"The Plants Strike Back" (A picture "analysis" for a contest)

I wrote the following for a contest in which we are required to interpret the picture seen below in 300 words or less. Here is what my warped mind came up with:

Most claim that these are random events: the result of a gust of wind, a careless flower smeller, or a falling branch. The drastic increase in these types of injuries, however, can mean only one thing. After years of floral abuse, some of our herbal cousins are fighting back. They are tired of being eaten, chopped up, genetically altered, and burned down. So if one of these abusive humans draws near to those blessed with sharp thorns and branches, the plants strike without warning, going straight for the eyes. As the gouging incidents increase, we will increasingly become both literally and figuratively blind, refusing to see that plants are living, conscious, and powerful beings.

Some say that I am crazy, a living testament to the dangerous combination of environmentalism and hallucinogenic drugs. Others might wonder why these attacks would suddenly start now, after eons of humanity abusing plant life. I do not claim to have all the answers. Decades of our genetic manipulation efforts may have created a new breed of ass-kicking plant. It’s also possible that the process of natural selection is simply running its course, producing an evolutionary leap similar to humanity’s development of intelligence superior to other apes. Or maybe God is fed up with the human race and has decided to unleash a horde of demonic plant life instead of hitting us with another global flood. Whatever the case, we have two choices: declare all-out war on those plant species who have demonstrated violent tendencies, or start developing a means of communicating with these newly conscious life forms in order to find a settlement or train them to be nice. In the mean time, I have one suggestion: Don’t stop and smell the roses.

I am participating in the WeBlog's Sleepy Sunday contest! You may read other participating posts HERE

A Mosque Near Ground Zero? (The Message Sent by Protestors)

Here's a brief video about the controversy discussed in this post.

I have no conception of the suffering experienced by the friends and families of those who were murdered when the twin towers were destroyed. If I was in their position, the thought of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero might also strike a nerve. Still, I cannot help but give a simple and some would say insensitive analysis of the situation. By turning this into a major issue, the opponents of this construction project are sending a terrible and dangerous message to the Muslim world.

The “War on Terror” is supposed to be a battle against a behavior. It is not a war against a particular country, ethnicity, or religion. The behavior of the United States over the last nine years, however, has convinced many in the Muslim world that this is actually a war against Islam, the exact message promoted by Islamic extremist groups. Protests against this building project further create this impression. If Americans are angry about a mosque near Ground Zero, it indicates that they hold Muslims in general responsible for the September 11 attacks. So the only logical conclusion for Muslims is that many Americans actually consider themselves to be at war with Islam itself.

Some Americans who are angry about this project will deny this simple fact, and I admit that their motives for protesting against it may vary. Their various arguments and justifications, however, are irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is the perception that this controversy creates around the world. To limit the threat of terrorism, the only effective strategies are to find and neutralize current, potential terrorists and reduce the number of future terrorist recruits. Even more than the Cold War, this is at heart an ideological struggle. Potentially alienating hundreds of millions of Muslims and creating the impression that Americans are at war with Islam, therefore, is the most dangerous thing that can be done. Unfortunately, nine years into this “war,” many Americans still have much to learn. It’s bad enough that so many people still believe that conventional military operations are the best way to eliminate a non-military threat. But what is even more disheartening is that so many Americans have yet to even properly identify the enemy.

Pain Relapse

Here's a catchy little song about hoping for a better future.

I’ve been having one of my periodic chronic pain relapses over the last week or two. (Click here for a past post that provides more details.) The culprits these days have been my left arm and shoulder. I haven’t played any racquetball for a while, and at times, it even hurts to type. So some writing ideas that have been floating around in my head will have to wait, and I will be keeping this short.

It is only at times like these that I fully appreciate the blessings of good health. So if you have been feeling healthy lately, be sure to do something active each day in order  to take advantage of your good fortune. Hopefully, if the chiropractic adjustment sticks, I will be doing the same soon, and I will be able to get back to some more serious writing in the near future.

A Sample of a Debate on Facebook

Every now and then, I get caught up in a dialogue on Facebook regarding various political, religious, or philosophic issues. After a while, I always find myself wondering if all of the time and effort is worthwhile. It is unlikely, after all, that any of us involved are going to change our views. It’s basically an arguing contest, not a quest to gain knowledge from others. Also, more importantly, I am spending precious time and mental energy producing stuff that will disappear into the Facebook void instead of focusing on writing for my own blog. Still, these types of dialogues may have some value. At least all of us involved are getting some practice exploring, clarifying, and expressing our beliefs.

