Our Last Mile

Damned, I'm nervous! I've been nervous and on mounting proportions since Monday afternoon, and the reason being that on this fateful Monday afternoon, some minutes after 17 h I received a call from the University: we've been given a date for the defense of our thesis. Yes! A reason to be happy! Ehem, yes, for this Friday at 14 h. *screeching sound* O_O Come again?

Mile and I met this Saturday to work on our presentation. Didn't get around practicing our presentation, only discussing what goes in the slides, but then again, though we knew the deadline for the thesis is, well, this Friday, we had no news on when  the actual defense date would be and we were thinking more on the lines of preparing to ask for a extension, since we would evidently run out of time. I remember telling Mile that it would be a HUGE MIRACLE if we've got to defend on Friday, but that was so impossible, so out of the realm of possibilities, that honestly, in the best of cases, we would defend NEXT Friday. We even made an appointment to meet on Saturday - this Saturday - to practice our defense presentation.

This thesis has been a war through and through. From the struggles with the tutor to get things going on, going over and over the same issues, trying to get information, facing open opposition and animosity, all sorts of strange things to debunk the lectors we really wanted, obstacles and whatnots to get in the way to the people ready to help us... For years it seemed like a monster working against us, trying to force us to desist from the attempt, in way that defy any sense of logic. People from other Faculties stared in amazement at our recount of the things we were told and were exposed to. Then, step by step fighting to get it done, then the struggle to get it approved, biting back the impulse to just slash out and dish a few truths in the open.

Mile and I grew closer, like two soldiers left alone behind enemy lines, holding to our helmets, fisting hard our rifles, and pushing, pushing, pushing.

Then the "administrative mistakes" such as "oh yes, you are in such a hurry, and I know, and I still forgot entirely about sending your request for over three weeks, and were you not called me, it will still be sitting in my desk waiting to be sent".

For years - and literally, YEARS, since 2007 - Mile and I always turned to each other and said, "we are one step closer". It was like a mantra. We only had each other, and we had to stick together, and so we decided not to look at the dark side of the process, but look only at the positive. "We are one step closer". We could be at the begining, the job opportunities and promotion chances sliding past us, chances gone for good, or another set back hideously rolled before us, and still we held our hands hard like two lost little girls in the deep, dark woods and say "But we are one step closer".

Step by step we celebrated each finished stage of the process and took strenght to face the next. In the end, for over a year now - since May, 2010 - our mantra changed to "We are close".

"We are on the last mile," we said to each other "we are done, and these are the last steps."

Used to fight against all chances, we prepared a slideshow "just in case". We fought constantly to stay one step ahead the process, whenever we could have that step given. We tried not to get our hopes too high, so that we didn't brace for the possible blow, and it worked every time. We struggled and we fought and we gained our turf slowly, and inch at the time. I guess we didn't expect this. It is finally here, our last step.

I'm nervous, I won't hide it - not here -  and I feel like screaming and crying. It's like I must be on my toes all day to keep my tears from rolling down my cheeks. I'm so scared! We were prepared to keep fighting the system, and now the system has finally yielded, and - I'm so sure - all by the hand of God. We weren't supposed to defend on Friday, but God made it possible.

In a little over three days time we have to prepare for the defense - practice our presentation - and handle the logistics: snacks, coffee, name holders, water for the table...

This is it. This is.

I rushed yesterday looking for a suit, nothing too fancy,  but then again anything that doesn't look like what a whore would use to play the part of the naughty executive lady, is truly overpriced. I found a suit at ARMI. The pants are huge on me, so Mom and I will work on taking it in and fitting it, but it was that or see what can I use from my currently depleted suit collection. I was really on the point of "buy a suit or get used to having only informal clothes".

Tomorrow I'm on vacations - from work, that's it, so as Friday, as fixing a permit for thesis defense on such a short notice with the appointed HHRR is next to Mission Impossible - so you weren't going to hear or read from me in the next two days, but now you know why else you won't.

Wish me Luck! (and calm)

Beware, Beware of the Way You Get There

I'm at a "meeting" posting from my phone. The meeting haven't started because the person who summoned it is otherwise engaged in another meeting of an entirely different nature. She hasn't called off and rescheduled this one - as any sane person would - but instead "promised" to be here soon, leaving everybody enjoying the benefits of wireless internet and smartphones, which each of us could do anytime at our own offices/cubicles.

