Was involved in a recent conversation on Facebook with a small crowd re what to do with the leftover pulp after juicing and received a variety of intriguing suggestions. From face masks to making paper to composts. One participant suggested we feed it to the worms in our worm bin. I’d need to acquire a worm bin first of course. And it might be a good idea to learn just what one needs a worm bin for in the first place before I do that. Case solved. Worms make excellent composters evidently.

Say what one will, but Facebook – like TV or a standing army for that matter – is an amazing tool if put in the right hands, just as it can be a useless inane or even dangerous weapon if placed in the wrong hands.

Got me to thinking. WA state where I live part time, just started residential composting for everyone. Every house now has three bins to put out every week. One for garbage one for recycling and one for compost. Very impressive. In the last year or two they have also legalized marijuana (seriously, as in yeah you can smoke it just because you enjoy it, imagine that), legalized gay / same sex marriage, and are now ardently working to outlaw the death penalty. What’s next? Outlawing congressional lobbying and political campaign reform?!? (One can dream…)

These bold moved illustrate the power and effectiveness of States’ Rights if a state and its residents so choose to act; and hopefully helps shed light on the overarching issue itself. More than anything one hopes it sets an example for others to follow and God willing encourages some to stop trying to encourage the Federal government to force national laws on the entire population as some of my more well meaning but short sighted friends insist they do.

The media and social networks nationwide are abuzz lately with blathering hyperbolic debates by both wonks and fools regarding a seemingly endless list of new laws some want to enforce on every man woman and child in the entire country in the United States. I’ve stated my case both publicly and to friends and lovers and thus am thoroughly tired of arguing about the issue. At this point I refuse to spend another precious minute debating it with anyone unless that person has the power to approve or veto a bill of law.

The way I see it, and this is only my opinion — I am well aware of that fact, one of the greatest aspects of the United States of America is inherent right in its name. One just need take a few minutes, or hours if need be, and contemplate the words that make up the name of our great national experiment we call “a country”. It’s a fascinating exercise. We don’t live in America. (as any central or south american will quickly remind you). Unlike people from most other countries, we live in a place called “the united STATES of America”. One infers it is a collection of different areas or regions referred to as States that are all united behind a central theme or collection of values. One of the most endearing aspects of living in the U.S. is the variety of differences one can find by traveling around the country and personally experiencing each State and it’s people for who they are as individuals and collectively as an independent state.

One interesting bit of history often forgotten about today is that the only way that the so called founding fathers got all the different states already established in The Colonies to ratify the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution (look this up to be exact…) was if the wording was changed to reflect that each state had its own inherent rights and would not be under strict control of a national government. Of course this has been almost completely done away with now. There are so many federal laws on the books now dictating what every state in the union can or cannot do that at times it seems that the only differentiating factor between one state or another is their state bird or flower. One can safely assume this is NOT what the founding fathers of this unheralded democratic experiment had in mind when constructing the general foundation of the country.

I have always asserted, since studying and pondering this issue, that the people who live in each state should be allowed to determine their own rules and laws as they see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the safety or welfare or generally agreed upon human rights of others.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. Especially in extreme cases. Slavey was one such exception. But even today with all we’ve learned I personally am not totally convinced that the Northern states had a right to force the Southern states to stay a part of the so called Union or country against their will and abolish slavery. This is debatable of course. And perhaps it’s more fodder for stimulating thought and debate than a worthwhile endeavor to be taken seriously. But scholars agree that the Northern states were motivated more by greed and economic concerns than by a desire to be of service to others or defend human rights. They would have never survived had the Southern states been allowed to start their own country. So they forced them to stay. There are a lot of lessons in that.

Perhaps it is an event we can lean from still. As we push and pull and morph in our ever burgeoning quest toward progress and further evolution we might be well served to allow each state to take responsibility for its own rules and laws jus this once, perhaps for a short period of time — a year or two or three — and see what comes of it. Certain compromises could be rewarded with benefits of being aligned with national or global consensus; and vice versa. This is a model that could be explored and expounded on for pages and pages.