So to give an example of what I mean and to have something to show for my Facebook efforts, I have included, word for word, one of these recent dialogues. (Names of my “opponents” have been removed, however.) I will let you decide for yourselves if this was a worthwhile way to spend my time. This discussion started shortly after Proposition Eight - California’s ban on same sex marriage - was overturned by a federal judge. Some would argue that this decision by one man was in defiance of the will of the voters who passed it two years ago.

(Someone had just asked why it is that Christians focus so much on the “sin” of homosexual behavior. After all, Jesus never directly mentions it in the gospels.)

Person #1 (P1): Voters do want their votes counted so a judge shouldn't be doing this. And Jesus didn't dwell on it, true, but He did include it in Matt 15:19 as one evil, under sexual immorality. I don't think most Christians dwell on this subject, but shouldn't be passive either.

Me: In 1967, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. If this issue, along with several other civil rights issues, was left to the voters of individual southern states, I can predict how some of them would have voted. Sometimes, courts must protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." If anyone cares, here is my take on gay marriage: "Gay Marriage: Why It's Fine With Me."

Person #2 (P2): In that case, I want to legalize POLYGAMY!! Just please dont tell my wife.

Me: Maybe polygamy should be legalized. Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives. Plus, it's more honest than cheating on your spouse. If people want to impose their moral code through the law, adultery should be the practice that is outlawed. (And maybe we can go back to the good old days of Old Testament law when the guilty parties were stoned to death.)

P2: If you want to remove morality from the law, then what about drug use, sex with minors, prostitution, etc? Should we legalize all that too, or remove any laws banning it?

P1: If it's case of civil rights that it should be challenged in the constitution - whether state or federal, not by one single judge. The judicial system was set up to protect constitutional rights of all voters. Everyone didn't favor the healthcare reforms and the impact it will have - can we find a judge to repeal that?

Me: P1, I don't know what you mean by "challenged in the constitution." They are following the standard process of challenging the law. It's done through the judicial system. The same process will be followed for both gay marriage and challenges to the health care bill. Judges may ultimately repeal parts of the health care bill, and they may ultimately uphold the same sex marriage ban. The gay marriage decision will be appealed until it reaches the Supreme Court. Then nine judges (instead of one) will decide. (Judicial review has been firmly established for 200 years, so I don't see it going anywhere.) Keep in mind that there may be cases where you are in the minority but you feel that basic legal principles are on your side. I don't think that anyone believes that majority rule should always win out. There are countless cases throughout American history where the majority of people in a state or region supported laws and policies considered either ludicrous or blatantly unjust today. And P2, I'm not advocating for "removing morality from the law." Obviously, laws are often based on a moral foundation. If a behavior has a measurable, negative impact on others, it should be illegal. That's the principle that our legal system is founded upon. Gay marriage, like polygamy or interracial marriage previously, has no measurable negative impact on others. Therefore it should be allowed whether it offends certain people's morals or not. Sometimes a distinction must be made between personal moral codes and enforceable legal codes. If you refuse to recognize this obvious distinction, then this "discussion" is clearly a waste of time. (And I guess we will be on our way toward the 10 Commandments becoming a legal code.)

I've noticed in these Facebook "conversations" that no one ever directly addresses the questions that I raise. Political and religious topics - and this one gets into both - are usually pointless. At least this gives me a little writing practice.

P2: Paul (Me) - I always enjoy your comments because unlike other some of the other folks we debate, you always have good points and back it up with good reason.
Let me first address your points, so that your efforts dont just end up being writing ...practice haha!

"If a behavior has a measurable, negative impact on others, it should be illegal. That's the principle that our legal system is founded upon."
How do you define negative impact on others? For some people, finding out that your son is married to the same sex can be as equally or more painful than finding out that your son is hooked on illegal drugs or that he sleeps with prostitutes.

"Gay marriage, like polygamy or interracial marriage previously, has no measurable negative impact on others. Therefore it should be allowed whether it offends certain people's morals or not."
So should it be legal to set up a strip bar next door to your house because it does not hurt anyone, and only offends you?

