s the idea of specializing police work a bit more. People with untreated mental illness are much more likely to be killed by police (Source: https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976-people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement-). While this variable would make any situation potentially more difficult, adding a gun to the situation, an already stressful job, and a lack of specialized training and experience in dealing with the mentally ill, especially when the person in question is non-violent, might not be the best go-to step. Defund has advocated for the use of mental heath professionals in situations where suspects are non-violent. These professionals, for example, can work with police to make the initial contact. A cop can intervene if the situation becomes violent. This also reduces the burden and stress for individual cops. 

Then there are the killings, of citizens and of cops, that take place during routine, minor traffic or parking violations. Some of these are the results of bad policing, some of bad luck. There are many examples; I wish to not be divisive here. While many of these interactions may be necessary, some may be automated, if not now then in the future with further technological innovation. Problems with license plates or taillights, for example, can be documented digitally and a ticket can show up in the mail. This general approach of automating and reducing unnecessary interactions, if implemented, will save lives.

We cannot use a hammer every time; everything is not a nail. Reducing some of the career’s purview would allow cops to be more surgical (e.g., to focus on violent crime and process more rape kits). It should relieve stress and danger, and, therefore, reduce police brutality and potential tragedies. It’s a win-win for everyone. 

And yet there are other problems that specialization, that precision, will not address. 

Police often police themselves, which lead to predictable results. Even when there are Federal probes into civil rights violations, even when wrongdoing is found, departments often revert back to their old ways. Consent decrees are common, but do not reduce the incidences that created the problem in the first place (Source: https://time.com/police-shootings-justice-department-civil-rights-investigations/).

Police across the country are becoming increasingly militarized thanks to federal programs that gift them surplus military equipment. The problem is obvious: We, the public, are not an opposing army; we are citizens seeking to live purposeful, fulfilled lives. Some of us are bad. Some of us are terrorists. And I believe in specialization within law enforcement, in SWAT, for instance. But even SWAT is being routinely used for drug busts, more than what they were originally meant to be used for: a specialized force for specific emergencies (Source: https://www.aclu.org/report/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-police).

Then there’s qualified immunity. Large settlements are paid by the government for the gross negligence of one or two bad cop(s). This one examples pops into my mind. In 2013, the DEA settled a suit for $4.1 million to Daniel Chong after he was left for five days handcuffed and unsupervised in a DEA holding cell; he survived by drinking his own urine (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/30/justice/california-dea-settlement/index.html). If cops could get personally sued for such wrongdoing, or their pensions would be affected, I think less of this sort of thing would happen. But there is not much of an incentive when you are not held personally responsible financially.

There’s also a police cultural issue. I see it as two-pronged: the blue shield and an us-vs.-them mentality. Abuse is well-known within policing. Crimes get covered up. Here’s just one example, one I’ll never forget. In 2015 in Chicago, Former Police Commander Jon Burge was found guilty of running an “evil squad” that tortured mostly black men in jail, usually to force confessions. His method of choice, electrocuting their testicles; it left no mark. He did this for over a decade. He died in 2018 (Source: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/30/payback).

While police don’t have a ton of power de jure, as public servants, de facto they do. To be in control of investigating, of generating a narrative, of evidence, of cameras, of equipment; to have even just the authority of being in law enforcement. Imagine a bad cop who wants to target an innocent person using all the tools society has paid for in order to get the bad guys. If his coworkers stay silent, his supervisors are unaware, and he spins a narrative of investigation against the person, then what is there to stop him from, say, harassing and targeting the person, trying to put him or her in jail, despite no realistic expectation of a crime occurring?

Toward a Solution
In my view, we have not yet, as a society solved the problem of policing, not only in terms of what the proper responsibilities entail but also in limiting real-world power enough to eliminate the ability for abuse to occur. I don’t know what the exact answer is. It seems to me we need first to acknowledge the problem. This is such a divisive topic that many are ready to either defend the police at all costs or equally condemn them for doing their job. This one is going to take time to resolve. We are human, after all. It’s part of why these problems occur in the first place: human nature. We are full of biases and character flaws. We are slow to learn, society slow to change. But I am hopeful because we are moving in the right direction. Over the centuries, violent crime has reliably trended downward (Source: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/). We seem to be, over the long term, solving the violence problem, a problem in our genes. That’s hopeful. And if we can agree on the problem of policing, then we are closer to a solution.

On Being Neurodivergent

Neurodivergence

The term neurodivergence attempts to destigmatize being different neurologically. Formerly, society treated those whose brains functioned differently from what was thought to be normal as suffering from an illness. However, being neurodivergent can come with some benefits. Today, we know that brains process and learn information differently. 

And the more I learn about neurodivergence, the more I see that there is no normal. Have you ever sat back and observed people, like in a naturalistic observation, paying special attention to people’s mental states? I have. Maybe that’s weird. But when I do, I get the sense that we’re all at least a little kooky. Maybe it’s just me, but I notice a lot of irrational or strange behavior: people drinking or smoking to excess, people preoccupied with what others think of them, people aggressively arguing over nothing important, people crossing the street when and where it isn’t safe, people driving like lunatics, etc. It’s easy to judge from the outside, I know. It can insulate one from criticism: “These mofos crazy!” I think, though, we’re all like this, to some degree. That’s partly why this type of behavior can be seen everywhere. And if it’s that common, then it shouldn’t be so stigmatized. Understanding that we all are good at some things and bad at others, also helps. And if what we’re learning from neurodivergence is true, then often there are some benefits to being different. For example, those with ADHD can hyperfocus on certain topics they find interesting; those with Asperger’s are unlikely to lie or steal, and they tend to have a good work ethic; and those with NVLD tend to have a good vocabulary and strong factual recall.

On Being Neurodivergent 

Several years ago, I was diagnosed as suffering from depression. I am currently in a much better place, and it took some serious effort; what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, I can attest. But that was a brutal time for me. We often view people suffering from depression as being somewhat delusional, not having a realistic view of what is happening to them. We tell them things like, “It’s going to be alright.” To be blunt, that’s sometimes bullshit. Depression happens sometimes because fucked up shit happens to people, and they find it hard to cope. Maybe they don’t have the resources available. Honestly, sometimes they’re right; sometimes, there are moments in life where things are, more or less, hopeless, in the literal sense. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness, say, they may be right in saying that they will die and there will be no cure. To use an extreme example, Jews during the Holocaust might have rightfully assumed that they would be murdered in those camps. That doesn’t make them crazy because they find it hard to cope with that probable end. We often don’t know people’s stories; we shouldn’t assume. And even those who tell their stories may not tell us everything. One interesting fact I learned is that people suffering from depression can actually have a better sense of reality than those who are not also suffering.