In short I believe it can be summed up this way: if the entire southern half of the United States wants to be heartless sexist racist homophobic earth killing environment destroying gun-toting religious-extremist murderers, let’s just let them and if one isn’t happy living there they are free to move to a state more aligned with their own values. The fear and i believe it is a valid one is that constant enactment of broad sweeping national laws is a dangerous slippery slope that should frighten any forward thinking freedom loving citizen of the world.

– Posted by The Ambassador using BlogPress on an iPhone

Observations re modern television. This just occurred to me, but had been boiling just below the surface for months.

[as most already know, for the first 30 years of my life I did not “subscribe” to television. literally nor figuratively. not sure if there is any better way to say it; subscribe seems appropriate since most people pay a monthly fee for cable or satellite service. (a lot of people when television comes up say something like “I don’t have a tv” but 9 times out of 10 they’re not being honest. what they mean to say is that they don’t watch that much tv or they don’t subscribe to any service). regardless, i I was one of those people for most of my life. a little more than a year ago i started deliberately studying television. actively seeking out anything and everything that was suggested or recommended as being “good” or even just popular. for many reasons. the two primary purposes of this experiment though were, one, i had been, still am, working on a prediction/theory for the We Are the Revolution/Personal Expression Age book that American television was about to enter into a quasi-renaissance of sorts, which it was and now IS, without a doubt; so i wanted to explore the medium and its content more; after all, this was a theory based on intuition and research. I wanted to get a firsthand experience of it. So i began subscribing to cable television. I was right. It is. Two, i intuited that if i were right in this prediction, then “good writing” by smart people would be more in demand than ever before in human history. historically, good writers, smart writers do not go near television. in fact, smart people in general, not even as consumers of the product, do not go near television. but all that’s changed. at least in my opinion. they do now. both to consume and to write for it. it makes sense. it was only a matter of time. i am writer. it is what i do more and better than anything else. music is another. but writing… is like breathing for me. (an extension of thinking really, when you think it through deeper, to its core. some might be surprised that most people do not spend as much time as others do “thinking”. i am still amazed by how few people consciously and deliberately “think”… just a thought. perhaps more on that later. we’re already three or four layers past our original point by now.) for many of my closest friends and colleagues, they too are addicted to thinking and writing by their very nature. television is a giant medium. it dwarfs the world of books, literature, journalism and the movie business. writers can eat and support themselves if they would only open up to television. the problem of course is that traditionally no writer worth their weight in copper even would dare write for television. at least not in their own name. but… if television were truly about to enter a renaissance and begin to allow good writing into it’s bed and not exist solely as a cheap opiate for the masses as it normally had been since its inception, then worthy writers might actually find the task bearable if not downright enjoyable. so began my exploration of american television. this is not the place or time to post my findings. but suffice it to say that the theory proofed out. though american television is still primarily shite, for lack of a better word, pandering for attention like a toothless dime-store hooker in a broken wheelchair, it does possess a fair amount of decent writing. that’s probably too generous actually. not a lot. not even a little. (pardon me if this offends. i am well aware that i am speaking to a very small crowd here. literati and intellectuals only perhaps. people who would never normally even consider “watching television” as a past time. a world that has almost entirely disappeared in modern times.) soon my experiment evolved from exploration to study. the question no longer lingered. i had my answer. but a new question arose. HOW does one write for television? what is the art (if any) or craft of it? the time limits obligated by archaic programming paradigms necessitate a very specific method and style, as compared to film or printed word where there is more freedom. and thus for the last six months i have been studying television the same way a marine biologist might study dolphins. most of the time it is an excruciating task i must confess. but occasionally it is downright pleasurable.]