In the end, I think everyone has a preference and everyone wants what's best for them and fits with their value system. And what goes and does not go depends on what the courts let pass or strike down. I do agree that the process of the judicial system was set up to ensure that laws do not conflict with our constitutional rights. The only problem is that many times, the judicial decisions are driven also by the political, religious, and personal views of the judges. This occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is the reason why presidents usually pick judges who typically have made judicial decisions that align with the president's political view. Also, I'm sure there are political scientists on both sides of the spectrum who can argue the constitutionality of many laws.. If not, there would be no appeal.. So I believe the constitutionality of laws ultimately depend on which judges are in place at the time the law goes through the process.

Now for your final point :)
"Sometimes a distinction must be made between personal moral codes and enforceable legal codes. If you refuse to recognize this obvious distinction, then this "discussion" is clearly a waste of time."
I think all legal codes stem from some type of personal moral code. I think the reason why some fight for a ban on Gay Marriage vs premarital sex is the fact that Gay Marriage may be more easily enforced now than the other.
Let me know if I've missed any of your points and I'll try to address them too so you know your writing has not gone to waste :)))

P2: One last question: Should incest be banned? Like father/daughter marriages? Or how about incestial polygamy, where the entire family marries each other? According to your definition, it hurts no one when all parties are consenting and who cares if it offends anybody.. LOL!!

P1: Paul (Me) - What i meant is that it hasn't been determined yet if this is a civil rights issue. Not everyone agrees if it's comparable to anti-discrimination yet and the constituion has to be amended once that is determined. Up till this point..., marriage was always assumed to be man/woman, now we're talking about a new definition and different social rules that we haven't faced before.
Paul and P2 - You are both gave great points of view. P2, you could be a lawyer -ha ha. You can never take bias completely out of any social issue - that's just impossible. We live with the outcomes regardless of our personal beliefs.

Person 3 (P3): Can I marry my hermit crab Hermie?

Me: First, I have one important question. Is it cool if I use some of this dialogue for a future blog post? (I won't use your names.) I just don't want to waste all of this writing on Facebook alone. This question also goes for any other participators who might still be reading this stuff.

Thanks P2 for your detailed response. (It's refreshing.) There is no doubt that judges often have political agendas. It's unfortunate that courts have become so politicized, but it is, as you said, probably unavoidable. I'm not sure if the writers of the Constitution had "judicial review" in mind when they set up the judicial branch. It has evolved over time, and you could make a good case that it has made that branch of government too powerful. People only seem to get upset about it, however, when judges don't rule in their favor. I still hold to my statement about the distinction between personal moral codes and legal codes. Since we are not in a theocracy, the Bible cannot be used as a legal book. So all we can do to be fair to people with different beliefs is determine as best we can if a behavior infringes on other people's rights. In a country that claims to love freedom, we should have the freedom to engage in behaviors so long as they do not harm others. Anything else is an attempt to impose your personal beliefs on others. You compared allowing gay marriage to legalizing drug use, prostitution, and incest. Now I could go on for a while about drugs and prostitution. Our society is highly arbitrary in defining those terms. Alcohol and nicotine are legal, and all kinds of people have sex for economic reasons without breaking the law. I think that prostitution and drug use are banned due to some of the negative byproducts associated with them: disease, addiction, human trafficking, abuse, stealing to fund the habit, etc. I tend to think that laws involving drugs and prostitution should be liberalized a bit, but with some legal restrictions to limit some of these "side effects." Incest, however, is a different story. There are measurable negative effects, particularly potential birth defects in any children produced. I'm sure that many psychologists can also demonstrate the harm done when parents have sex with their kids. (I notice that no one has tried to deal with my interracial marriage argument, however.) And P3, I don't think that you can get Hermie to say "I do" or sign the certificate.

P3: use any dialogue you like for future blog posts. If Hermie cannot say "I do" or sign the certificate so that indirectly and unfairly disallow my right to marry Hermie simply because Hermie is physically unable to do the above actions? Isn't that discrimination based on "physical handicaps?"

Me: P2, I missed a couple of your arguments. Some people might be offended if their Christian daughter marries someone from another religion. Maybe we should ban that as well due to the harm it has done. Strip bars are legal. There are just regulations determining where they can be. (There are land use regulations for everything.) So no, I should not be allowed to stick one next door. (Or maybe you just want to ban strip clubs altogether.)