Currently, I suspect that I have Asperger’s, maybe dyslexia, and maybe, to a limited extent, some form of Tourette’s. In the words of Dre, “and that’s just being real wit’ you”; it’s important to be vulnerable. I’d thought that I was just different, awkward socially, introspective. But the problems have persisted all my life. Understanding the nature of being neurodivergent would’ve made me feel less self-conscious, less afraid to talk about it. Being so would’ve done less damage to my self-esteem and emotional well-being. Instead, it’s only been deep into my 30s that I have realized these things. Having these conditions doesn’t make me feel any less of a person. They are largely mild and, I suspect, others have conditions that they don’t even acknowledge. What neurodiveristy has taught me is to be open about it and to not let others, or even my own thoughts, change the way I see myself.  

Creating a Better World

However, it’s hard to be honest about our vulnerabilities when others aren’t, when others are instead willing to criticize or try to make others feel bad for being different. Internet culture is notorious for this. The Internet is a place where bullying happens regularly - yes, because it’s easy, but also because it’s scary to be wrong, or different, in front of others. It seems to me we hurt each other when we act selfishly, when we protect ourselves out of fear. It reminds me of basic survival, of someone leaving their friend behind to be devoured by a charging lion, to save their own hide. On the Internet, it’s too easy to point out when others are wrong, to see their flaws. Behind the keyboard, it’s easy to be a warrior. It’s much harder to be vulnerable.

We all make mistakes. As Seneca said, “Errare humanum est.” We create a better world by going out of our way to describe and discuss our faults. That’s how we destigmatize being neurodivergent, being different. Too many have been teased, harassed, and bullied because of it. I was, by other kids and by public school teachers. It hurt. It probably held me back. But the more we try to protect ourselves out of fear, the more we leave those who can’t or won’t vulnerable.

In the end, what matters, to be happy and healthy emotionally, if you ask me, is gratitude and perspective. I am grateful that I am highly functional. I know I am a worthy, smart, and caring being. Yet I fuck up. We all do. But I will not be shy about telling you I do.

Hope in Inner-City High Schools

There are many problems with high school. It’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll begin with my own experience: It was terrible. I went to a public school in the Bronx: Theodore Roosevelt High School. It was not a great school. Long story short, I got zoned into that school - easily, one of the greatest blunders of my entire life. It was, and probably still is, almost entirely black and Hispanic. One interesting thing about that school, by the way, is the juxtaposition of Fordham University’s Rose Hill campus, a great school, and where, unimaginable to me at the time, I would go to get my bachelor’s, is right across the street. Very little learning happened at Roosevelt. And I was interested. My freshman year I was taking math a year ahead of everyone else and got good grades. But the place rubbed off on me, I guess. My friends didn’t seem to care about academics - just girls - and I had this dream of becoming a professional wrestler, which didn’t require a high school diploma. (As you might be able to tell, that dream was never realized.) I took school less and less seriously. And once the ball got rolling, I found it harder and harder to keep up. 

There were other issues. The was an antagonistic relationship we had with the school security - or, rather, that my black friends had. The former would often suspect the latter of some wrongdoing, leading the former to become defensive. And, of course, we’d spend every morning in a long line to pass through metal detectors on our way in. It seemed to us more than just that the grown-ups didn’t care; they expected to fail and, some of us, to go to jail. And that has a powerful effect on kids. I’m thinking of the infamous “Blue Eyes - Brown Eyes” experiment.

So the problem of inner-city high schools is complicated. It almost always starts at home: lack of nutrition, resources, and knowledge of how things work are but a few of the many issues associated with being a minority in the inner city and going to a public school.  In my own case, I had immigrant parents who barely spoke English and didn’t know much about education, which is largely why I got zoned in the first place. These problems are like starting a race many feet behind everyone else.

Part of the problem is also what others think of you, and the subsequent actions they and you take. Teachers, administrators, and even parents give up on kids. A learning disorder that would be discovered in a good school, which would then help the student with appropriate resources, would just further convince grown-ups in the inner city that you, a poor black or brown kid from the Bronx, really are stupid. At least one person has to believe in you for you to learn to believe in yourself. In the inner city, that can take some time. And, sometimes, a mom isn’t enough to quiet all the naysayers. I had a fifth grade teacher who said, in front of everyone, that I would be going back to kindergarten. The stigma also relates to how law enforcement interact with such communities. If we’re expected to be criminals, they’re more likely to act in such a way that leads to more kids getting locked up. And that can make it harder and harder to succeed in life.

Surely, part of the problem is also the limited resources. Not only do inner-city kids typically have less but having less often makes them feel like they are less. It’s easy to see how all this can snowball. It’s also easy to see why so many young people think it’s hopeless. You add a literal transformation happening inside their own bodies and raging hormones and you have a recipe for chaos. I had a very difficult time in my teens and considered suicide. Luckily, through friendship and a loving mother and time, I course corrected.

Understanding the problem is the first step. Understanding it isn’t hopeless is the next; we are all capable of learning and of changing. And having a plan is the third.

Firstly, pedagogy has to consider the student population and adjust its approach as needed. Inner-city minority students are different students. They tend to have more obstacles. Teaching to them has to take on a more sensitive, empathetic, and encouraging approach. It might seem like babying to some. But it’s vital to keep the world from crashing down on these young minds. 

Second, we need to invest more in our schools. This is well known. I need write little more on the need and significance of this.

Third, we need more means to support these communities. Free breakfasts and lunches are critical. Starting high school an hour later is another idea I like; most young people don’t usually wake up before 8am. I remember taking an hour-long bus ride to school, often skipping breakfast, and feeling tired and unfocused. More mental health counseling and other such resources are also crucial because of all of the challenges, and a dearth of known solutions. Sex eduction, too, helps for similar reasons. Physical education, I’d argue, is incredibly important because, as I believe, it is in our genes, especially when we’re young, to move. I understand many schools do this, but it has to be incorporated in a way that takes place throughout the day and in a way that students have more of a choice in the matter. At Roosevelt, there was just basketball, which I hated because I sucked at it. It was an easy track for bullying to start. Perhaps incorporating standing desks for some classes and moving a student’s next class further away could work. 

Lastly, to keep this relatively short, we, as educators, need to show students why they should care by connecting what they study more to the real world in a way that prepares them for future employment and the management of money. For better or for worse, we live in a capitalist society; money is needed for most things that keep us alive and well. It’s important that young people at least understand the rules before deciding how they’re going to play the game. That’s why I advocate for more financial education and vocational training in high school. This isn’t a new idea. Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, and Meet Kevin, one of the most popular financial education YouTubers, often talk about this. Personally, I’m sure I would’ve ended up in a much better place had I realized the importance of, say, budgeting, investing, and saving at an earlier age, instead of, say, trigonometry and chemistry - valuable things, but less valuable to most people most of the time. I love science and think we should study critical thinking more, as Neil deGrasse Tyson often advocates. But we can’t teach everything. Some things are more important, or useful, than others. High school is still a project humanity has not yet gotten right. Clearly, some schools are doing better than others. I’m advocating on behalf of schools in the inner city. They need more help. 