As I sit here, wishing to be somewhere else being productive - there's plenty of work on my "In" tray right now - I can't help but notice this guy next to me. Burried in his laptop, which isn't even one of the new ones, as it's sported by the young collegue in front of him, and I recognize him as a former head of department. But not any head of department, but The First Head of That Department. He's a guy who didn't have the background for the job, like an engineer leading the Accounting area, or a nurse as head of the I.T. unit, nor any type of knowledge, experience, hint, divine inspiration or anything to give him a direction, a light about what should he do. Others with a bit more sense to themselves, better survival instincts, honesty or whatever, would have declined as the offer landed on their desks, but he did not. His first steps were terrible, heaping up mistakes on mistakes with no one to turn to for help - or not knowing to whom to turn - then some of his subordinates openly saying it was his arrogance in the way of listening to the problems happening, accepting the offered aid or requesting it. He shouldered the job for many years, made mistakes, learned from them.

Now here he sits being "just one of us". Not a middle management, not even one of the lowest management position, but just another working ant with no one to give orders to, except when placing them at the local McDonald's. In his place sits now a rookie who has no experience on the matter. The guy has been the assistant of the current Mega-Boss who has. among his areas this Department. The guy haven't worked on this area before, started with little idea of the job, but he trusted his boss - he's an easy push over for his boss - and has taken the job of destroying all of his predecesor's job because it's "crap, doesn't work". All sorts of strong words were said about that First Head and his job, stopping short from calling him incompetent. He doesn't ask, doesn't question, but does as he's told, thus though he hammer-balls eight years of work but has not a clue what to put in its place.

The guy has had to face the many shenanigans of his superior, and his lack of preparation keeps him from making rational, smart decisions, which ends with him contradicting himself, contradicting his boss, even if his boss is the one going against what he said first. One day he wants a "continental breakfast", then he says it was not "continental" only a "regular breakfast". Then it wasn't even that, it was just the money for the breakfast, but then it isn't that, it's the continental. Then, really YOU understood wrong! It's not "continental", it's "consulting". As result, though his boss is a bully and people know better than to trust him, he himself, wrapped on the tricks of the boss, has lost his credibility.

They ignore it, but nothing they suggest will be accepted unless it's backed by someone who's trusted. (Not even in written are things accepted as they deny the very documents they write and sign.)

I look at the First Head, now just another John Doe, humbled if not dowright humiliated for the change in his position, and I remember the guy put on his place. One thing that hits me is how both First Head and Second Head have taken the position for the position, or taken it without having the proper background, thinking it's the natural way to progress in the company. In both of them I see the same: people who wanted the position, not the career. It's like in a movie, where cool thing is to be a boss, have the cool office, but there's nothing of substance about the job itself.

First Head is now relegated to a cubicle, stashing his presumptuous paintings of picturesque huts of white walls and red roofs, and his souvenirs from providers and nameplates and office decoration in a cardboard box, but here's Second Head, trying to be a good sport, a useful element for the boss who put him there, and as result, just like George Bush's disgraceful A.G., he's soiling his image, trashing his own principles, walking back and forth, for how long, for what? He's not there because he knows, because he's the one, he's there because he was put there and could just easily be removed for someone more "purposeful". And then what?

One could say that this is the "way of the office", and you "must take the challenges if you want to get somewhere", but there are a few of us - Dragonfly is one of them - who work to forge a career, to grow within a career, not within a company, next to a boss that will put you here or there. Is refusing a promotion to a position you have no preparation for a good thing or a bad thing? Shall you be open and take the challenge, or shall you be honest, know what you are capable of and act accordingly?

First and Second Head show the case of the people who work for the money, or work for the status. Those can be lost, and are often lost. As result, you become a failure by default. It's not something you can hold into, and it's void as your whole job is to just ditch the bads and try not to sink instead of building - because you are not qualified to build or develop - knowing that any moment you can lose your position, your "achievement", for which you weren't really responsible and thus you have no power over it. This sort of labor-behaving puts you on a position where you are subject to the whims of others, accepting arbitrary behavior and decisions for others. You might concentrate on being friendly with the right people, neglecting your job because a) you don't really know how to do it, and b) that's not how you get your job.

In the light of this, doesn't this make you a person who shows up to a place for a wage? Always freithened of the chances you can't control? Hating your job?

The batch of John and Jane Does I know, and I proudly belong to, those who rather develop as professionals or scientists, who rather grow in our career and become better at what we do, regardless of where we are or the status we get. In this sense, we are inmune to the corporative failure, as our goal isn't to become a superior, but to be a better engineer, better accountant, better programmer or whatever. Being promoted or demoted doesn't affect us, the status, the wage or the size of the office is not our goal.

