It's been a bit since I've given an update, so I figure for any of you out there who are looking to get an update on what's going on in my life, I'd go ahead and let you know what's up.  After all, I am aware that I have web stalkers on a regular basis (I can track you guys.  :P).

So, item #1 - business.  I'm working on my business website right now and getting everything moving towards (hopeful) profitability.  I'm actually quite proud of the design.  Thank you Jon for convincing me that I needed to expand my color pallet.  It's at http://www.TenkenMarketing.com.  I wrapped up the writing of the ebook that I'll be using for promotional purposes.  I'm also working on lead generation for other sites through Facebook pages, which is fun.

Item #2 - weight.  At long last, I have broken down under the 200 pound mark.  My official Sunday weigh-in puts me at 197.5.  I'll go with the phrase "Yippee!" for my response, here.  I haven't been this weight in about four years.  What I'm really looking forward to, though, is when I get down to under 185.  Then I get to say "I haven't been this light since I was a sophomore."  Then the next line I have is once I'm under 160, and then I get to say "I haven't been this light since I was 13 years old - and I was under five feet then."  My goal for next week is 196, even.  The weekly goal is going to be 1.5 pounds per week until I hit goal (153).  That puts me at 30 weeks out, or seven and a half months.

Item #3 - revolutionary ideology.   So, this one's fun.  As many of my friends and family know, I've been considering various alternative (non-capitalist) political ideologies, with some degree of seriousness for about the last six months, now.  After much contemplation and research, I've decided to go official, here.  As of watching Food Inc, and having a rather volatile anti-Capitalist reaction, thinking how shit like that just wouldn't happen in a different kind of society - shouldn't happen in any kind of society - and various other similar things, I figured it was time.  So I did some final clearing up and discussion (thanks, Greg, for the assistance there), and my official title is:  Socialized Syndicalist.  Or, if we want to go for the long version, that's market socialism with a syndicalism model rather than a classic one.  I'm sure I'll blog about the details later.

My feelings on this were conveniently cemented when I got the chance to argue with Jon about it (and inheritance) for about two hours the other day.  Very nice, eh?

Item #4 - my weekend in Wendover.  I spend Saturday in Wendover losing $400, and I have to say, it's some of the most expensive and best therapy that I've ever had.  Not because it was relaxing, no no no.  Far from that, actually.  Rather, it was revealing.  The brief story is this.  I placed 15 in a tourney of 45 (got no money out of it), and then played ring games.  I'm more a tourney player and didn't adjust my tactics very well, so I did poorly.  Then I went on tilt in frustration.

I know, terrible, right?  But then I examined myself.   Why was I going on tilt?  And I figured out that the reason was because I start viewing myself as a person who is "not likable" if I'm losing at something, or making any mistakes.  At basically anything.

I think I can't be liked if I make mistakes?  I think that I'm not a person who deserves to be liked if I'm losing at something?  Including a game with as much luck involved as poker?  Really?  Are you kidding?

So, I've decided . . . it's time to let myself be human.  This is going to be a shocking bit of difficult, but I'm really happy about this revelation.  The therapy that led to it was expensive, but incredibly valuable.

And finally, item #5 - the joy of fruit.  I did a "10 day cleanse," and am technically still at the very tail end of that.  It's a very simple cleanse, meant to adjust your appetite to lighter foods, aid digestion, and help get rid of toxins in your body.  You don't worry about calories or content beyond the rules of the cleanse.

Day 1 and 2:  No meat, alcohol, or sweets (chocolates or whatnot).
Day 3 and 4:  No meat, alcohol, or sweets.  Only fruits, veggies, and liquids (soups are fine).
Day 5 and 6:  Liquid only (soups are fine).  No alcohol, meat, or sweets still.
Day 7 and 8:  

No meat, alcohol, or sweets.  Only fruit, veggies, and liquids (soups are fine).

Day 9 and 10:  

No meat, alcohol, or sweets (chocolates or whatnot).

Doing this really did help, and among other things, it made me fall in love with fruit again!  I hadn't stocked up in a while.  For the cleanse, I got grapes, nectarines, mangos, grapefruit, and oranges - not to mention a few Bolthouse Vanilla Chai.  It was absolutely awesome.

The only problem with this cleanse is that now I'm only in the mood for fruits and salads.  How inconvenient, eh?

Anyway, that's the life of Rob as I'm willing to tell it, so far for the month of February.  Good talkin' to ya.  ^_^

A note to religious friends and family:  I mean everything I say in this essay.  It is written solely from my perspective with no attempt to criticize the choices made by anyone else.  I welcome any intellectual or analytical debate on the subject.  I won't even read any criticisms founded in purely ethereal concepts.



The often misquoted line from Marx says: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.  It is the opium of the people."  Marx's sentiment on religion is often misinterpreted, as is the sentiment of many atheist philosophers throughout history.  Marx, in his examination of the world, declared that the purpose of religion was many fold.  It is not merely the "opiate of the masses" (the only part of the quotation that is commonly repeated) but an expression and protest against the real distress and pain of life.  It is an attempt to find a beautiful something in the midst of a tragic nothing.  I would like to examine two things here.  First, what has brought about religion in today's world?  Second, what is the goal of religion in today's world - and perhaps most importantly, how much is religion succeeding in meetings its goal?

The Origins of Religion


A long time ago there was a God who impregnated a woman of great beauty and wisdom.  This woman was a virgin, but was betrothed to a mortal man.  She gave birth to a demi-God.  This demi-God proved extraordinary through amazing feats in his youth.  As he grew older he faced greater trials, eventually accomplishing feats that were truly miraculous.