Public high schools tend to be places where students lose their love of learning, their childish wonder. And in the inner-city high school often becomes a place where students “learn” that they are not so good at the whole learning thing. Learning, instead of being naturally fun and self-fulfilling, turns into something pedantic, boring, and done to be good at school and make grown-ups happy. I still have hope that we can change that. It’s uphill. But I’m not giving up on our youth. 

Freewrite: The Slap Heard 'round the World

The following is a free write. A free write is a way of generating ideas by forcing yourself to write non-stop - whatever pops into your mind - without concern for anything that might make the writing less free: grammar, structure, thesis, review, etc. This is a silly topic. I tried to focus on what’s useful. (It’s barely edited. This is what a freewrite tends to look like; it’s messy, imperfect.)

The Slap Heard ‘round the World

So the slap. Let’s write about it. I kinda don’t want to and do at the same time. It’s too much on the socials, but what’s there isn’t what seems like what’s most important. It’s mostly predictable stuff like media outlets trying to milk this story for as much as its worth: Will Will apologize to Rock, he does; will Rock accept the apology; when will Rock break his silence . . . The incident itself is not particularly difficult for me. You can’t hit people ‘cause they offended you. It’s the law. Most people seem to agree – at least when it comes to non-celebrities – that hitting people for what they say is wrong. Yet many online polls show Americans split, almost right down the middle on who was more wrong. It’s telling of what we think of violence. Most people, I’d assume, who would get slapped by someone for telling a joke, would not like the experience, call it assault, and think that that sort of thing shouldn’t happen. Yet when an A+ celebrity like Will Smith, one of the richest actors in the world, slaps another – btw, smaller – man seemingly in defense of his wife, it seems, to some, laudable. Twitter was filled with people either thanking Will or taking his side (as well as those mocking Smith. Great memes!) It’s funny that Will himself stated in no uncertain terms his disapproval of violence and his embarrassment for his actions on Oscar night. Why the division? I think it’s because some people confuse the fact that, in the moment, to some, it felt like Will was right to feel the way he did. (Turns out, at least according to Rock, that he did not know Jada had been suffering from alopecia.) In turn, when we see someone (often in the movies), who we perceive as having ideal characteristics, someone we admire, say, like a hero, or a megastar like Smith, hit someone else we perceive as not embodying such characteristics – say, a skinny, awkward comedian with NVLD – and especially after such a person (the antagonist) slights the other, we see that as just. To put it plainly, we confuse the feeling with the action; because we feel offended, we feel that the subsequent action is equally justified. It’s what’s so persuasive about revenge. Revenge is a great way to feel justified when being a bad person. Rock’s ticket sales for his comedy events have skyrocketed. People admire Rock for “taking it on the chin,” for being the bigger man. We beat bullies when we take the high road. I’m not saying Smith is a bad guy. He's a Bad Boy. Bad joke. He lost control that night. He thought he was doing the right thing. Many people would make the same mistake. It was the easy thing to do. It was saving face. Do what’s hard. I think we build a better world when we do: A world where you can tell a joke, something beginning with “I love ya, but . . .” and not fear a physical reaction. But, hey, if you don’t like what I have to say, I guess you can just hit me, if that’s what you think is right. I don’t. And I wouldn’t be the one going to jail.

The Value of a Writing Center

Tutoring at the Bronx Community College Writing Center is the first job I ever had. One common misconception about writing centers is that they exist to “correct” student papers, similar to how some editing services online operate. Instead, writing center tutors pride themselves in not being editors; they work together with students to improve their academic skills: writing, reading, research methods, and critical thinking. In brief, writing centers exist to help students help themselves. In this way, writing centers are vital to a university. 

Firstly, they give students hope, keeping them in school. Students who seek help from a writing center tutor often feel vulnerable; they feel that writing centers are for bad students. One thing they often say when meeting a tutor is, “I’m not a good writer.” They come to a writing center to be taught by someone who “knows.” Rather, a writing center is a place for tutors and students  to collaborate. A tutor empowers a student Socratically, building skills and discouraging dependence. This helps students become more confident and self-sufficient, critical qualities for any college student.

Secondly, a writing center is a space for students to go on campus and not be judged. The BCC Writing Center mission statement is to “. . . empower students by providing quality, collaborative tutoring in a nonjudgmental space.” Writing is often intimate. I know this well as a graduate from the City College of New York MFA program, where my creative work was critiqued in workshops by my peers and professor. Someone else could destroy your sense of pride in your own work with their words. In a writing center, students feel similarly exposed: Their thoughts, grammatical errors, misspellings, lack of cohesion or coherence, etc. are out in the open for the expert tutor to see. But no good tutor would laugh at or put a student down for such errors. They will read, listen, understand, ask, and teach, without judgment. It is only in such an environment that progress may be made. Just as in life, it is important to make mistakes, and recognize them, in order to grow. Consistent criticism, especially in the absence of praise, hinders growth, and fosters defensiveness, low self-esteem, and resentment.

And, third, a writing center is a place for students to simply to hang out and be social. The BCC Writing Center, for instance, holds a Poet’s Cafe every semester, where a featured poet shares their art with students and staff. There’s music; food; camaraderie; and, of course, an appreciation of the spoken word, art generally, and good writing. The Center also holds regular workshops throughout the semester, including, but certainly not limited to, such topics as test-taking strategies, essay structure, MLA works cited, introduction, databases, and literary analysis. It is quite common for students to make friends with tutors, who often share similar experiences and identities since they, too, often, were BCC students and/or are from the same community. These academic friendships are enabling to doing better in school; the mentoring tutor shows the mentee where the mentor has trodden and how to avoid the same pitfalls. The mentor shows the mentee: “If I did it, you (with my help) can definitely do it, too!”

I hope this writing serves to advocate for writing centers, their significance to the community and to the university. Writing is a critical aspect of college. Everyone thinks; and everyone writes, even math students, in college. Moreover, a writing center may be the last thing keeping a student in school. That’s because nothing is more powerful than being taught the gift of self-learning, the kernel of which is the idea that you can, in fact, do it. Perhaps that’s why I care about education so much. If there’s anything most important to the success of humanity, it’s the idea that inherent in all of us the ability to move mountains lies.

On Vacations

Early this September, I went on vacation. For a long time, I hadn’t.