In society, we are taught to shy away from failure, inspite of all the "self-help" and "instant-richness" pseudo-literature available today. What is failure then? To lose face in front of your peers like First Head did, or to fuck it up while on the "top" like Second Head does? In my perception they are both a failure for putting their eggs on a basket they have no control of, when they could have put them in a more productive basket. Failure, real failure is when you betray yourself, when you sell out for an external ideal, instead of continuing with your personal project, to build and grow.

Popping a Belly

An acquintance of mine is pregnant with her second child. She's really happy and has been getting blown up like a balloon fish. She's all giddy and happy, telling everybody who will listen to her, or seem like would about her pregnancy, and even show the video of her first time giving birth, as well as an unending sequence of her first child, her belly of her first child, minute by minute. As a woman, you are expected to ohhh! and ahh! and smile a lot and squint your eyes and baby talk and say "oh how beautiful!" and "you are so lucky" and "I'm so envious of you". Of course, if you are like me, and merely forcing a demure, stiff smile why holding back the gag reflex and strongly considering submerging your head in the nearest trashcan and blow groceries into it, then you are seen like the "odd duckling of the pack". Oddly, though you are the one on whom the whole "maternity crap" is imposed on (you never ASKED to see the fucking pics, vids, nor you are interested in the least on the process - neither have you imposed the "we don't speak 'Children' here" policy), you are the one making excuses, which are met with patronizing lines about how you will "get it one day when you have your own" and so on.

Pregnant as she is from her second offspring, she has come to use a picture of her blown up belly as icon for everything that requires or could use an avatar on the net. Basically you are exposed at any given time to see a huge, Malignant Mellon looking lump pop up and down in the corner of your screen every so often, depending on the quality of her connection. (Have tried to block her, but the freaking new messenger has hid the option away.) Malignant Mellon has not once used her pregnancy to shake off work related issues (yeah, like if you go on vacation you are no longer accountable for the progress of the work assigned to you, or what you did on the days before or after it), which sounds really somewhat besides the point, except that this kind of pushes you towards an important root of "evil". Malignant Mellon is just a small appendix of what's going on, of what stands behind the whole matter of having children.

As a woman submerged in the society Malignant Mellon represents, you are not expected to work or to be good at working, you are just expected to give birth. It's beyond the point whether you are good at what you do or whether you are bad, it really doesn't matter, because women's "destiny", their ultimate goal and purpose in life is to give birth. People around mommies are lenient, and don't bitch if they skip the office early, or are systematically late, if they are shabby looking or underperform at their office duties. It all goes understood and accepted because "they are mommies, and mommies priorities are the children". Of course, where a dad to skip the office, get late, be shabby or underperform... that wouldn't be tolerated. He is a man and he must perform.

This, however is a double sided thing, as since Mums are unreliable on the laboral sphere, and all women are supposed to become at some point "Mums" because that's our manifest destiny, employers rather stir away from hiring women, or by default, make sure to fire them as soon as they get pregnant, or not hire them back when the maternity leave is over. What for? A company can't be run half assed just because the workforce is "otherwise engaged".

Some of the arguments I've heard when wincing at the sight of a pregnant woman, or children is that "well, you wouldn't be here if your mom wouldn't have gone through the same process", or "you were a baby too". Okay, in my case - as the case of many people - I was born from straight parents: does that automatically exclude that I could be gay or bisexual? What if I were transgender? Yes, my folks when through the whole make-a-babe process, but why should I too? Should I also be a shoemaker if that's what my parents are? Shall I also be an alcoholic if that's what my parents are? And also, just because I was a baby, why should make I one? And on that line, if I'm Asian or Black or Caucasian, shall I also make one like me? I was a little girl, must I also make a little girl? What if I get pregnant and it's a little boy? I wasn't a little boy, is that agains the "norm" then?

Though I understand that Malignant Mellon has all the right to flaunt her condition and her "achievements" and regard them as she pleases, I also have the right to react to it, and for me it is deeply distasteful, and insulting as well. Sure, maybe it's just me, but forgive me if I'm touchy when mothers are crass about their state, their condition, their "status" while us, Childfree are bullied and called names that don't even apply to the reality of things.

We are being pushed with lies - because that's what they are - seeking to disqualify our choice, calling us unfulfilled, or as someone said "living a superficial life" or "passing on a life with more purpose". Right.