Me: P3, no. A marriage is a legal contract, and as far as I know, animals cannot enter into any legal contracts. So maybe we should ban all contracts due to discrimination (along with strip clubs, marriages that offend any parents, and every form of "sin" that we can imagine.)

Me: I have enough dialogue now. . . .

Help, I've Been Plagiarized!

I picked this song for three reasons. First, I have never posted an Allman Brothers song, which is just wrong. Second, it has amazing guitar work by Duane Allman and Dickey Betts. Third, it is about a man who is about to get caught cheating.



About a year ago, I started writing education related essays in the hopes of compiling a book someday. When I told people that I was enjoying this new writing hobby, some suggested that I should start a blog. While recognizing that this would be an easy way to get my writing out there, I also thought that blogs were a strange concept. You write all of this stuff, and then you give it away for free. Why would people ever pay you to write what they can get for nothing, and what’s to stop people from just taking your words and/or ideas and publishing them as their own? In theory, of course, you could “monetize” your blog, and if you ever got a decent amount of traffic, it could turn into a little money. Also, in theory, people are not supposed to steal your work. Blogs are copyright protected, and there are tools to search the web in order to find out if someone is posting your words. Proving that someone took your ideas, however, could be a bit tricky. Still, I decided to plow forward about eight months ago. After all, how else could a person with no writing experience get himself so easily “published”? I could have kept my ideas “secret” until a book was put together. The odds, however, of an unknown essay writer like me finding a willing publisher and paying readers seemed pretty slim. And so here I am, having a great time sending my thoughts out into “the cloud.”

A couple of days ago, I joined “Hubpages,” a popular site where millions of users share articles with one another. After a couple of days of posting “hubs” and of doing a little browsing in order to see how the site works, I am thinking that it may be a better platform than this blog for sharing some of my stuff. (Here's a link to my profile.) There was a little problem, however. For three of the four hubs that I posted, I received a “duplicate” warning. This was not a big surprise or major issue. After all, everything that I posted had previously appeared on this blog, and posting duplicates is not against their rules. The only problem, apparently, is that it lowers something called your “hubscore.” So I decided to email the site and let them know what was happening. When I received their reply, however, I found out to my surprise that my posts were duplicates from two sites: first my blog, which I expected; and second, some mystery site with a business sounding name. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link that they sent me, and there was one of my blog posts, copied word for word on to some site called “Finance / Go for Gold.” After doing a little browsing on this mystery site, two things became clear: there was no source or author listed for any of the works on the site, and this was not the only one of my posts copied. It turns out that this site had posted practically everything on this blog that was related to either politics or economics. (Here’s a link to the site and one of my copied posts.)

My reactions varied. On the one hand, I was a little bit flattered. No one, after all, had ever cared enough to plagiarize me. I also noticed that some of my posts had a fair number of clicks, so some people out there are unknowingly reading my words. (Of course, the site looks kind of crappy, so I’m not that flattered.) But on the other hand, this was a confirmation of my previously stated fears. I have been chasing this crazy dream that writing could become a second career of sorts, supplementing my inconsistent adjunct faculty income. Meanwhile, here is a site (from China apparently) trying to benefit in some way from my hard work. How am I supposed to get off of the ground if people can so easily steal my stuff? I guess that this is what people mean when they say that they “feel violated.” Luckily, I have not been the victim of any kind of significant theft in my life, so this is a little shock to the system. And I can’t help wondering if there are plenty of other characters out there doing this kind of thing to myself and to other hard-working bloggers in the world.

I have now been officially welcomed to the internet age. Like everything else, the World Wide Web can be a great tool for good or evil. It creates unlimited opportunities for people to communicate. Some use it to publish their thoughts, start legitimate businesses, and find others who share their interests. Others use it to break copyright laws, post disgusting videos, and plan terrorist attacks.

I’m still pondering my next course of action. My first priority is to get that duplicate warning removed from my “hubs.” From corresponding with the “Hubspace” people, it seems that they are probably willing to do it. Most likely, I will start focusing more of my attention on that site when posting in-depth, longer essays on history, politics, and more academic topics. Future would be plagiarizers might be more reluctant to copy material from such a well-visited site. “Hubspaces” has also been nice enough to give me some courses of action for dealing with copyright infringement. If there are any internet experts or lawyers out there, I am open to suggestions. And if you are a blogger who writes on political or economic topics, you might want to click on the link to “Finance / Go for Gold.” Who knows? Your words may be more “famous” than you are, and you may even be helping someone else earn a little money.

