comic reboot

I'm Getting Pretty Fit

I did 3 weeks of low mileage running with lots of drills, stretching, strides, and speed work. Then last week I focused more on higher mileage, averaging over an hour a day with some strides and pick-ups mixed in. 

Now I have some speed and I can also feel that my endurance has improved so it's time to put those together in some longer workouts at a moderate pace. I'll do a tempo, about 5 to 7 miles, each week for 3 weeks. The first one will hopefully be somewhere under 30 minutes and then it would be nice to progress that to somewhere around 28 minutes. Depending on the course. I'll also do some lighter workouts where I'll 6 to 8 times of 1 minute on, 2 minutes off. Or something like that. Maybe 30 on / 90 off. or 60s on / 60 off. We'll see.

I'm recovering really well between runs and seeing improvement every week so that is all great. Lots more work to be done!

he vote

wednesday

Going to sleep I felt frustrated and when I woke up I was frustrated.

None of this is a unique problem. Everything that's happening in our destabilized government has happened before and in other places. Numerous times. Sometimes we have been the cause of that destabilization. To advance our own interests. Feeling like something is unique or new opens the door to feeling helpless and powerless and admitting defeat. Societies have been through corrupt leaders and facist parties. There's a playbook for all of this. I dont know what it is. It seems like a natural reaction is a strengthening of a progressive movement and the call for reform.

On a personal level, I want to feel connected to other people in a way that feels constructive. I don't want to leave a conversation at, everything is broken and hopeless, because it's funny how many sides feel that way and so it's not really an agreement at all. But I can also understand how those feelings are valid and shouldn't be dismissed outright.

What are my values?

Any political platform is really about who has too much power and at the expense of whom, and who should be given more power.

Republicans believe the federal government (in a limited definition that excludes things such as THE ENTIRE MILITARY), academia, and the media have too much power at the expense of large corporations and the rich and nominally the working class.

Democrats basically are seeking to maintain the status quo. The powerful will remain poweful and rich while social reforms will continue and more egregious abuses of power that target protected classes will be chipped away at.

I've been a fan of the idea that fundamentally humans have the urge to create and be creative and care for one another. And that the role of government should seek to maximize those ends. And it doesn't really sit right with me that for the last century, as technology and productivity has made massive gains, the average person is working harder than ever with less and less wealth to show for it. The promise of automation was working less for the betterment of all. And so, it seems to me, that discrimination and meritocracy and systems put in place to give people power, have always served to justify taking things from people outright.

Because, if you allow for racism and sexism and ableism and are able to say that labor that is necessary for society to function is unskilled or lesser, then you can just take that person's labor or rights or wealth because they are a lesser person. And that just seems wrong. 

And we all know on some level the system is unfair and if we feel we've managed to achieve something in it, we don't want it to change because it would somehow undo or invalidate the work that we've put in.

That's understandable but I also think there's a false sense of scarcity. And that bringing people up to your level doesn't move you down. If a system is so cut throat and unforgiving that you are afraid of other people being given help, when an ocean of evidence is available to demonstrate why they need help, and that it ultimately benefits you to not let people utterly fail, if that kind of system draws that reaction from you, is that something you want to be a part of? Are we that scared and untrusting?

So, to summarize all that, power is concentrated in rich white cisgender heterosexual men at the expense of just about anyone who isn't rich or cisgender or heterosexual or white or a man (broadly speaking) and should be distributed so people can better realize their full humanity. 

And people also fear I think, that to make change and improved the lives of others who have been oppressed and exploited, that necessarily the people that have done the oppressing must themselves become subjugated and discriminated and that's the source of a lot of defensiveness and denial. I don't think that's the case. I don't believe that's human nature. That idea, as far I understand it, comes from colonialism and a specific period in human history when empires were built and whole populations were subjugated by the few and powerful. That's not the way it has to be. And if you do think that any society must necessarily subjugate a segment of the population, if you truly believe it's human nature to make some people lesser and unworthy then...what? That just doesn't make any sense. How can you agree with any of our patriotic rhetoric and also uphold that belief (even though it's a totally unspoken belief and we totally use that rhetoric to cover it up)

bUt aRe yOu saYinG eVerYonE gEts a FrEe rIde?