Let me put things in perspective:

1. As a Childfree, when my significant other and I, or my friends and I, decide to go out, all we do is say when (which can be spontaneously), where, and go. Okay, maybe some dressing up is required. We go, have a good time, laugh, if we are driving we are careful about what we drink, and when the party is over, or we get tired, or we decide we must wake up early to work nect day, we go. We get home, take off the clothes, shower and hit the sack. 

2. A person with children must first decide whether the children can take being away from him or her, look for a nanny, or start bothering friends and family looking for someone willing to look up for the kids. When getting ready they still have to deal with the kids, hopefully not with a temper tantrum and "I want to go too" or "Don't leave me", which can end up in picking up the phone and cancelling. Or maybe the nanny cancelled and nobody will take YOUR children, so you must cancel. If you manage to go, then you won't enjoy yourself all that much because you are thinking about picking up your children - you are subjected to a curfew! - while keeping an eye on the phone in case it rings, and if it rings you get upset, worried and spend a part of the evening calming the children or explaining things to the nanny. You will be prone to leave early, while all your friends are still feeling good and enjoying themselves. You get home and you still have to check on the kids, clean up the messes left, maybe wrestle them into bed and make them promises to atone for leaving them.

Yes, a life without kids is a life with less worries, with more time and more energy. It's a life fully balanced - or better balanced - between work and relaxation time. Any physician would tell you it's a healthy lifestyle. We can better apply ourselves to what we do, have better chances to be good at our jobs, at our hobbies, at our passion. More room to improve, more time to work on it. Is our life lesser in purpose? Is our purpose inferior?

It's different, it suit us, it makes us happy, which is something some parents can't say about themselves.

On Gender: "Are You...?"

The other day I read a story in a column of the Washington Post about this woman who had this very effeminate fiancé, who had have this traumatic experience with a mother that turned out to be gay, who dealt a great deal of harm on her and her father, who then married a woman, whose previous husband turned out to be gay and she suffered a lot. In her letter to the columnist this woman said that her family was worried her fiancé was gay, but on the other hand her fiancé's friends and family assured her that he was as straight as it comes. So what's the truth?

Reading this I had to reactions. First of all, just by the description of the guy - how he's effeminate, talks in an effeminate way and holds himself in an effeminate way - my first reaction was: "he's soooo gay!". He can lie about being or not gay, particularly  if she has dosed him with stories on and off about her family trauma and how  unspeakable and horrible is to marry a gay person and find out later and what a wreck such people leave behind and blah blah blah. His friends and family could lie or could not, but not know the truth. Maybe he has never been with another man, but he might have kept a wandering eye, or well, anything. You don't actually have to fuck someone of your own gender to "become gay". If you are gay, you are gay, whether you act on your inclination or not. In this sense, I was amazed how someone so intolerant (because that reaction can only be explained as triggered by intolerance towards accepting  homosexuality in her partner), so terrified by the idea of marrying a homosexual person, actually gets engaged in someone who looks gay, acts gay, and may or may not be gay. I mean, for instance, let's say that you have a thing against Chinese people. You can't stand them, you hate them, you would never ever marry a Chinese person. Will you get engaged with a person with a name like  Sam Ching, with almond shaped eyes and appreciation for the Chinese culture, though swores not to be Chinese? No, you would be running the other way, wouldn't you?

Whether her fiancé turns out to be gay or not - and I still strongly suspect he is - she's choosing to bring to her marriage a baggage of doubts and things to be constantly afraid of. Why would she do that? Before anyone ventures to say "well, maybe she loves him", wouldn't you say that then she wouldn't mind if he's gay?It's not like he's a rapist or a murderer, he might just like men, feel attracted to them and maybe eventually sleep with them. It's a perfectly safe thing (if done properly) and no harm comes from it. The economy of the U.S. won't fall into crisis over a husband looking for some male-love on the side. So, if it is a big deal, why to peak someone who pushes up the chances for it to happen?

I posed a question about it, what would you do if your significant other turns out to be gay, or in the case of gay people, if by some strange circumstance your significant other turns out to be straight. (It sounds silly, but there have been cases, where straight people pretend to be gay and fool gay people, and then come out as straight. It has caused lots of drama.) The question actually aims to make you look into yourself, and your significant other, whether there is one or not, and decide what's exactly what you see or want about them: the person or the gender?