The last time was to the Dominican Republic when I was about 11 years old. I used to go almost every summer with my mom. I’m sure I had some fun. But every time I think back to that time, I mostly remember the discomfort and anxiety-producing moments. One time, I ran across a yard with tall grass barefoot in Monción, a humble, rural part of the country where my mother’s lineage descends. My feet and legs were killing me! I ran out of the grass to examine my legs to discover angry black ants bitting my feet and legs. Another time, I went to use the outhouse at my aunt’s house in Monción. It was pitch black inside. As I pulled my pants down, I began to hear the loud buzzing of what seemed to be the largest bumble bee in existence. Screaming, I tried running out of there, almost breaking the door, forgetting it was locked. Less dramatic experiences include the incredible heat; the persistence of mosquitoes, ants, and roaches; and the intermittent availability of electricity.

Still, I was excited about the possibility of traveling in 2020. Then COVID-19 happened. People in Europe got stranded, and I definitely didn’t want that to happen to me. So, in 2021, when my mom wanted to take a vacation together with some family, I thought this would be a better option: I could  revisit the DR,  reconnect with family there, save money by sharing costs, and have the safety of having family with me in case there was a sudden surge in cases and hospitalizations that might change the nature of international travel.

Well, I did much more than I thought I would, such as see and explore Santiago, where I mostly stayed and had family; go to a two-family pool party in the barrio; enjoy a few days at a nice resort with family; experience the local club scene; meet wonderful people; swim in a river; explore the nation’s capital, as well as very rural parts of the country, including the one place that sticks out in my memory more than any other in the DR: my deceased grandmother’s tiny old house. In all, I visited and explored Santiago, Santo Domingo, Puerto Plata, and La Vega. I didn’t expect to feel so comfortable and free there, but now I see it as a second home.

But it wasn’t just fun; it was meaningful. So much so I can’t say I came out the same person. Remember, this was my first vacation in quite some time. And I’ve always been rather reserved when it comes to new and potentially uncomfortable social situations. I decided to embrace this one and didn’t regret it. It is unquestionably the best vacation I’ve ever had. Yes, I reconnected with family and a country I had mostly forgotten about. But, also, I spent some special time with a special lady. There was a moment deep in rural-ass La Vega, where she’s from; we (her, her family, and I) were going to go swimming in a river, something I definitely had reservations about. If we were going to go, it made sense to go during the hot midday. But the sun had begun to set and the water was getting cold. I was sure I wasn’t going in. Spurred on by others, though, I decided I’d go in a little, just to not say no. And then, seeing it was ok, I went in a bit more, and then a bit more. I had made it my mission not to dive deeper than waist high. It was too damn cold. But we (her and I) played. And, eventually, I submerged my upper body. It was frigid, but I kept doing it. At one point, nighttime now, she wrapped her legs around my back and hug me for warmth. We stayed there quietly, almost alone in the water, submerged except for our heads. I don’t know what would’ve happened if someone needed a first responder in this rural-ass part of La Vega. But I let it all go and appreciated the moment. I looked up at the stars, which shone much clearer there than in light-polluted New York. (I had wanted to major in astronomy but didn’t to pursue creative writing.) I remember thanking God for the moment, a small respite from the lunacy. It was a transient moment, but one that I will never forget. I don’t know if she will be the one I end up with. In the end, no one has anyone forever. So as I grow older and wiser, I also grow more appreciative of all the small things; Blink 182 was on to something. I exist in a perpetual bubble of now, not in some hypothetical future, or in the regrets of past events. It’s hard, for many of us, to remember that.

I held on to her in silence for what seemed like an eternity in the dark stillness of the water. They called to us, and we had to leave. As she let go, the water turned cold again. I promised to remember the time under the water and under the stars.

On Failing, Over and Over

Lawyer

I was so argumentative as a kid, my mother joked that I had decided to become a lawyer. She’d repeat it whenever I got feisty, so I started saying it. Saying I wanted to become a lawyer at eight years old or so in front of grow-ups always got big reactions; they approved. I had no idea what a lawyer did, other than argue, but I knew it was impressive. And I identified with that idea for a few early years.

Pro Wrestler

My first true dream was to become a professional wrestler - you know, those big guys with the long hair who pretend to fight other similar guys in their underwear on TV. I was maybe 10, and mesmerized. I was a Hulkamaniac. And I remember wrapping myself in cables and running around the apartment while pretending to be the Ultimate Warrior.

At 15, I convinced my parents to take me to New Jersey, an almost two-hour journey by car from our home in The Bronx, to a professional wrestling school called The Monster Factory. Larry Sharpe called me a dreamer but, after a short try-out, agreed to train me. My mom paid some $3,500 for me - a one-time fee for life. I enjoyed training there very much.

Alas, a month before my first match in front of a crowd, my dad’s car broke down somewhere in New Jersey. He, a poor Puerto Rican man, paid several hundred dollars to 1) get the car fixed and 2) get it towed. He was irate and refused to ever drive me back, no matter how much I begged and pleaded. I decided to ask if he would lend me the car so that I could make the drive myself, if I got a driver’s license. He said yes. Well, I got my license as soon as I turned 16. And when the time came, he plainly refused. I hadn’t realized that he had lied to me from the beginning.

Rock Star

Despite growing up in The Bronx (and not fitting in), I spent most of my mood-ish teenage years listening to heavy metal. It was the era of the so-called nu metal scene. I enjoyed bands like Slipknot, Korn, and Mudvayne. My friends and I fantasized about forming a band. When I was about 18, my friends and I began to form one. The band, over time, due to grudges and so forth, became bands; I hopped around, trying to sing/scream. None of the bands worked out - not for me, at least. We just didn’t get along. And I was not a particularly good singer.

Teacher

At 20, I fell back in love with learning and went back to school, initially because I could study French. (I still love languages.) The first time I fell in love with learning was when I was a kid, reading the books my dad had around the house because I was afraid to go out and play with other kids at the park. It was during the critical thinking session during my college English courses that I decided I wanted to become an educator, a college professor. So, I kept going and got my bachelor’s in English from Fordham U.

Writer

It was at Fordham that I took my first creative writing class. There, I had rediscovered something else: my love of writing. Again, while I was a child, about 12 years old, while reading books at home, I fell in love with fiction specifically. I was a diehard Goosebumps kid. I read almost all of them, even many of the Ghosts of Fear Street books. Naturally, I experimented with writing stories, mostly imitations of RL Stine and, sometimes, Poe. So, after my bachelor’s, I would go on to get an MFA in Creative Writing.

Failing

All good? Well, no. I ended up trying to teach with a master’s, not ideal. I would be able to be an adjunct, which pays, but not nearly as much as a tenure-tracked position - a professorship. Even though a master’s is a “terminal” degree, because I don’t have a long and distinguished publishing history, I have yet to qualify for a position as a Professor of Creative Writing. Not good.