Of course, by now you've likely either assumed that I am talking about Jesus of Nazareth or Hercules.  Both are correct answers.  There are differences in the two stories, but from their divine beginnings, their trials, and even their deaths, the two stories parallel each other quite deeply.  Other stories of heroic journeys, demi-Gods, and amazing sacrifice run through common veins in the mythology of many different ages and continents.  Yet somehow, most modern Christians look at the mythology of antiquity as silly and unrealistic.  It is impossible, of course, that Zeus would have descended as a bird or a ring or a ray of light and impregnated women.  There is no old deity being punished for all eternity for defying a God.  And yet the immaculate conception remains unquestioned and Lucifer being cast from heaven is not seen as so problematic.

Why is it that most people stand in such firm denial of old mythology while clinging so strongly to their own mythology (whether it be Pagan, Christian, Hindu, or any of the other brands that exist today)?  Why is it that, after the dethroning of an old mythology, a new mythology so quickly comes to take its place?  In fact, isn't it true that in most history it is only new mythology that dethrones an old mythology at all?  The old Titans and Pagan Gods of the Barbarians held Rome until Zeus conquered them.  Zeus reigned in Rome until the Christian mythology was taught.  Old deities remained prominent in Japan and China until Buddhism migrated from India and Chinese Confucianism and Taoism surfaced.  Norse Gods were removed by Roman.  This replacement of mythologies occurs throughout history and the further back we go the more we will see the sedimentary construction of all religion.

These religions are not so separate, either.  In their similarities we can see what we "chose to retain."  As the cultural transmigration continued it is undeniable that each religion impacted those around it and even those that replaced it.  Many of the values, and even some of the stories, continued on into the next religion.  The Christian mythology of the New Testament shows a combination of Buddhist and Judaic values against of backdrop of familiar Roman mythology.  Historically, we know that Buddhist missionaries had gone to the Middle East two hundred years before Christ and had continued in their presence there up through the time of Christ and beyond.  Rome had conquered much of the Middle East, lending its influence as well.  There are certainly many differences between the faiths that influence each other, however, so we should then ask why exactly that is.

We do not just see an expression of values in what we "choose to retain" in religion as it transmigrates.  We also see an expression of value based on what was rejected.  The story of Hercules and Christ differ in many areas.  The story of Christ places certain "virtues" on a pedestal.  These include humility, kindness, and doing good regardless of the actions of others.  The differences in the story of Hercules exemplify very different virtues:  strength, ambition, and courage.  Each of these sets of virtues is a reflection of cultural values.

Now we finally reach the important questions.  Where do these cultural values originate?  Why are they so important to the culture that they would prove to be the founding principles of the cultural mythology?  Not merely cultural mythology, either, but cultural mythology which would overtake nations again and again.  Cultural mythology for which people would fight and die.

Let's examine a few of the mythologies and cultures that surrounded them.  The Roman deities, valuing strength, wisdom, ambition, and courage.  Roman culture was one that faced the ruthless barbaric cultures that surrounded it on a constant basis.  There was war and bloodshed that occurred on a consistent basis, and being good in battle was mandatory for the survival of any culture.  The value of courage - in this case very frequently meaning a willingness to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the group on the whole - may not have aided individuals who exemplified it, but it aided the culture on the whole.  Making it a heroic trait increased its frequency, therefore its occurrence, therefore the benefit to the group.  Strength and tactfulness were needed to maintain ground against the enemy.  It is simple to see here that the cultural values were a means to the survival of the culture.


Now let's examine Christianity.  How could it be that virtues such as humility, kindness, and mercy helped the culture survive?  The Christian religion sprang from the midst of the Judaic culture under the rule of Rome.  The Roman rule created a suppression of the people which the Judaic culture was unable to resist.  Judaic law, perhaps once necessary, had become self-destructive in its harshness.  Using "God's law" to punish and even destroy so many of its own people while in the midst of foreign invasion was simply counter-productive.  To survive, the culture needed a break from old values - to something that unified the people rather than dividing them in the face of an enemy.  Humility and mercy in this case are both virtues which exemplify a willingness to disregard other values in favor of unity.  Through this greater unity the culture could survive the rule of a foreign empire, and in fact, would prove the conqueror in time.  Is it any wonder that, in this break from both its Judaic origins and its Roman rule that Christianity should vilify both?  Pontias Pilot and the Jewish courts both condemned the demi-God.  Their overthrow was necessary, after all, to establish this new and stronger set of cultural values.

Even though we may say that these values are needed for the survival of each culture or people, does that truly provide a sufficient foundation for the creation of a founding mythology for which people would fight and die?  I would say that there is far more to it than that.  In order to establish these cultural values, the values needed to be attached to something more immortal than values normally are - less malleable than the human mind, less changeable than a story.  What in this world could ever qualify for these standards?  Quite simply, nothing in this world can.  Something immortal had to be created from the mortal and insubstantial.  It had to be something that people would hold to.  It had to be something significant.

But where does this significance come from?  How can something ethereal be presented as real and be so widely accepted, on trust (or faith) alone?  The conclusion we must draw here is simple.  There is such a need for the significance that is provided that people are willing to grasp at anything that seems to fill that void at all.  Here I will return to Marx's statement: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation."  Let's delve further.