Another reaction I had on the matter was about whether it could be that someone acts in a way usually perceived as that of the opposite gender and not being gay. Could that be? Masculine women who are actually straight and so with effeminate men. Certainly there are many quite masculine men who are gay, and very femenine women who are lesbians, so, could the opposite be true? Honestly, so far I've given everybody a fair shot, and have claimed my suspitions under quotation marks, and giving the chance that "it might not be so", but so far time and again none of my suspects have turned out to be straight. So, could it be? Could it really be?

What really strikes me of all this, is the fact that we talk about behavior, which is largely defined by society and the environment you live in. Who we are gender-wise, and who we are inclination-wise, or even who we are spiritually, intellectually, metally, might all be different. You can encounter peopleof a given gender, who have positions, attitudes, ways of thinking, whatever of the opposite gender. It is then widely accepted that instead of being purely male or female, the human is actually a mix on several layers of both. Then again I also subscribe to the idea that the gender is only on the body, and has a single function: to procreate, and aside from that the rest of us works on planes entirely separated from the gender. However society struggles to separate the genders, and push them into roles and behaviors to keep some sense of order. This is how even in the era of great advances in gender equity, we still go around labeling a lot of things as "girl" and "boy". Girls read fashion magazines, boys watch sport programs. Dude, it's fashion and sports, and no, women can actually watch a game for the love for the game, not just because they want to look at the asses and assets of the players. But then again, we work around certain things, like calling analytic, simplyign thinking "man-thinking", and multi-variable, branching out thinking "woman-thinking". We socially accept that men are more about the present, the action and women are more about past and future and feelings. What a load of bullshit, however this is the names we give to it. And there are men, lots of them, who are actually concerned by feelings and past and future and other "womanly" things without them being effeminate or gay, AND there are a lot of women who are concerned by the now, the action and can't give a fuck about feelings, and they are neither lesbians or masculine. So where do we stand?

Is a man who acts effeminate gay by default or are we applying a preconceived idea based on superficial information instead of really looking at the real signs of his preference?

When to Stop Writing

Regarding penpals, there's a topic that often comes to my mind and that's about the sorting out of the penpals. I have several penpals, and even more addresses that will be soon balled up and slam dunked into the paper basket as they proved to be one-letter- penpals. Not that I mind, though, and mean, if they ever write again I'll probably reply, but until then I need to clear up space and keep at hand only the addresses I really need. However, this is not about the one-letter ones, but rather about some recurrent penpals I don't really feel a connection with, or maybe only a weak connection. You see, I have my favorites, and they are not many, they are a few, but these ones I LOVE like you have no idea. If you are into letter writing you probably know the feeling: those penpals who make you jump, who make you smile and laugh and carrry their letter with you to the office, and sneak into the stairwell or the bathroom, or the furthers corner of the diner, or even eat outside, away from anybody that might know you in order to read what they have to say. Those you answer before anyother, or you yearn to read even when you force yourself to wait and keep the order of arrival.

Given the circumstances that have surrounded this year for me, I have fallen back with a lot of my correspondence, which means that I have made some of my friends, even my favorites, wait up to six months for a reply. Terrible, I know, but I believe that I rather make someone wait for a well written letter (though that doesn't mean they won't be plagued with mistakes, as I'm the Striking Queen in Letterworld) than a half assed missive, sent just to keep up with the schedule, though not with the quality. Through all the things that had been happening in all fronts of my life - thanks Hyne my boyfriend is Godsent, so that wasn't an issue, and that my family is a blessing, so that didn't give me headaches, and my friends are simply perfect so they were supportive the whole time - I started thinking about my penpals, and whether it was actually meaningful to keep penpals other than my favorites. I mean, probably everybody has favorites, and we are supposed to like all our penpals, but should I, as a penpal, keep any of them other than those that really thrill me? Those that make me tick?

Well, probably if everybody decided to cast out all those penpals that are not your favorite, you would find out that maybe you are not the favorite of one of your favorites (though I really, really hope to be in the Top Ten of my favorite!), and thus if such a move were to be applied by all, there would be a lot of broken friend hearts around there, but at least you'd know were you stand. But then again, is it mature or fair to keep up with penpals that don't click for you, just because you are afraid of losing those you like? I'd say, man up, own up to it and stop thinking about what you might lose or find out just by doing what you feel like doing. Penpalling is supposed to be for fun, not another chore, so why should you put up with chore-like letters?