Further, in 2017, around the time I started teaching, I fell into a depression. There were deaths in the family and a breakup with a serious girlfriend. There were other, more serious things, too, I feel I can’t discuss. And despite believing my writing has gotten better, I haven’t been able to publish in a magazine for a few years. Not good at all.

Producer

When my second girlfriend broke up with me in 2020, it was hard, too. The pandemic didn’t help. I needed something to fill the void, something to distract me. I thought, given other failures, to go into trying to do music. (I had recently gotten into rap music due to the interesting writing.) It seemed to make sense because I had started with trying to do music as a teenager, I love music (it truly can be therapeutic), and I have a friend who is a musician. Initially, I tried to do production to not have to purchase tracks tracks to try to rap over. But I fell in love with producing. I obsessed over it and, in my opinion, got pretty decent at it. But when it came time to record the rap, to actually rap, I quickly realized rapping wasn’t for me. It’s the wrong medium for me; I couldn’t devote my life to it.  

Finance Youtuber

Another one of my long-held interests has been finance. Ever since I bought John Layfied’s book Have More Money Now (remember, I was a big pro wrestling fan), I was fascinated by investing. Unfortunately, I couldn’t afford the $500 I needed back then for the E*Trade account, so I couldn’t invest. Until Robinhood. And I’ve been investing ever since. After watching finance/investing Youtube videos for years, and seeing the potential for revenue, and having failed at other things, I decided to give Youtube a shot. Plus, I had extra time provided by the pandemic. I made several investing-related Youtube videos. I got some encouragement, but maintaining a weekly schedule was difficult. Many things are difficult. But this provided me with the reflection I needed. I realized that while I’m passionate about investing, I couldn’t devote my life to trying to teach it, especially when there are other things it took me away from. 

Solution?

By now, perhaps you’ve noticed I can be a bit ADD. I like to dabble, to try new experiences. The difficult circumstances exacerbated my need for an “answer.” My failures have been my teacher. 

So here, after all this, is what I’ve figured out (again). I am a writer. And I will continue to write, mostly science fiction. I like poetry, too. I like movies and good series. I want stories to be a part of my life. Initially, I was afraid I had fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy, because I had gotten an MFA and spent years writing, without publishing. But, really, I had lost some faith.

I also like podcasting and making videos. And I will continue to do these things. I faced some difficulty in podcasting; people sometimes did not follow through with communication or  commitments. This sort of thing was frustrating and discouraging. But, in the end, I can’t be disheartened from trying if this is something I would do even if I had all the money in the world. And that is all I can commit to right now: I will try my best, every day. 

I am still a writer, podcaster, and educator. I simply have to make it work in a way that produces happiness, and not stress and disappointment. That is a difference in gratitude. I have been inconsistent. And I’m sorry for that (to myself and to others). And I may be in the future. But no one will ever make me feel bad for not having enough subscribers or views. That’s a misunderstanding of why I do things, or don’t do things. I didn’t quit the investing channel, for example, because I got few views. I stopped because, like rapping, I realized I was trying to fill a void, to find myself, and hadn’t yet.

In sum, I believe that sometimes you have to do, to see. Passion can be misleading. While you may be passionate and good at something, it doesn’t mean that you should do it professionally. But sometimes that isn’t clear from the outside. It is through doing that you can truly experience what there is to experience. And your heart will tell you. Life is challenging. Challenges beg for answers. Take time to not have one, and figure it out, patiently and intelligently. It may cost you some time upfront. But peace of mind and a good life is worth it.

Suggested Reading:

“Imitating Life” (2014) by James Noguera (an autobiographical short story that details some of these events)

Why Are People Still Wearing Masks Outside?

It has been both surprising and somewhat depressing that wearing a mask during a pandemic (an act that benefits others more than the person wearing it) has been such a difficult thing for some people to do. In the US alone, over 571,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported.[1] The people today who criticize mask wearing outside as unreasonable are the same who downplayed coronavirus during Trump’s presidency, and mask wearing in general.[2] Ironically, these are the same people who tend to believe the virus was created in a Chinese lab and intentionally let loose upon the world, a claim disputed by our own health experts.[3]

We’ve made amazing progress with vaccines. Through Emergency Use Authorization, we got vaccines to a novel coronavirus on December 11, 2020. Incidentally, I got my second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Sunday, April 25, 2021. While I, too, suffered side effects (headache, fatigue, nausea), I highly encourage everyone to get vaccinated as it is the responsible thing to do and recommended by our own health experts. This April, the CDC released new guidelines regarding mask wearing. To summarize, mask wearing outside for the fully vaccinated was deemed unnecessary, except in crowds, such as in one found in a packed stadium.[4] This is good news for those, myself included, who want the economy to completely reopen again when things are safe enough to do so. So, all good, right? Not so fast. Fox News Host Tucker Carlson took this opportunity to encourage his followers to instigate a confrontation with “Biden voters,” those wearing masks outside, comparing the seemingly conscientious act to exposing oneself in public.[5] He wondered aloud why people were still wearing masks outside. He made these comments immediately following the CDC update, which, presumably, many still hadn’t learned of! Still, as silly as I found his comments, many Americans concur with Tucker on issues such as mask wearing and getting vaccinated. Therefore, in case this serves any good, I wrote this.

The simplest and most obvious answer to Tucker’s query is that many people still aren’t vaccinated. At the time of Tucker’s comments, only about 30% of Americans had been fully vaccinated.[6] Furthermore, fewer and fewer people are getting vaccinated.[7] This is dramatically less than the 70% necessary to reach herd immunity, which experts no longer believe achievable due to vaccine worries and new variants of the virus.[8] What this means is that, generally, you’re more likely to run into people who aren’t fully vaccinated than who are. While you’re unlikely to catch the virus outside from someone else, it is still possible. One viral expert, Dr. Linsey Marr from Virginia Tech, compared the action of the virus outside to releasing “a drop of dye in the ocean”; If you happen to be near it, you can get affected. Otherwise, it dissipates into the water.[9] Therefore, wearing a mask outside may put another at-risk person (or one who lives with or visits such a person) at ease. It’s impossible to tell by looking at them who is and isn’t fully vaccinated. In addition, there are many reasons, some reasonable, some not so, why people may not be fully vaccinated at this point – or ever: concern over side effects; paranoia about government conspiracies; absence of time (due to work, family, etc.), which more commonly affects those who earn less; and physical or mental handicaps. And these are not mutually exclusive.

Now, here’s a small list of yet more reasons people might have for wearing a mask outside:

-       It’s simply more convenient to keep a mask on when out and about in the city than to put it back on and take it back off; it’s also easier not to forget to put the mask back on when entering a store or indoor establishments.