What is the heartless world?  What is the spiritless situation?  According to Marx, it is the situation of the proletariat.  I will tweak his view ever so slightly to fit my own.  I will say that it is the situation of the common man.  An average person (whether because of the class situation or something entirely different) is faced with a world that is harsh and cruel.  He is faced with his own mortality and fragility.  He must fight against a world that has stacked the deck against him.  Here in this country, in the United States of America, we are rich and we are privileged.  Nonetheless, unemployment is high and forty-million are below the poverty line.  Our culture has us working longer with less reward.  Our family structure is falling apart.  Three out of ten are obese.  One in three will be diagnosed with a psychological disorder in their lifetime.  One in five will have some kind of depression or anxiety disorder.  One in seven has attempted suicide.  In brief, we are not happy.  The oppression of our culture against ourselves is real and significant.  We move faster and accomplish less of real significance.  Here, in our country, 75% of the population is Christian.

Mexico is even more in poverty, even worse off, and 88% of the population is Christian.  In Islam nations, impoverished and uneducated people sacrifice their lives for their mythology.  It is the very suffering which creates the void which religion attaches itself to.  First comes the misery, then the sweet relief of the music of religion.  Through religion, those who are in a state of suffering find an "opiate."  They find a way out of the pain which has plagued them.  A life of suffering if lived well will result in an eternal life of .  A world which grants ill reward will be replaced by a world with immeasurable reward.  Our fragility, the source of so much fear, will be removed and replaced with immortality.  In some views, even Godhood.

By providing this relief, the mythology of a culture gains as much immortality as the suffering which plagues the people who claim that mythology.  Mythology is not merely a set of cultural values but the very reason for living precisely because it provides the ability to continue to live.  If the world were a world of pain without relief, merely a world of suffering, with no eternal reward coming after, we may as well just lay it down.  Religion gives the frightened and the weak the reasons to fight on and live their life.

As we examine the non-religious, the atheists, the agnostics - those who have not purchased their mythology - we can see some very strong common strains.  Economically, atheists tend to be better off.  Academically, atheists tend to be better educated.  Born into a "higher class" in society, a lack of wealth or education does not create the need for faith.  I would argue not that atheists are atheist because they are "smart enough" to realize the foolishness of religion, but because they have found appropriate alternate solutions in their lives which remove the need for religion.

Purpose of Religion

As already should be implied at this point, religion finds its purpose in fulfilling a need of the people.  The people require a relief from their suffering.  Disempowered, they flock to a holy power.  Miserable, they latch onto a divine joy.  Distressed, they crave a peace that religion can give.  There is nothing here that is foolish or unreasonable.  In fact, it is pure logic which creates the desire for what religion provides.

The objectives of religion can be broad, but the source of religion's power in today's world stems from its ability to relieve pain and provide at least the semblance of meaning.  Religion does so in, we hope, the name of joy.  It hopes to create a better world by fulfilling these needs.  We must ask additional questions here if we are to truly examine religion.  Is the relief of pain a good thing?  Is the semblance of meaning a good thing?  Is religion, when all is said and done, a good thing?

The "opiate of the masses" seems like quite a fair description to me, here.  Religion undeniably provides a relief of the harsh situation of reality for so many who are trampled by that reality.  Should be condone this opiate?  Should we condemn it?  In and of itself, is there truly anything positive or negative?  I would claim that, as all medicines should be viewed, we can say that the use of this opiate is appropriate in some situations and not in others.

In what situations is the opiate a good idea?  Let me provide a few scenarios.  If one cannot live or tolerate life without the opiate, it is appropriate.  If one is going to die before the pain can be resolved and the opiate provides relief until the end of that time, it is appropriate.  If the pain is completely unavoidable - the injury permanent, the treatment impossible - it is appropriate.

We must ask, then, is the pain of the common man so unavoidable - treatment so impossible - our current lot so intolerable - that we should use this opiate?  In fact, I will say outright that if any of these things are so, we not only should but must use this opiate.  It is the moral choice in these scenarios.

Is our pain intolerable?  This I would contend.  I do not claim to be so extraordinarily knowledgeable and experienced that I have even a general idea of the limits of pain.  What I do know, however, is that I have been astonished in my own life by what I can tolerate.  I have had many times where I have experienced things that I honestly believed I couldn't survive, and yet I did.  I have faced down fears so overwhelming that I thought for certain they would consume.  I won.  I have experience immense physical pain, overwhelming stress, a broken heart, and have journeyed into the debts of nihilism.  I have surprised myself repeatedly.  The pain if fearsome.  The pain of our life and our existence breeds an overwhelming amount of fear in us, and not for no reason.

This fear is only conquered when faced, however.  In this scenario, the opiate becomes a crutch which so often does nothing more than cripple us against pain which we could defeat, but instead, never face.

Are we condemned to have no relief from this pain within our lifetime?  Is it hopeless that we might find some other relief from that pain and sorrow with the tools we have before us and time we have remaining?   I would also disagree with that sentiment.  The opiate provides a relief from a very real pain, and if we are not attempting to remove that pain, like a cancerous growth, it will spread.  Each person has their own meaning which must be found and pursued with tenacity.  It is this pursuit of meaning and purpose which provides the relief - the real relief - for each person.  It is not a "God's purpose" we are to fulfill, which would write us into the roles of other characters, but the awakening of the consciousness both to itself and the world around it, and its decision as a creator to fulfill its decided purpose.  The opiate does not interfere directly, but it does dissuade.  It removes the reality of urgency from our minds.  It weakens us.

But what if this relief of pain, even this real relief of pain, is insufficient?  What if the world we have created, the world which oppresses us, the world in which one in seven attempts to suicide, is unavoidable?  I can't answer this one directly, because I don't the answer.  History has shown that mankind is the bane of mankind.  We have committed the most treasonous acts possible against our own species.  We have committed genocide.  We have created the nuclear weapon.  We have found many forms of slavery.  We are, as a race, more cruel and more vicious than any other creature we know of.  Can this be mended?  Can we find a way to live that is not pure struggle and suffering?