One of my favorites, and she knows she is, writes also to someone I can't stand. And I mean this in the "that person creeps me out to the point of making my skin crawl back and every fibre of my body tensing with the burning desire to run away screaming and waving my hands above my head". How does she put up with such a weirdo is beyond me, but she does. I guess she's just that giving and perfect. (She's the only penpal I have of whom I know another penpal, and I know who are we talking about.) I guess eventually we all need people like her, who can see the worth or the good in others and write inspite of the weirdness of their ways. Who knows, maybe I'm not one of her favorites and she finds something irking about my letters - maybe my annoyingly messy and clustered up handwriting - though she doesn't get the worse of it. However, shall it stop you from taking a decision like this based again on fear?

I'm still on a site for penpals, and I still get request from girls around the globe (after the many hitting moves from many guys, I decided to be discriminative and close the door on men in this regard. I won't write to them unless I know them personally), who are so nice, to whom I want to write badly, and I'm always concerned about the load of penpals I already have. So, am I this way closing my door also to more potential favorites just to keep on my plate people I don't enjoy writing to all that much?

Being a penpal is more than writing and receiving letters, it's also about knowing when something works out, accepting when you don't work out for someone else, even if you liked them, and about letting go those who do not click with you. It's thought though, so I guess I'll still give it some time.

Economy, Ecology or Eco-Moron

I write today in hopes of being mistaken. I want to be mistaken, I YEARN to be mistaken, so please if someone out there can honestly prove me wrong - I don't know how - do it!

Sometime ago I received an e-mail denouncing that the German airline Lufthansa was planning on incorporating into their lot planes that operate with biofuel. The idea on one side is quite ludicrous sounding, as most people know that plane fuel (I'm under the understanding that some types are called "jet fuel") is different from what you pump into your car, namely because it has a much higher octane level. In other words - as I understand it - it's much purer. So, the idea of being able to make a fuel of such a quality from crops does seem to defy the logic of simple, pedestrian minds such as mine. When I first read this, I took it with a grain of salt, as, well, I always thought I would see a Gundam, than a plane flying on cooking oil. Perhaps it was also my hoping that I would never see the day when such a thing happens. After all, if you have been following this blog long enough, you probably remember my rants against biofuel for cars.

Things with the news about Lufthansa were cooling down in my head, I was happily chalking it up to yet another "X-Files Type" conspiracy theory thing, when I actually heard in the news how a Mexican airline, Mexicana has started operating flights with biofuel. I checked today on my favorite airline, and they too, Air France, have been "cooperating" in this so-called ecological and "sustainable solution". Yes, it doesn't use brent derivates, and the petroil is running low in the planet, and we have all these machines that work on fossil fuels, and "we can't live without them", and yes, you are welcome to point your finger at me and ask me how do I pretend to travel to Hungary from Costa Rica 'Columbus style' or I'll just go very Christian, pray to God and walk on water. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm quite positive there are other methods, for instance - and this is my Sci-Fi proposal of the day - why don't you invent the electronic planes? Can't? Okay, it was just a suggestion. But before you rant on why biofuel and all the technical stuff that I don't really care about, I'll point out AGAIN a thing or two that might be worth keeping in mind.

First of all, let's look at a few things that are happening while the biofuel erupts around the globe. While our cars and planes go lean, slim and vegetarian, FAMINE strikes the poorest regions of the planet. I still remember a picture of a directive from the FAO holding up a red mug, much like the one any of us use for the morning coffee or tea, and telling people that that's the size of the DAILY ration of food a child got from them. There was a serious shortage of food, and on many places there was no fuel to get tractors and farming equipment moving. You would say, "see how good would biofuel be then? Then you can get the farming equipment moving and you could grow crops to feed people again". If you do consider that answer, let me smile fondly at your candor. That's so sweet, really. In those days the biofuel was sounding quite strong, if I recall correctly.

Now, let's not dwell there much, and let's skip ahead to the present. Planes on biofuel and what else do we suddenly find? Famine emergency in Somalia. You can consult the report of the FAO on the matter here. Does one thing have to do with the other? Some will say that no way, that's just humbug and someone is "playing the local conspiracy theorist". Indeed, I would say that you can't take to separate facts and link them together just because they happen almost at the same time. I agree with that. Correlation doesn't mean causality, and we are yet to find out if there's a correlation here. So at this point I would like to point out a few very important questions we should be making.

What kind of crops and how much it is needed to fuel a plane? How much land is used for it? How much is the whole productive chain (farmers, intermediaries, etc) paid for the crops dedicated to fuel compared to those dedicated to produce food for people? There's talk about using forestry waste. What's exactly that and who is taking care that nothing that could be used to feed people is turned to fuel planes?