-       Many people are still unaware of the recent update in CDC guidelines.

-       It has been common for decades in East Asian countries for people to wear masks when sick. There’s not much to this. East Asia tends to have more conscientious societies than in the US

-       Maybe the air quality is bad (as in certain cities, such as Beijing and Los Angeles) or perhaps the masked individual has asthma and doesn’t want to breathe in cigarette smoke from a crowded street. 

-       Here’s another simple concept: It’s better to be safe than sorry. The virus is still mutating and every person this thing infects is another opportunity for it to mutate and spread.

All that said, what will I do? Harass those without masks? No; I will not judge those with or without masks, in- or outdoors. I will give people the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I will continue to wear a mask outside when I am generally near other people or in a crowded street or otherwise in accordance with current CDC guidelines. Otherwise, I won’t wear a mask. Really, it’ll depend on how I feel and my judgement of the situation in the moment. At some point, after it has become the norm to see most people outdoors without masks, I will likely not wear a mask outdoors. Likewise, if we reach herd immunity, which, as mentioned, is unlikely, I’ll probably not wear a mask out then either. 

So, what do I think you should do? Easy. Don’t pass judgment. You don’t know strangers, masked or unmasked; don’t act like you do. Yes, sometimes people are breaking the explicit rules that keep others safe. Otherwise, respect others’ autonomy. I have someone special in my life with a mother who has both lupus and fibromyalgia. She’s been petrified of infecting her mother, who would certainly die if infected. She is not, as Tucker suggested, akin to some sexual pervert. She is a caring human being, who, by the way, has not yet received her second vaccine shot. Here’s a helpful idea: Let us assume people are good. Not all of us are, sure. But if we are on Team Human, which I certainly am, then we must work harmoniously to promote that we not only survive but that we thrive emotionally, physically, psychologically, and morally. 

———

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/fox-news-covid-denial-hasnt-aged-well

[3] https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-virologist-government-intentionally-coronavirus

[4] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/participate-in-activities.html

[5] https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/04/27/tucker-carlson-encourages-mask-confrontations-newday-vpx.cnn

[6] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

[7] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html

[9] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92343

Top 5 Rappers I'm Listening To

I’m not a die-hard hiphop head, I admit. I only recently (a couple of years ago) began to listen to rap again, despite growing up in the Bronx. I was a rocker kid who liked to skateboard. Rap was sort of the enemy. Well, I’m a big boy now and can appreciate both. Here’s a list of my fav rappers to listen to right now, and why. Obviously, this list is subject to change. I list the rappers loosely based on talent. (I’m aware that ranking rappers will always be a highly arguable thing and is very subjective. This is why I’m avoiding an “of-all-time” type of list.)

5. Childish Gambino

I believe that this guy in ten years or so is going to go down as one of best rappers. I don’t know if he currently gets the credit he deserves coming from Hollywood, and not Inglewood. Plus, we have the same birthday. He’s quick-witted, cocky, and multi-talented. He makes me laugh more than any other rapper by far, with lines such as:

Okay (Alright) I'm down with the black girls of every single culture
Filipino, Armenian girls on my sofa
Yeah I like a white girl, sometimes we get together
Need a thick chick though, so it's black and yellow, black and yellow

I love songs like “Freaks and Geeks,” “This Is America,” and “Bonfire.”

4. Logic

I love this dude. He reminds me of me in some ways: a nerd who likes video games, comics, anime and science fiction. He even writes SF stories (like I do)! Why do I listen to him? First, his tracks are amazing, so credit to one of the best record producers alive right now in 6ix. But mostly it’s the positivity and art in his lyrics, such as in “Everybody” and “1-800-273-8255.” Lest I forget, his freestyles are legendary. Some other songs I love include “Homicide” and “Everyday.”

3. Joyner

He’s definitely not like me, except that I also grew up in the “ghetto.” But great artists can relate with anyone. And his emotional depth pierces. That and his strong lyrical prowess and insane ability to control cadence and flow, make him stand out as a top tier rapper. There aren’t many people who are as authentic as this guy; he’s open that he’s not a “gangbanger.” And the variety in his content from songs as “I’m Not Racist” (which, as Em said, should have won a Grammy) and “Devil’s Work” to songs like “ISIS” and “Winter Blues.”

2. Kendrick

The guy won a fucking Pulitzer, ‘nough said. The depth of his lyrics. His style. He’s different. He’s a guy who could flow with the fastest of them but chooses not to. He’d rather dig deep with words and pathos. I respect that. Some of my favorite songs are “Bitch, Don’t Kill My Vibe,” “DNA,” and “Humble.” I also love his feature in Imagine Dragon’s “Radioactive.” So dope.

Honorable mentions:

NF

This guy, too, I think, in ten years is going to get a lot more recognition. I think some people are sleeping on this dude, perhaps because they think he’s an Eminem wannabe since he’s another white rapper from Detroit. But there’s talent here other people aren’t seeing. He’s creative and different; look at his album covers and videos. And if you don’t think he’s talented, listen more closely to songs like “Options,” “The Search” and “Let You Down.” Big props to anybody with the balls to talk about their own issues with mental health (which includes Logic!).

Lil Wayne

He’s been in the game longer than the previous rapper, but will likely be even bigger in the future. Even if I can’t relate to some lyrics, one thing you can’t say is that this guy isn’t genuine. He keeps it real: the good, the bad, the ugly. I love the songs “Can’t Be Broken,” “Mirror,” and “Drop the World.”

1. Eminem

I think he’s the best rapper alive today. Yes, I realize that’s a bit cliche - and, paradoxically, highly arguable. But there’s nothing he’s not good at. His lyrics and metaphors are deep and so clever I often don’t get them till the next day while brushing my teeth: “Oh, shit! Now I get it!” Drops the toothbrush on the floor. His flow, his ability to change cadence, his prolificness. And does the man breathe? Or age? Is he vampire? He also taps into that legend status now, given how long he’s been killing it. I love Kamikaze, and I’m just now starting to get into his newest album Music to Be Murdered By. While I can’t relate to some songs, I love “Venom,” “Till I Collapse,” “Not Alike,” “Forgot about Dre” (featured), and “Rap God.” I basically have to listen to those songs if they come up on Pandora - no skipping allowed.

Free write (7/3/19)

Topic: Food.

Context: Created as a short free writing exercise with some colleagues, fellow educators. Very little editing. Grammar not important.

The free write:

They decided to write about food. And Betty started singing, “Food! Wonderful food! Wonderful food!” I thought, “Food’s ok.” But she kept singing. And that’s when I distinctly heard someone crying. We looked and saw Djelilatou in tears. When we asked, she said: “I don’t like food as you do, Betty.” Tears fell from her face. It was wrong to assume that everyone would feel the same way about food as Betty does. Raul tried to mediate.