If the answer here is really "no," then the opiate is the only appropriate solution.  If the answer is "yes," or what it actually is, "I don't know," then we must fight on.  This opiate on which we are dependent has filled a void that must be left open to force us to see our world.  Without the relief of a world to come, we must stare our own world in the eyes.  We must face down the demons that we have made.  We must own our fragile existence and do all that we can with the urgent tasks at hand.  If our lives are truly limited, we must fight now.


So I would decline the opiate.  I would say that, for most, the opiate is a counterproductive instrument by which we suppress our own urge to change the world.

So, if this opiate of religion is counterproductive, does this mean that religion is entirely useless?  Does this mean that it should be eliminated?

I am privileged to have an LDS Bishop for a father.  In his role as Bishop I have seen him tend to emotional, economic, and other needs of members of his "ward."  I have an immense amount of respect for the work he does and the work done by the entire LDS community.  Many other religious communities do similar, beautiful work to help their fellow humans in their struggle.

The work they do is good work.  It is work which helps people in a substantial and real way.  Are people motivated merely by God and the consequences in thereafter to do these good deeds?  Is morality dependent on the mythology?

I would say no.  Morality finds its truest form in humanism and the true respect and desire to help other people because of other people.  Not for God.  Not for Heaven.  Due to the respect and recognition of oneness with the human race.

Still, religion should not be condemned outright.  It does many good things and helps both those inside and outside its religion in many circumstances.  It is their actions, like all actions, that should be judged - not merely the body of what they are.  In a world where religion is so deeply rooted, the violent casting out of religion would be more than dangerous - it would be deadly.

Beyond Religion


Marx concludes that "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."  Here I will part paths somewhat with Marx.  Each individual must make their own determinations about what is right, good, and best.

The belief in a religious system does not necessarily preclude an individual from trying to make this world a better place.  The practice of religion does not make it improvements and a fulfillment of personal desire impossible.  In fact, the structures and organization of religion, for some, provide the very opportunity for true fulfillment of desire.

This is the world we are in now.  This is the world we have created through our actions.  The opiate is to be condemned only when it demotivates the people from seeking treatment.  The sigh of the oppressed is nothing but logical in its construction, so people grasping to it should not be condemned.

Now is the time when we must turn and recognize the real enemies of fulfillment and happiness.  We must, as a collective whole, looking beyond religious, cultural, or other differences, unite as a people in order to take ownership of our world.  These enemies come in many forms.  They come in the form of corruption and greed - of exploitation and war - of violence and deceit.  It is our responsibility to change the world into what we want it to be.  We are not the pawns of some greater beings.  We are the artists painting the Universe.  Our choices create the world around us, and we, no matter how convinced we are of our own weakness, will always be powerful in ways we cannot even imagine.  "What we do in this life echoes in eternity," but a very real eternity.  The eternity of our own world, of the future of our race, and our chosen destiny as a people.  The ripples of our actions now will cascade out over an infinity.  It is time to wake up to the world we live in and recognize that there may never be a second coming to redeem us - that we must instead redeem ourselves.  It is time to stop retreating to other worlds, and instead become conscious creators of our own reality.

Do I want to stay in the Valley?  Do I want to move to SLC?  Do I want to move to Long Beach, California?  Do I want to live on my own or do I want to live with roommates?

What matters more to me - being in a place without a winter?  Being in a place with like minded people?  Being in a place that's close to the beach?  Being near friends and family?

Do I want to get a full time job?  Do I want to try to work for myself?  Do I want to try to get a part time job while I work for myself?

What hierarchy of priorities will lead to the greatest level of happiness in my life?  Should I focus on paying off debt?  Going to school?  Doing work that I love and find rewarding?  Doing work for myself to establish a rewarding and substantial business in the future?

Which of these priorities are compatible with one another?

I'm weighing all kinds of options.  This is the free write that's going to give a shot at giving me perspective.

First of all, happiness is always going to be priority one.  I want to do that which will lead most effectively to happiness, both in the short term and in the long term.  One cannot be sacrificed for the other.

Let me weigh my options with location, first.

Utah Valley
Utah Valley is the place I know best.  I've lived here for the majority of my life.  Most of my closest friends live in the valley, or at least close to it.  My family lives here.  The housing is relatively inexpensive, and I could get a place to live on my own for less than $450, including utilities, per month.  There is work here I know, including taking care of people with mental handicaps (which I would find rewarding), doing website design or something in that industry (which pays well), and I definitely have the opportunity to do my own work as well (even having the advantage of friends here who may want to work with me on some projects).

It's the location of the school I've gone to so far - that I'm familiar with, have a game plan for, and am already accepted into.  That school is affordable and I know what to expect there.  I have connections with different groups of people there.

Also, the hiking near Utah Valley is gorgeous.  During Spring and Summer especially, I adore the Utah hiking.

There are a lot of reasons to stay here.  It's financially sound, it's a "known devil," I have an immediately accessible support group of friends and family,

On the downside, Utah Valley is not the sort of cultural environment that I find most appealing.  While I myself am an agnostic atheist with some metaphysical beliefs about the Universe, 88% of Utah Valley is LDS.  While I get along okay with LDS churchgoers, it does mean there is less of a community support for my belief systems.  Politically I'm outnumbered as well.  Though I'm an independent, I'm an independent leaning left (and am undecided on whether Capitalism is even the best system) - and the majority of individuals in the valley are either Republican or independent with conservative values.  In addition, I'm a vegan, and there are very few individuals of a similar lifestyle in my area - which means that it's harder to find food options.