You see, it can be said that the biofuel comes only from the organic waste or the forestry waste, and none of the parts of the crop that are used by the food industry are engaged, or that there's no need to use parts ot the forest that are protected. Personally I would like to see numbers about that. How much is needed to make my car run 100 miles? How much is needed to fly me from Houston to New York? Then, when this "waste" is mentioned, that's because the rest is useless - can't be used - for biofuel, or because there's a decision not to use it? I'll tell you why I ask. Thing is that we all know that fuel is usually much more expensive than food. So, if I'm a farmer and I produce 2 tons of something - let's say corn - and I get paid $1000 a ton if I sell it to those who would make food out of it - the best offer, but I get paid $2000 a ton if I sell it to those who would make fuel out of it, who do you think I'll sell my two tons to? Just think about it. You are a farmer, you have a family to keep, a farm to get running, debts to pay, children to send to a college to get a better life than the one you have... will you go for the $4000 or the $2000? Sure, you can sell one part to one side and another to the other, and say, you get $3000... but you still could have made $4000.

You, as farmer, could ease your soul saying "well, I'll sell it all to fuel, and someone will sell it all to food, Besides we also need fuel. If there's no fuel, our farming machines won't move, and then there would be nothing to sow or harvest because we won't have how to do it". Yes, only how can you make sure all farmers won't take the same decision?

If the biofuel yields a bigger profit - and it probably will - then farmers will seek to grow the crops that can be used to produce biofuel. That will reduce the crops used for food, even if only a part of the crop can be used to fuel, as then instead of separating food from fuel, many farmers will seek to grow crops that yield more to fuel and less to food. It is a rational move, it's not ilegal, but it does make the food more scarce and thus more expensive. With this move a lot of people who live in poverty will slip down to extreme poverty because they won't have that extra cent, that extra dollar, that extra euro to pay for the bread, for the veggies, for the chicken, for the eggs. Sure, if you are a comfy middle class, middle-high class or high class the only thing you'll notice is that things wen't up and now you can't down seven tequilas with your friends on Friday, only five, but that's okay. But if you are not so lucky, if you have much lean resources to survive, you'll find out that now it's bread or milk, but not both of them, and there's no more McDonald's once a month, but if you want to smell french fries you have to stand on the street and inhale the fumes of all the "smart", "eco-cars" that rush past you.

If we go with the general mindset of all those "happy little liberalists", and the neoliberals that love to talk about the market, they will say that the market will regulate itself and there's nothing to worry about, what's needed by the market will be provided and everybody will be happy, and a perfect balance will be established. Yes, that above is the market's "perfect balance". Smarty-pants neoliberals, and their cousins, the happy little libertarians seem to forget that in the market your voice is the money you have. The more money you have, the louder your voice, and the market listens only to the louder voices. What's the biggest part of the money saying? That's how the "perfect market" regulates itself. If you have no money you have no voice, and honestly nobody would be interested in attening your needs or selling you anything if you can't pay. Just imagine you have a store. Two people come in: one want you to go fetch apples and sell them to him/her. That person is loaded and puts on your counter a briefcase full of money. All that for apples. The other one ask you to go fetch pears. That one has no money. Not a dime. You have a store, you must keep that store running. You have a family to mantain, kids to send to school, bills to pay... what will you go to fetch? Exactly.

If you have no money, you can't ask for anything. If things go so expensive you can't pay them, you might as well consider yourself with no money. There are entire regions that have ran out of money. There are countries struggling to get on their feet, control debts that have gone rampant. Decades of irresponsible spending, financially irresponsible behavior are passing the bill and we find out that we fucked the planet, smoked up the fuel like it was eternal, depleted the resources of food, contaminated land, air and water, and what's the solution? Well, basically it seems to be "let's hurry, wolf on what remains and let the richer survive, let the poor die".

So, is the biofuel a nice and gree ecological solution meeting the economical needs, or it is an eco-moron and eco-mocking half assed move to keep on the irresponsible attitude? You know my answer, now ponder yours.

Blessed Lughnasadh

Lughnasadh or Lughnassadh - as I've also seen it written - or just Lammas, is the celebration of the harvest. So it is said. It's not a Christian tradition or celebration, which might help to explain why my knowledge of it is so limited, though I'm not versed on many Christian celebrations either as I'm not all that much involved in my own religion either. I believe God doesn't mind, so... Back to Lughnasadh, it is a seasonal celebration that has been mantained today by the Pagan religions, such as Wicca. From what I gather from the few books I've about the subject, this is the first of three harvest celebrations or harvest related Sabbaths. I won't go in detail about it here, as I haven't researched on the subject enough and I don't wish to make a bigger fool of myself as I have probably had, so I'll go into what I've in mind about this.