“Listen, guys,” he said. “We don’t need any fighting!”

“There better not be any,” said Marcos as he entered the room, pizza box in hand. “’Cause if there is, I’m in the mood to rumble.”

It was an obvious reference to Rumble in the Bronx. Clever though it was, I felt uneasy. Wondered if I should intervene.

“Food is great!” Betty shouted. She was in denial.

More crying, like a puppy drowning. Truly helpless I felt.

“Maybe,” Raul said . . . “Just maybe there are those of us that like food, and those of us who simply like it less. That’s all, guys. We don’t need to fight.”

“No fighting!” shouted Elizabeth.

Marcos appeared to agree because he said: “I am more of a lover than a fighter anyway.” And sat down.

Learning from Teaching

I’ve learned many things from teaching - about teaching. I’ve learned that some students will dislike you no matter what. I’ve learned that teaching at a community college comes with its own bag of problems that one doesn’t necessarily think of beforehand. I’ve learned a great deal about time management. Maybe most importantly, I’ve learned about my limitations.

My first semester, I was given a task that, unknown to me at the time, was impossible - at least for me. With a few days’ notice, I was given two different courses to teach. I was a bit surprised that I got those courses. That is, I had no syllabi for them. I was also working two other jobs. I thought I could do it; I was excited to finally start teaching. There were some other issues too that first semester, such as the two classes being back-to-back and at basically opposite ends of the campus. Just the lesson plans themselves took up so much time! I tried getting time off at one of my jobs but wasn’t allowed to. Anyway, it was incredibly stressful and difficult. If I could do it all over again, I wouldn’t underestimate how much time designing a course (let alone two) takes. I mean, I’m very meticulous; beyond just the work of grading and reading essays, I was reading every document and handout and book and analyzing every lesson plan over and over again - without the key experience that would help me figure out the best way to do things. I also would probably not have worked either of those other jobs. The pay would have been considerably lower, but it would’ve helped me tremendously. (Almost forgot to mention, this was a very difficult time for me, too, because my grandfather, who I loved dearly, died and my then-girlfriend of about two years broke up with me - all within a month or so of each other. As the saying goes, when it rains, it pours.)

There are many strategies I employ now in getting more teacher-work done. I use spreadsheets a lot and have digital copies of essentially everything. I do things early. I often expect the worst. I have backup plans. But mostly I learn from my experiences and make changes here and there. That’s life. Make small changes as often as you can. Pace yourself. Prepare for hardship and the unexpected. And when you’re at the end, you can say, “Survived.” That is the human condition, no?

Writing about Writing

Writing is like running. (I thank Murakami for that insight.) Sometimes, you do it ‘cause it’s good for you – and to maintain the habit, the discipline. Sometimes, you want to see where you end up. You know you want to go somewhere, but don't know where. So you run. And hope that maybe you’ll figure it out once you get there. But you don’t always feel like it. Sometimes, you need a warmup. Maybe you want to walk a bit, or pace, or do some jumping jacks. Free writing can also be a warmup for writing something more serious (running). And you wouldn’t do anything unless there’s a benefit. But you don’t always know what the benefit is. Yet you have faith that there is one - because it's helped you in the past. So, sometimes, you just start; you try to not think, just do. And you reach flow. That is an end in and of itself. And, in that way, writing is also like meditation.

How I Don't Decide (Breakfast), Part I

Jonah Lehrer in How We Decide explains how the brain is in a constant state of conflict. To decide on something, the brain engages in a battle of neurons; a threshold is met, and a decision is made. Lehrer points out that emotions often help us make certain decision. If, for example, one exercised critical thinking for every decision (dispassionately), it would take a long, long time simply for one to shop at the grocery store. So, emotions, he argues, are very useful in everyday life; and aren't, as many assume, always in the way of our more reasonable selves.

I read the book some years ago, but someone recently privately commented on how indecisive, or overly analytical, I can be at times. It reminded me of the book, and that I related very much with an experience Lehrer recounts of taking too long to decide on which cereal to buy. Not only has that happened to me, but I often find it takes me much longer to make certain (simple) decisions than most. Perhaps I lack some of the emotional advantages others do. Perhaps I have better analytical skills. Maybe a bit of both.

But here's the thing. I find my ability to consider deeply even simple decision to be useful in my life, even if momentarily inhibiting. The reason is that these decision (when multiplied many, many times throughout the course of my life) have a greater compound effect than people normally assume. 

So I'd like to share just one example (otherwise I'd write a book) of a minor thing most people don't think much about that I do, and why I think it's important to think critically about it, at first.

What to Eat for Breakfast

Something I still haven't completely stopped thinking about. For example, what's the best macronutrient ratio for breakfast? Here's one study on the topic I used to learn more about the issue.  For me, because a relatively high-fat (HF) breakfast was correlated in the study with greater overall caloric consumption (and I'm trying to gain weight, and consume more fat since I'm vegan, or trying to be), I prefer it over a high-carb (HC) breakfast on most days. A HC breakfast, though, was shown to lead to less hunger later in the day, which would certainly be of benefit to me during long workdays.

But it depends on the day. For days that I'm going running or to the gym, I will eat a HC breakfast, such as a fruit smoothie (using low GI fruits, water, and kale) or oatmeal (using a low fat plant milk and low GI fruits). Of course, I wait a minimum of an hour before heading out, for digestion. I will also do a HC breakfast if I have a long workday and won't be able to consume another meal for some time.

However, on most other days, to encourage greater overall caloric and fat intake, I will breakfast HF; I might eat "oatmeal" (with coconut milk, peanut butter, and chia seeds) or avocado, hummus, and almond bread. Of course, I have to be mindful that I will get hungrier earlier than usual later in the day. Thus, I'll bring some slow carbs (such as a slightly green banana) with me to work to tame hunger till my next meal. 

It's interesting that the study found HC was slightly correlated with greater awareness later on, which I conjecture might be due to fat taking longer to digest. So I may not want to breakfast HF before, say, a test or quiz; conversely, I can assuage any supposed negative cognitive effect with caffeine about 20 minutes before any mentally challenging activity. Nevertheless, the correlation was slight, and the researchers suggest further investigation into it.

There are other considerations for breakfast, such as micronutrient content and whether or not to cook and, if so, how. Generally, nutrient-dense foods are better. So I opt for those whenever I can. For instance, nuts, seeds, dark leafy greens, beans, and peas are nutrient dense. (I may also consider which nutrients are most important for me as someone who is mostly vegan, such as B12 and D3.) And regarding cooking, it depends on the food; some become more bioavailable after cooking them while others are better raw. But this subtopic can be a blog post by itself. I'll have to do a part two, after doing some research.