Utah Valley also suffers from a hell of a winter - and that winter is doubly hell for me.  It means that seasonal depression and anxiety are far more significant problems.  In Utah Valley, that's a problem for about four months of the year (mid November through mid March).  That's a third of the year that things are unnecessarily harder for me.  It also makes being active and healthy more difficult because a lot of my favorite activities are outdoor activities.

That brings us to Option 2:

Salt Lake City


Many of the advantages are similar or related.  I am close to friends and family (not as close, but they're still there), I have the gorgeous hiking, and I know the area (in general, anyway).

Then we have some reversals.  The people in Salt Lake City are more similar to me in many ways, however.  First, 55% of them are non-Mormon in one way or another.  They tend to be either democrat or left-leaning independents (Obama actually won SLC in 2008).  Most restaurants there specifically label their vegetarian and vegan food options.  Their farmer's market is a great source of food, and there's a strongly supportive community for that sort of lifestyle.

There also is a good University in the area - one that, in all likelihood, I'd get more of the education I'm looking for from.  Due to the lack of religious and political majorities having an influence on the school, it's more likely I'd be able to get along better with classmates and so on, and from what I understand, they have quit a good English program (I have no idea how their philosophy program ranks).

There are a good number of design jobs in SLC, and they also have residential care type positions, so the job market wouldn't be bad for me.  It's definitely an area I could do my own work from as well.

There are a bunch of areas in SLC that I already know and love - like One World Cafe, Sage Cafe, the Jodo-Shinshu Buddhist Temple, and so on.

So, Salt Lake City keeps me in touch with my support group of friends and family while simultaneously providing me with a community that I'm likely to connect to more and find more supportive.  It keeps me around the beautiful Utah hiking, and is pretty familiar to me.

On the other side of the issue here, I still have the Utah winter.  My housing would be more expensive (more to the tune of $750 per month including utilities) - though admittedly, the sort of housing available is more the sort of housing I'd want to live in (it's more historic, more architecturally interesting, and classy).  I'd have to drive 40 minutes to see most friends and family.

And then, we have this option. . . .

Long Beach, California


Ireland, New Zealand, and Long Beach are the places that currently inhabit the list of "where I wouldn't mind ending up for the rest of my life."

Long Beach tingles with awesome memories.  It's more the community I share philosophical beliefs with, political beliefs with, and so on.

It's relatively small, but close to LA.  It's beautiful.  It's artistic.  The beach there is gritty and trashy and no one goes, so it's my own private beach.

There are a huge amount of vegan and vegetarian food options.

There's not a harsh winter.  The depression and anxiety and not being able to go outside wouldn't an issue.

And then . . .

housing would cost a thousand dollars a month, including utilities.  If I wanted to pay for that, I'd have to definitely work for someone else, full time - at least if I go there in the immediate future.

I'd be nine hours away from my friends and family.  I wouldn't have a support group.

Financially, it's more risky.  The cost of living is higher, and if I lose whatever job gets me there, then it's more of a scramble to get something different.  The clock ticks faster there.

They have a University, but it's significantly more pricey, especially since I'd be paying out of state tuition.

So, in brief:


So, the question comes down to this:

Is it worth having to take a 40 minute trip for friends and family and spend $300 extra per month to live in a place that has a more supportive community for my philosophic and political outlook on the world?

Is it worth it to live nine hours from the people I know, spend $600 extra per month, and put either put off or spend significantly more on school, to live in a place with a more supportive community that also doesn't have winter and gives me access to the beach?


Let's respond to those concerns.

My greatest issue here is not the money.  It's that I want to be sure that I have a supportive area, and that I'm able to pursue the goals and ambitions that matter to me in life.

As I think about that, and how I can work within the system I'm presented with, it honestly looks like an education will be necessary to make a living off of writing, which is what I really want to do.  It's possible to do it without the degree, but I want that degree as security, and I also want the actual education.  I want the opportunity to study and discuss and be introduced to all these new things.

School matters.  Being close to family matters.  That, in addition to the finances involved, are going to rule out California for me for now.  I want my degree first.  That's going to allow me to secure a job I'll like more in California, and by then I won't the debt I have now to deal with.

It will be a few more winters I'll have to face, but that's okay.

And second, I'm okay with taking a forty minute drive and paying a bit more to live in SLC.  It's worth it to me, and I think I'd probably like the University of Utah better, in all honesty.

Okay.  Well, that's a big step.  I know where I want to live in this phase of my life.  Now, a few follow up questions.

On my own or with roommates?


If I were in Utah Valley, there'd be no question that I want my own place.  With it being SLC, I don't know for sure.

I could get a place in SLC that's $300 for a private room.  That's . . . really not bad.  And it would help me get to know some people in the area, and put me closer to the University.

The problem is, I've been fantasizing about the beautiful solitude of having my own place for quite a while now.  Having my own place where I can, without issue, have parties, have friends over, have dates over, whatever, would be really nice.  Being able to decorate my own place would be killer.

Also, my own place wouldn't be furnished . . . a lot of these rooms actually are.

Okay . . . wow, I thought I would go for the private room, but I'm thinking, yeah, roommates.  Cool.

Okay, next question:

When?


My contract's up at the end of April.  I could either try to sell my contract now (no, I don't want to), I could wait until the end of April and move (doable), or I could re-sign my contract for summer only, giving me time to secure things more fully in SLC.