But still there is this time limit thing. that’s not the only problem with modern american television, renaissance or not; far from it. but it is the main reason i pulled out the iPad in this moment. to address this particular problem with a few ideas for potential fixes that just occurred to me. the idea goes something like this: consider LOST for a moment. that show ran for eight or nine seasons, once a week for an hour per episode, airing approximately 28 weeks out of each year. i only learned of this show a few months ago. sat down to watch one episode in October, found that i liked it, that it was relatively entertaining. from there i watched all nine seasons in a matter of a few weeks. one after the other. for hours and days at a time. nine years of television in a month. i did this because i sincerely enjoyed the show. (unlike most people i was not disappointed by the show’s new age spiritual finale. i was fine with it. it is not my place to judge where the shows creators wanted to take their show. it was their baby). but here’s the rub: if i had been the average person, waiting each week with baited breath for each new episode to air, I would have given up on it in season one. i don’t live the kind of lifestyle where one can do that. nor do i possess the mentality to even want to.

Right now, as of this writing at least, television is very structured and formatted. rigidly so. unlike film where we allow the story to tell itself in however short or long a time it needs to, the creators of television structure the stories around the time slots they believe they need to fill. this creates numerous problems and limitations. and for no real reason. Idea one: let the idea of time-slots go. Let the stories guide the time allotted for each show. let the viewers decide on the worthiness of such a venture. similar to what we currently do with sports and tv. 60 Minutes has always run late on Sunday nights during football season. Why? Because we don’t cut NFL games short just to jump to 60 Minutes.

Shows like ELEMENTARY or TOUCH or PERSON OF INTEREST (all semi-decent as far as tv goes) could do with episodes that lasted more than one hour. (One hour of television is actually more like 42 minutes due to the need for commercials). The idea that one particular story that might be better served by allowing it more time to open, simmer and eventually resolve needs to do all of that within the confines of 42 minutes “no matter what” is antiquated and short sighted. worse, it limits the work’s ability for greatness. Similar to what the creators of DOWNTON ABBEY did in the third season. Several episodes were two hours versus one. Randomly and erratically and with no fair warning. But it worked. It was a pleasant surprise. for fans at least.

Idea two: would entail letting go of the idea of weekly instalments completely. for run of the mill sitcoms the weekly time-slot paradigm still works. there is usually very little story; more a series of running gags strung together to entertain in the moment and that’s that. But for shows that feature a long running story line, like LOST, why not run a few shows not only longer than the rigid one hour, but also let them air several times per week; allow them to breathe like an expensive wine… open them up and tell the story, today, tomorrow, the next day, the next…. again, letting the audience dictate how often they want to see it per week.

The studios and creators of the shows (content) believe that the networks care about things like this. They don’t. Their sole mission is to generate revenue by the use of the space they rent. (hence the inclusion of PAID ADVERTISING on many networks post the 11 o’clock time-slot. I’ve not yet discovered a taste for this particular show myself, but PAID ADVERTISING must pay better than most other shows that networks can purchase, or rent space to). If a studio or show creator comes to a network and offers up a proposal to air a show that breaks all time-slot rules, the idea can be easily sold to advertisers that are dying to break the mold of their own industry’s limitations. My prediction is that it is only a matter of time before this begins to happen. Advertisers will come running. And in fact there is a good chance they would even voluntarily enter into bidding wars with one another for exclusive rights to sponsoring whole shows. Just a hunch. Of course this wouldn’t be necessary. But it shows the potential for how powerful a paradigm shift this could be.

There is more. but let’s leave it at that. this is good enough to remind me of the initial ideas. more later.

When you find that special place you call home you FEEL it. No matter how much time passes or how many other places you go or live in your life nor what reasons may compel you to live elsewhere, there is still nothing that does it for you quite like home. For me it was and perhaps always will be New York City. When I’m away and I see it in a movie or a magazine I feel a pulling in the area of my heart. Traveling is one thing. A glorious thing. But all the trappings and acoutrimont of a well lit established and stable home environment still fail to fill that void that exists inside us whenever we’re away from our true home. Not sure what it is exactly that draws us so strongly and permanently to one particular locale in the world, but it’s a palpable tug toward earth, a grounding stable reference point that calms and soothes and whispers to the soul…. “you’re home…”