Again, that argument only makes sense with a notion of false scarcity and undermines the idea that humans have any innate drive to be productive and belong to a community. Of course we do!!! Any system put in place to "enforce" this or create failure is just starting a cycle of exploitation. Help people! I see this in kids all the time. If a kid is failing they need help! And it really all comes down to what you fundamentally think humans are. 

I get that this notion of helping people and not letting people fail comes off as naive but I mean, look at what the opposite has gotten us! No one likes this. I'm not saying don't hold people to high standards or don't help people grow. I'm saying if they aren't meeting those standards or they aren't growing then help them! And if you got to where you are without help

#1 - you're wrong because you totally did get help even if it wasn't the specific kind of help you're looking at at the moment or the specific situation you're comparing yourself to

#2- GREAT! You're in an amazing position to help others! And shouldn't that be the measure of a person? How much they were able to benefit others? Not how much better they were than others. Can you be inspirational by being really skilled and accomplished? of course! But I mean someone more like Jeff Bezos. Does Jeff Bezos inspire anyone? Is he an inspirational figure? I guess in some circles. To me he's an example of someone who has risen to the top without actually bettering society in any way (no I'm not accepting the answer that Amazon has helped society. It's clearly consolidated power and brought down small businesses and local economies in the name of personal convenience. And I could keep going but I'm going to stop here.)

Anyway, longer than I planned. I wrote this out for me because I'm frustrated and wanted to process. It's surprising (although I guess it shouldn't be) that any proposals for change that would align society more closely to these beliefs are dismissed as radical and crazy and impossible. eh.

watching the debate

where do we go from here?

I hope that people gain power. The people are demanding what needs to be done. The people will be heard (?)

edit: HE'S SO DUMB!!!!!!!

browsing

I stumbled on a pro gun messageboard last night and saw two arguments being touted that were reportedly "irrefutable".

The first was "saying guns kill people is like saying the pencil failed my test." It seems like pro-gun arguments center around the notion of personal responsibility. Where this argument breaks down for me is that in the pencil test scenario, that bad outcome is affecting the user and only the user. In the gun argument, another person is being killed. So, yes, when the outcomes affect you alone, then personal responsibility is more important than tools used. But when you start affecting other people, aka killing and injuring them, then you cede personal responsibility for the collective safety of others.

The other argument was basically, if someone murdered a love one with a baseball bat, would you feel any different than if it was with a gun. This one is pretty dumb because it centers entirely on the feelings of the victim. Wouldn't murder make you feel BAD? Yeah. I reckon it would. But feelings aren't really the issue here. If you're against murder, then it might be advantageous to look at things used to kill people and make them less abundant. 

The logic here is that because anything used to murder makes us feel equally bad, then all things have an equally likely chance of murdering, therefore, don't try to regulate guns. 

The impression that I get is that these kinds of arguments are sprung on people like riddles and you really can't engage with them on good faith because the premises are flawed to begin with. And then, as the recipient struggles with this tangle of logic, the speakers feels they've succeeded. I'm know this is common in many circles of many kinds.

monday plan: untraceable fork

Tomorrow I'm going to a corn maze with the art teacher at the boarding school I worked with a few years ago. Should be fun!

I'd also like to get a good run in and start on a comic for the book I'm working on.

I had an idea for a magical item. It's the untraceable fork. By all appearances it is a regular fork but once it is placed, anyone trying to investigate its origins will be utterly thwarted. So if it were to be placed at the scene of a crime and stood out in a way so as to catch the attention of an investigator, trying to determine how it got there would lead them on a magical goose chase of never ending false leads and dead ends. Also the fork would be unable to have its outline traced. That's a magical item.