The advantage of renewing my contract is that I have additional time to get things together, secure a job, establish my own business, and all of that.  In addition, it would give me a "private pool" for the Summer (seriously, no one goes there for the Summer.  It's nice.)  I'd also be able to jump on hiking more easily because I know the hikes in this area.  It would also enable me to go to UVU for the Summer, which would mean I don't have to rush to apply for everything for Summer at the U of U.  If I don't go to Summer Semester, I have to start repaying student loans, and I want to avoid that.

The advantages of moving at the end of April is that it would give me a chance to get familiar with the Salt Lake area, would force me to get moving on things with the U of U (the time incentive would be a solid one), getting into U of U would likely be easier if I start at Summer, it would be easier to get a job in Salt Lake City if I go at the beginning of Summer when all the students are bailing.

That's actually a pretty hard choice.

Simple terms?

I can stay in Utah Valley for the Summer and not have to rush things (and yeah, I would have to rush them at this point), or I could rush up to SLC (paying a bit more per month) and get a job and get into UofU more easily.

Oooh . . . this is actually a pretty tough one.

End of Summer, or in April?  April, or End of Summer?  Am I willing to rush things (which is the real concern) in order to get into things more easily?  Faster (more tension immediately) for smoother (less tension long-term)?

Well, there's also this.  I want to do my own business stuff, and if I move at the end of April, I could effectively just work for myself until then exclusively.  Then I could find a secondary job as needed.  At the end of Summer would be more difficult to do that.  I'd most likely want to find a temp job in the meantime - at least for the two or three months of Summer.  That's hard to do if I'm honest with my potential employer about my situation.

Okay, that information does settle it, actually.  I'll move at the end of April.

What do I want to do for money?


Well, I think that's been discussed in prior sections already.  I want to try to do my own stuff until I move up to SLC, starting a job in SLC at the same time that I move there (if needed - and I suspect, for stability, it will be needed).  I should have established, by then, a solid supplementary income through my own business ventures, which I can explore expanding upon in SLC (which I'll want to do).

But assuming that I don't start making enough money to pay all my bills, what kind of job should I pursue?

Well, there are really two options I'm interested in here.  One is Web Development and the other is Caretaking.

Web Development is what I have the most professional expertise in.  I have effectively obtained jobs at 35k annual before, and I know that SLC has plenty of jobs of this nature.  They are Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 jobs - which are not as great for school, but which provide me with a stable schedule (which I appreciate) and free weekends (which I take advantage of).

With this sort of job, finances would be more stable, simply put.  It would also help further advance my level of expertise in the industry, which can help with my own projects in the future tense.  While I am paying off my main debt, this would be a solid option.  My own supplementary income would already be established, but of course, would have to be done on my own time.

This would be higher stress and would give me less time overall, and would be less compatible with school.  It would also help pay off debt more quickly.

Then we have Caretaking.  Caretaking is an emotionally, but not particularly financially, fulfilling line of work, where I could work with people in a way that I feel substantially benefits their lives.  The schedule is less stable, which is stressful for me, and often annoying, but nonetheless remains flexible with a school schedule.  Further, while at work in many of these locations, on some of these shifts, I would at least be able to do basic work on my own projects (fulfilling orders during standard shifts, writing/coding/marketing during grave shifts).  Though great, the grave shifts can really make depression and anxiety crop up heavily for me, which is something to take into consideration.

Is it worth the lower pay and grave shifts to have an emotionally rewarding job that is more compatible to my school schedule and my personal work?

You know what?  I think it is.  There's no such thing as "stuck in a job" if it proves horrible.  I think that's what I want to do.  Some type of care-taking, preferably 30 to 40 hours per week, while doing my own personal work.  If personal work doesn't work out at all, I can shift to web development work . . . but I don't think that will be necessary.


Hierarchy of Priorities


To achieve a happy lifestyle that does not sacrifice the now for the later or the later for the now, I have to appropriately prioritize my desires.

The main things that are of priority in my life are:

An active sense of meaning and value in my life.
Paying off my debts.
Going to school so I can have the career I want.
Working on my small business.

The top priority for me right now has got to be that sense of meaning and value.  That's straightforward and clear enough to me.  I don't want a life that feels hollow, even in the short term.

My second priority, I think, will be to go to school.  This establishes my long term happiness in the most substantial way.

Then debt.  This helps free me from stress and anxiety I experience in a more long term way as well.

Then my business.  My business should be a way to eliminate debt, not establish new debts, once we're outside of this preliminary phase - and that should always be kept in mind, I think.

There are other priorities as well, like health and fitness, which don't easily fit into the hierarchy.

I think that this set of priorities is pretty good.  I also think the location, the type of work, and all of the other things mentioned.

So, the game plan:


I'm going to work on my small business to establish it further from now until the end of April, without seeking other employment in this area (though I will do freelance and similar work).  During that time I will also get into school at the University of Utah and seek employment to begin at the beginning of the Summer in SLC.

At the beginning of Summer, I'll move to Salt Lake City, where I will rent a Private Room in an apartment that's close to the University of Utah.  I'll attend Summer Semester (12 credits) while working as a caretaker. While doing my work as a caretaker (during grave shifts and similar) I will continue to work on personal business and freelance projects, and I will spend additional time developing my own personal pursuits as well.

I will continue to pay down my debts as rapidly as I can without breaking past the high anxiety point, but will not avoid student loans if they seem like they can be helpful in getting me further into my education.  I will not, however, take out loans past the initial one I already have for my own business and personal ventures.