After Litha this year, a friend of mine, Smurf, started sort of celebrating them by greeting me at these celebrations - and mostly talking about how awesome it would be to celebrate Beltaine. He's pretty much Christian, may be non-practicing and leaning much towards in "I believe in my aiming, my gun is my god and the bullets his archangels", but out of the blue - I think I really believes I'm a full fledged witch and Sookie is really a broom cleverly spelled to look like a car - he started greeting me.  Last year my friend Alix, her family and I celebrated Halloween. Would have loved to celebrate Samhain too, but Halloween was nice enough. Anyhow, the whole matter of celebrating the seasons - particularly since here the "seasons" are unexistent by default - had always pulled me. The dressing, the different types of food you prepare depending on the season, the way you keep your home... all that has always felt just right and so magical to me. I always thought that I would love to fully celebrate each of these turning points of the year, but honestly, I'm bad at keeping dates in mind, and if it isn't marked in red in the calendar I can't remember them.

This year I marked them in my calendar, so today I had my little note in there that said "Lammas", and I smiled: it's the day of the first harvest. My dear friend Trish, who has a wonderful blog in here, called My Season's Seasoning, did a post on Lughnasadh, and I thought, why not me? Which is why we are here today.

Looking at the calendar - and I have two belonging to two different countries - I check on the holidays and basically what I see are historic celebrations. It's not a bad thing, as history is what has formed us, what has put us as society where we are today, but they are basically historical celebrations. There are also - of course - religious celebrations, but these are too history, milestone related. The birth of Jesus Chirst, His crucifixion, the celebration of the appearance of Virgin Mary or a representation of her to someone... these are historic points, and are all of them basically human-centered, human related. You could say that, well yes, cats and dogs do not observe holidays, so why would it be a celebration about the day cats dicovered how to use their claws? That's not the point. The point is that these are about either things people did to change the fate of a nation, or a marker in thre religious life of how something changed the fate of men. Basically non of them are actually a celebration about nature. Yes, we have Earth day, but how many of us celebrate it? And what it is about? People hardly take the time to show respect, reverence to nature, from which we are part.

We often celebrate the past, but leave the past in the past along with any possible lesson. We celebrate our Independence day, for instance, but don't think twice about compromising it again - be it as individuals or as society. What lessons are we pulling from it? That holidays are only a legal excuse not to go working and don't have the day discounted of your vacations lot or your wage? Many of us are not pulling from the meaning of the holidays, which is why we don't really mind not celebrating nature.

I do not need to be Pagan to hold some respect for Lughnasadh, and bring it to my life as something meaningful that can yield many lessons. As the first harvest, a celebration marked in the book as one of "sacrifice" (no animal or human sacrifice!) I'm caught by the concept that you must give in order to receive. Well, only for that Lughnasadh should be brought into the calendar. As you picture the first harvest, you may meditate on the hard work of sowing the land, preparing it, tending to it, watching the crops develop and the work hard as you reap the harvest. For that first loaf of bread from the fresh, first harvest, you must work very hard for many months. There's no instant gratification, you don't get a bonus for taking five minutes of minimal effort, but you must flex you muscles into it, work without seeing the results for many months and then, as the things grow and bloom and mature, you must keep working hard, from the reaping to the cleaning of the grain to the making of the flour to the baking of the bread, to enjoy your work's results.

It's about a job well done, about working hard and not giving up, about keeping up, about learning the true value of honest job, about doing things well not because instantly you'll get something, but because you know that all that good job ads up later to a good result.

Lughnasadh this year - the first year I celebrate it - brings to be the old values and old principles: that work in it self, hard as it might be, difficult and tiresome as it might be, is a source of pride in itself because it makes you learn about patience, time and what matters. But there's also a huge lesson there too in the other sense, and that is that as long as you know you are doing a good job, no matter how long it takes for results to show, no matter how hard it seems to sow that land, how trecherous and hard the weeds, how steep or rocky the land, if you do a good job, the seed of your effort will eventually pay, and though teh harvest will take you more hardwork, and the baking too, you can rest assured that all that good work, all that honest, sincere effort will yield you a beautiful loaf to be greatful of.

Blessed Lughnasadh to all!