The reason I have done critical thinking about this is that health is deeply important to me. It really is the requisite quality of a good life. Some might disagree. I call such people philosophers. But, personally, I couldn't live a good, worthwhile life if I were terribly sick (racked with physical pain and an inability to perform certain basic functions). Health is something many take for granted. And diet is perhaps the single most important contributor to one's overall health because of its consistent contribution to one's body makeup. 

Sure, no one wants to spend a lot of time in deciding what to eat for breakfast. But once you do, you can eat the most optimal breakfast for you every morning. And that leads to optimal living.

Koi, Consciousness, and Morality

Picture this: a small, pebbled pond with a single, motionless koi fish. This is a part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art that exhibits artwork from the Far East. Man, was it beautiful. So this pond, it has a tiny, trickling waterfall. And as I sat and stared at this single koi fish, I thought, “This little guy looks sad,” which made me have other thoughts: “Is he sad?” and "How would I know?" As I looked closer, another koi fish appeared, then another, and then another. Clearly, he wasn’t alone.

These thoughts led to more thoughts about consciousness. The thing was, I didn't know what’s in that koi’s head. But because of its stillness and the context of its environment (the otherwise empty pond), I thought it appeared sad, maybe even depressed. Why? The answer’s my context. That is, the circumstances I had originally thought that fish to be in (alone and isolated), would make me feel depressed. But when one considers that this fish had likely spent its whole life in that pond, one would naturally conclude that the fish, to put it simply, doesn’t know what he doesn’t have; ignorance is bliss, they say. Further, this fish has no need for depression since it does not experience any “bad,” as far as I know, only "same." (And constant "same" may be depressing to humans; but that is because we understand change, that there is change, which the fish doesn't appear to know.) In fact, it’s environment is pretty peaceful. And it is not alone. Humans have need for depression and anger and so on because life is often full of struggle and ever-changing; what we feel has had an evolutionary purpose.

All this led me to think about morality. Why? Well, I believe, the basis of what we consider right from wrong is founded on a theory of consciousness. Why’s it ok to strike a rock with a stick and not a person? One is not conscious, whereas the other is. As philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, it is something to be one of us. And, by definition, we don’t like suffering (emotional, physical, or otherwise). So it is consistent to consider suffering in others as a bad thing, such as hitting people with sticks. In order to circumvent this foundation in morality, one may generally do one of two things: deny the consciousness of someone or something (e.g., “animals aren’t sentient, so it’s ok to kill them”) or make the assertion that doing something that would inflict pain or suffering upon a sentient being will result in greater happiness, or less suffering, in more, or more conscious, individuals (e.g., “It’s ok to kill animals because they feed a lot of people”). Personally, I think animals are conscious, and that we don't have to kill animals to feed people. But there is another exception to the general rule of not causing suffering in other sentient beings: vengeance.

Vengeance is the idea that suffering in a conscious being is a good thing if the being “deserves” it. In other words, suffering is deemed a just punishment – a way to “right” a wrong. For example, it would be ok to torture a rapist because raping someone is a bad thing – in that it causes a great amount of pain (emotional, physical, and mental) in the victim. Here’s the issue, though: it is heavily subjective. Who deserves to be tortured, and who doesn't? (You would get different answers, for instance, if you ask Dick Cheney vs. a member of ISIS.) What is the appropriate amount of punishment, and when does it go too far? (Should we, for example, cut off the rapist's genitals? What about drawing and quartering?) The problem is it gives a lot of power to the individual or group who is making such distinctions. It doesn't meet Kant's categorical imperative, a universal law. Would you agree that those who "deserve" it should be, say, harassed for the rest of their lives? Ok. Then what if I suggest that you "deserve" it for thinking that?

What is truly problematic for me about vengeance is that it is antithetical to how I understand my own morality: a system of determining right from wrong based on a theory of consciousness. If it is something to be a sentient being, and, as sentient beings, we know the inherent bad there is suffering, then it follows that causing suffering in others is bad. Vengeance, on the other hand, asserts that suffering is, in fact, good – it is punishment. That simply violates my intuition. Much of our morality has been shaped by culture. Culture can make a good person do a bad thing and think it good. Religion, given its higher, infallible authority, is particularly suitable for this purpose. 

But is there any sense in the contradiction? Is it actually ok sometimes to cause suffering in others? Well, in accord with this theory of morality, I think that suffering is always inherently bad, even when it may be necessary, as it is in certain self-defense scenarios. By definition, it is always regrettable. More, vengeance is driven largely by our emotions, which certainly drive us away from reason. It may be useful to teach someone why it isn't good to mistreat another. But revenge goes beyond teaching; suffering is the point, often to satisfy some emotional urge, be it pride, rage, or the like. Some might claim that revenge is reasonable to compensate a victim for a loss, perhaps of property, or suffering; yet there is nothing actually gained from the transaction of causing the pain. One has merely added to the net suffering in the world. Some would claim that revenge is a dish best served cold. And yet, to me, it is never cold, but cooked to some degree or other. Otherwise, the point would not be to harm, but to educate, or perhaps to only do what is necessary to avoid future injury; and that can hardly be called revenge. I’d call that justice.

I sat near that pond and free-wrote for 20 minutes. Truly, consciousness matters. It gives the world meaning – or searches for it, when it isn’t there. I continue searching.

A Little on Depression

Depression is real. I know. I had it. For a long time. On and off, for years. And it wasn't until I confronted my demons that I conquered that mental disease (after it got harder, of course). And it took time. I incorporated as many things as I could into this lifestyle change to get better. I started going to the gym, making and going out with friends, dating, taking vitamins and eating better, and not brooding by myself so much. I have yet to talk publicly about circumstances leading to that dramatic confrontation. I hesitate for good reason. (But I will, at some point, during a future podcast episode because I think it's important.) It isn't easy being judged. I try to reserve judgment of others, not to make unneeded assumptions, which I think are the root of many a problem interpersonally and societally, for instance. 

Anyway, I'd just like to encourage people for now to keep fighting. I did. And even though it seemed seriously impossible that I would reach this level of being happy and content with myself and with life, I have. During depression, one's thinking is clouded. So don't rush to anything. It's like when you're upset. After you calm down, your thinking of the same event changes significantly. It's suddenly not as bad, the instigator not as evil, you less the victim.

I'm partly motivated for this post because of Linkin Park singer Chester Bennington's death. I've been a fan for many years. And I'm saddened to know that someone who must've felt and thought many things that I had, gave up. (Maybe I also identify with him since there was a time when I tried to be a singer in a band, too.) Suicide is selfish. But no one can share your internal pain. I'm not judging. But depression is something that must be fought. Keep fighting. You are capable of so much more. I see it now in myself.