The idea is that I will finish my degree in four years in Salt Lake City, go to California to get my MFA, then work as a writer with my personal ventures remaining supplementary income, unless at any point the supplementary income is substantial enough that I don't require other employment.

Well, there we have it.  Voila!

Free writes are so helpful.

I have some new decisions I've made to improve my lifestyle.

Like all great revolutionary groups, the Weather Underground started with Bob Dylan. Dylan's immortal lyrics "You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows" (from Subterranean Homesick Blues) were quoted at the bottom of a the Newspaper of the Students for a Democratic Society in 1969. It is from these lyrics that the Weathermen - later the Weather Underground Organization - would get their name. But it's from the SDS that they initially sprang, so let's start there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIulyVsG8

From 1960 to 1969, the SDS served as a major student activist group. They were a radical leftist group, often seen as a representation of the American New Left. The SDS believed that no single issue could be addressed in order to solve things, but that it was a widespread and interconnected systemic problem. Though they were not communist, they openly opposed anti-communist groups, societies, and behaviors.

In about '65, after 5 years of peaceful protests, the group began demonstrations, including anti-war demonstrations which got national attention. By '68, these demonstrations (which were meant to be peaceful) turned violent, as police attempted to break up the demonstrations through violence. This started to create a split in the SDS, between two major groups. One of these groups, the Worker Student Alliance, allied itself with the progressive labor group (a faction inside the SDS), and basically believed in a "soft communism." They believed that to achieve communism, that a different approach must be taken - one that involved peaceful co-existence with capitalism, reformation policies to adapt the US to a communist state, and a turn to electoral politics. The other group was led by Klonsky, Rudd, Dohrn, and Jacobs - who founded the Revolutionary Youth Movement of the SDS. They remained a division of the SDS through 1969, the SDS's last convention, and had an official manifesto signed by 11 SDS members, and the signing of this manifesto is seen as the beginning of the Weathermen, and the 11 members are seen as its founders.

In this time, we had multiple major events. One was the Days of Rage, in which John Jacobs, one of the founding members of the Weathermen, stated "Weatherman would shove the war down] their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. 'Turn the imperialists' war into a civil war', in Lenin's words. And we were going to kick ass."

Bill Ayers said: "The Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theatre of 'here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here's the little path they're going to march down, and here's where they can make their little statement.' We wanted to say, "No, what we're going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam."

This was all-out rioting - smashing the windows of cars, and banks, twenty-eight policemen were injured, six weathermen were shot, and sixty-eight were arrested.

In the 1969 SDS convention (the last one to be held), Jacobs promoted a fully war-tuned philosophy, that the "imperialist war" should be made a "civil war." He condemned the pacifism of white middle-class, and stated "We're against everything that's 'good and decent' in honky America. We will burn and loot and destroy. We are the incubation of your mother's nightmare." This is quite possibly his most famous statement.

They started a War Council, which came to multiple conclusions. One was that violent military actions should be taken against the Imperialist US Government, immediately, and enlist public support in that struggle. Another was to start major collectives in every major city in the US. They also "claimed leadership" of the SDS, which can be seen as the end of the SDS as its own organization - it was thereafter an extension of the Weathermen.

The basic ideology of the Weather Underground was one opposed to US Imperialism, with specific examples being pointed to around the globe, including the most prominent in Vietnam. The Weathermen stated: "the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it," that "The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this [imperialistically gained] wealth in the interest of the oppressed peoples of the world" and "The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

They believed that they were playing a Vanguard role, following the Marxist-Lenninist theories, and that other revolutionary groups would centralize around them. Their main tag-line was to "Bring the War home." They promoted the ideas that the revolution was not something they were starting, but something which was an ongoing struggle around the world, and that they were simply bringing this revolutionary struggle back into US territory. They also believed that their actions would become a catalyst for an internal US revolution.

They took a broad view of what the working class was - stating that the students were simply working class individuals gaining better working class skills in order to join the labor force.

They also made contacts with government and leadership in foreign countries, including Cuba and North Vietnam. Members of the WU stated that they were highly influenced by looking at the methods and style of political organization of these other nations.

They stated that non-violent protest was insufficient, and a militant group was necessary - that militant action was necessary - in order to more dramatically effect change. Naomi Jaffe stated: "We felt that doing nothing in a period of repressive violence is itself a form of violence. That's really the part that I think is the hardest for people to understand. If you sit in your house, live your white life and go to your white job, and allow the country that you live in to murder people and to commit genocide, and you sit there and you don't do anything about it, that's violence."

The death toll in Vietnam had breached over a million, including a huge number of civilian casualties caused by US soldiers (US estimates call it about 92,000). Hundreds of thousands of other civilians died in the war as well. Even though comparatively small, there were also a large number of US soldier casualties, including well over ten-thousand draftees.

In February of 1970, the Weatherman made their first attack, on Judge Murtagh - who was the judge presiding over the case known as the "Panther 21." These were 21 Black Panther members who were being tried. So they threw gasoline Molotov cocktails at the house of this judge, as well as at a police car. They broke windows as well, but it was basically seen as attempted arson, since they never successfully lit the house on fire - basically just the overhang out front.

That same month there was also a bombing of a police station which killed one and injured another officer, in which the WU was suspected, but never claimed responsibility.

Then in 1970, the Weather Underground blew up their first building - their own. Three of the founding members were in a townhouse putting together a bomb, but apparently they weren't very good at it at this point, because they screwed up on something and, bam. They blew up the building. It was a pretty impressive explosion. They all died in it, and it damaged neighboring buildings as well.