The Future of Energy

This Billy Joel song from the 1970's speculates about what may be going on in the United States in 2017.



I do not envy President Obama or anyone else who has ever held or will someday hold his job. As presidents go, he has been particularly unlucky, inheriting one hell of a mess. He has been in continual crisis mode from the day of his election, with multiple problems forcing him to do some serious multitasking: health care, recession, budget deficit, financial reform, two wars, financial reform, immigration, climate change, oil spill, and the list goes on. Confronting one problem – health care - can make another problem – budget deficit - worse, and any policies he supports are bound to anger interest groups or political factions who feel that these actions might harm them. The complexity of the problems and his limited control over legislation will cause him, like all presidents, to be judged by circumstances largely beyond his control. If the economy picks up significantly by 2012, he might get reelected. If it does not, then he is probably toast. Presidents, like all politicians, are judged by short-term results.

But if President Obama asked me (for some reason) to pick the most important issue of our time, I would answer with one word: energy. Our industrial and technological society, with its mechanized and increasingly computerized systems of production, communication, and transportation, relies completely on a steady supply of affordable energy. If the energy distribution system breaks down, we are all screwed. And if you look at my list of problems in the first paragraph, the question of whether or not we are able to keep producing and distributing affordable energy is relevant to just about every issue. So the choices that are made in this area, in my mind, are the key to humanity’s future.

A few days ago, I was listening to a podcast of the June 30 episode of “Fresh Air” on NPR. The guess was Michael Klare, a correspondent with “The Nation,” who has written extensively on the economics and politics of oil production. ( Here's a link) His basic argument was that the age of “easy oil” has ended, and we are now in the age of “tough oil.” If we are to continue with an economic system reliant on petroleum production, then a country like the United States has two options. First, we can turn to locations that still have oil that is relatively easy to access. The problem is that the known locations of “easy oil” are in places ruled by governments that the United States has considered, to say the least, “undesirable”: Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. This has caused the U.S. to either tolerate lousy governments (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia) or take actions to either undermine or topple them (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc.). Many would argue, of course, that neither course of action has been particularly desirable.

A second course of action is politically more desirable in some ways but poses another significant problem. Large amounts of oil exist deep under the ocean, in the Arctic, or in rock known as shale. Some of this exists in the United States, in America-friendly places like Canada, or in ocean waters that are nearby or open. The problem is that the process of extracting this oil can be extremely expensive and/or dangerous due to geologic and/or geographic difficulties and hazards. The BP oil spill, of course, is the most publicized recent example of what can happen when operating in a difficult environment.

Now some would argue that as oil extraction technology improves, the costs and dangers of getting to this “tough oil” will gradually decrease. Who knows; they may be proven right. But others, including Michael Klare, would argue that it is time to begin a major push toward energy alternatives. In his mind, the dangers and potential environmental damage of getting to the tough oil are too high, and if the climate change people are right, then we need to start reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. But on what energy alternative(s) should we focus our investment: solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, lithium batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or all of the above? At the moment, the available “alternative” energy technologies are not going to meet our present demands. In addition, energy companies have invested massive amounts of money into the current infrastructure of fossil fuel extraction and distribution. The decision to shift significantly toward investment in other alternatives would make all of that previous investment seem like a waste. So instead, they assure us that technological advances will help them to keep producing plenty of fossil fuels, and the threat of climate change, of course, is either fabricated or exaggerated.

Everyone can agree on one thing. Science and technology got us into this situation, but they are also the only hope for the future prosperity of our species. The only question is whether we will come up with improved methods for maintaining the status quo or innovative new technologies that are cost efficient, sustainable over the long run, and hopefully, a whole lot cleaner. When in doubt, the natural human tendency is to maintain the status quo. The present setup, with all of its problems, is often less scary than an uncertain future. For the moment, fossil fuels still seem to be the cheapest way to go. A radical shift toward a new energy future would probably involve major sacrifices in terms of economic growth and standard of living over the short-term. But if environmentalists and some economists are right, then we have already reached a point where the long-term costs of the status quo outweigh its benefits. Unfortunately, since politicians tend to think about the next election, and voters tend to want what is best for them right now, short-term benefits seem more important than “theoretical” long-term consequences. Just ask President Obama or anyone else who has ever done his job.

My Front "Lawn"

This little song by Pete Seeger satirized the suburban culture of tract housing communities that developed in the late 1940's and 1950's. In addition to mocking conformity, it pokes fun of our desire for status and acceptance. 

The title of this post is misleading. After all, the greenish collection of plant species that covers much of our front yard does not quite qualify as a lawn. It is more of a random assemblage of weeds with some patches of grass thrown in. Now don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t look all that bad. We pay gardeners to mow the lawn once a week and to keep our flowery bushes trimmed. So as long as the weekly mowing routine has not been disrupted by rain or holidays, things look neat, trim, and somewhat green and grass-like. And so long as people only see it from a distance while driving by or pay scant attention while strolling past our home, they will not be aware of the true nature of our “lawn.” But if anyone stops and looks for some strange reason, or, heaven forbid, if guests walk onto the lawn and discover the prickly little weed balls that stick to anything that moves, then they will recognize our somewhat dried out weed farm for what it really is.

This is not entirely our fault. When we moved into the house, the plants right in front of the house were overgrown, and the previous owners had clearly done little in the way of lawn care. So we have managed to plant some new plants, keep trim the previous inhabitants, and lay out some of those brick thingies to create a separation between “lawn” and plants. But I have not been willing to pay the cost in terms of labor or money to rip out the accumulated plant life of several decades and lay down a new lawn. So I try to water two or three times a week to create the appearance of green grass, and we get a good deal paying those guys to hide the weeds by keeping them short.  It could be greener, but two factors keep me from watering more often. First, there is the simple fact that I have other stuff to do, and second, I know in the back of my mind that watering only encourages further weed growth. If I know that I am not doing lawn care correctly, then why do it at all?

If a bunch of money ever comes our way for some reason, then I will immediately get someone to install both a sprinkler system and a proper front lawn. Or, if we suddenly get really rich, we could just forget the current house all together and find another one with proper grass and irrigation. This fantasy that I often indulge when standing outside with a hose, however, forces me to ask a simple question. Why the hell do I care about the appearance of my “lawn”? How will green, “weedless” grass enhance my life?

I often like to pat myself on the back for being a person who does not care about the accumulation of material things and the luxury and status that they provide. I am just so damn down-to-earth and insightful, seeing right through the American delusion that happiness comes from accumulating stuff. So obviously, my desire for a nice lawn must be my innate love of nature and appreciation for beautiful things. I just want to lay down on the soft green grass, sniff my beautifully manicured flowers, and share all of this beauty with those who are fortunate enough to either pass by or visit. The only problem with that explanation is that it is largely a bunch of crap. The simple truth is that I want to make a positive impression with my home, and much of this desire, as much as I don’t want to admit it, is rooted in a desire for status.

Whenever I visit someone who has a nicer house than ours, I feel a tinge of jealousy. This only gets worse, of course, if they have a nice flat screen, a fancy kitchen, and if the place is obnoxiously clean. I feel similar emotions when I get a taste of luxury at a fancy event or during those rare occasions when we stay in a nice hotel or go to an expensive restaurant. I can’t help thinking, “Wouldn’t it be nice to do this all of the time, and wouldn’t it be cool if there were people out there who were jealous of me?” Apparently, the score is materialistic, status-loving American culture: one, Paul Swendson: zero.

It’s all a bit pathetic. I am, after all, a person who tries to keep up on current events and who has read quite a bit of history. I am well aware of the fact that I am, by any reasonable standard, already living a life of luxury. My house has running water, electricity, air conditioning, DSL, and DirecTV, so how the hell can I be bitching about my “lawn”? Fortunately, the rational part of my mind generally wins out over that whining, emotional, jealous part. This is why I don’t become a workaholic or take drastic steps toward changing my career in an effort to make more money, indulge in luxury, and show off my success. I can’t control my irrational, competitive, self-centered emotions. But I can control my behavior and recognize these emotions for what they are.

Watering our “lawn” isn’t all that bad anyway. It’s a chance to get outside and get in touch with nature for at least a few minutes a day. For a spoiled urbanite like myself, it’s the closest that I can often get to working the land as my tougher, less privileged ancestors once did. Plus, the smell of wet grass/weeds, either early in the morning or just before dark, can be a beautiful thing. Why let the sprinklers have all of the fun?