This saw a major shift in the WU. For one, the FBI now believed that these guys were serious about what they were doing, had some real explosives, and needed to be dealt with. Despite this show of apparent incompetence, enough unprepared explosives to level two city blocks, and it became apparent that the Weathermen were willing to do damage and take lives. The remaining members of the WU, however, had a meeting where they discussed a change in tact.

The abrasiveness of the death of their friends and allies had caught them by surprise. The harsh reality of what they were doing set in. They determined that the killing of people - "random innocents" - was not an acceptable way to approach the conflict. There's a lot of conflict about whether they took the right road. Many people of their time who were leftist were in favor of less violence - basically not attacking the working class when they were trying to garner working class support. They wanted to maintain their reputation in the eyes of the people. Others felt this softer approach was counter-productive, and no longer truly militant, merely demonstrative. The term "armed propaganda" has been used to describe the actions of the Weathermen from this point out. They also went fully underground. Basically, no one knew where they were anymore, they dropped all contact with friends and family, and became fugitives.

In May of '70, they declared War on the US Government, in response to the murder of Fred Hampton. Fred Hampton was a charismatic leader of the Black Panther party who was murdered, most likely while asleep in his bed, by the US Government.

They said that within two weeks they would bomb a US landmark. They bombed the National Guard Headquarters, and stated it was in response to the Kent State Massacre, where police fired on protesting crowds, killing four and wounding nine.

A couple weeks later they bombed a police station. They made a statement that this police station bombing was opposed to police cruelty.

They bombed the Presidio Army Base on the 11th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution in July.

Now, one important thing to note as I go over all these bombings, is the Weathermen either issued evacuation notices, waited until no one was around, or otherwise attempted to not take the lives of people at these buildings. They were fairly successful in not taking lives in this manner.

In late 1970, the Weathermen assisted in a Prison Break, getting Timothy Leary out of jail and out of the country. They received a $20k payment from "The Brotherhood of Eternal Love" - a psychedelics distribution organization.

In October they bombed Queens Courthouse in New York City to show sympathy with Empire State prison uprisings and the Harvard Center for International Affairs, to protest the Vietnam War.

In March they bombed the US Capitol in protest to the American invasion of Laos. This is the most damage they ever did - and equals $1.62 million in damages when adjusted for inflation.

August of 1971 — they bombed the California State Corrections Department office in San Francisco’s Ferry Building, in response to the shooting death of prison activist George Jackson, who was assassinated by the US Government. Now, I keep saying assassinated by the US Government, not allegedly assassinated by the US Government, and there's a reason for that - but I'll come back to it in a second.

September of 1971 — they bombed the New York Department of Corrections office, in solidarity with 29 inmates killed at Attica State Prison .

May of 1972 — they bombed the The Pentagon, to celebrate Ho Chi Minh’s birthday. Happy Birthday, Ho Chi Minh!

May of 1973 — they bombed the New York’s 103rd Precinct House, to retaliate against the NYPD’s killing of a 10-year-old black boy

September of 1973 — they bombed the ITT headquarters in Manhattan, in response to the US-backed coup d’etat in Chile.

March 6, 1974 — they bombed the San Francisco offices of the Department of Health Education and Welfare, to criticize the forced sterilization of poor women.

May 31, 1974 — they bombed the California Attorney General’s office, after the shootout deaths of six members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

June 17, 1974 — they bombed the Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters in retalliation for its work in Angola.

Also in 1974, the leaders of the WU allied with Lydegraf, an expelled member of the communist party, to write a new manifesto Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism. It was a manifesto that got a lot of positive attention from leftists in the country.

January 28, 1975 — they bombed the U.S. State Department, to protest American policy in Vietnam. The bomb damaged 20 offices on three separate floors.

June 16, 1975 — they bombed the New York’s Banco de Ponce, in sympathy with a Puerto Rican cement workers’ strike.

But by this time, they'd been fugitives for about five years. Moreover, the US had officially ended its occupation of Vietnam. What happened as a result was there was a lot of division in the WU. They no longer had this huge imperialistic example to point at in Vietnam, and they started to shift somewhat in their objectives and ideologies. They were also getting older and more scared, and many started to turn themselves in. Some of the individuals of the Weather Underground stayed Underground, while others formed the Prairie Fire Collective, which was an above ground organization.

Now, part of the reason why a lot of these people turned themselves in, and were willing to turn themselves in, was they were basically let of the hook. In 1973, the US actually dropped most of the charges against the Weather Underground. And now we get to look at why.

There was a group that called themselves the People's Commission for the Investigation of the FBI, and they broke into some FBI offices. They found out about something just AWESOME called COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO - or the counter intelligence program - was a government group that liked to break the law. A lot. And do so often violently, and with the very clear objective of destroying anti-Government groups. That meant the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, various anti-war groups, and even Martin Luther King Jr. Evidence surfaced there confirming the violent and illegal actions to members of these groups, and illegal methods that were being used to track and capture these people. The People's Commission leaked all this information to the press. This is why I haven't been using the word "allegedly" with the assassinations. Although COINTELPRO didn't have specific proof of these assassinations, it made the objectives and permissions of the group quite clear.

So basically, they couldn't have a trial for the Weather Underground members, because they'd broken too many laws to get the evidence. There was breaking and entering, planting bugs and wires without warrants, illegal spying, basically torture and assault in order to get compliance from witnesses. Everything the "book" says you're not supposed to do.

The members of COINTELPRO who did these illegal things could have gone to jail for 10 years, but no - they were fined a few thousand dollars, and they didn't even pay that, because Reagan pardoned them.

But anyway, the Weather Underground was really falling apart. There was a lot of division, and a lot of the other leftists had their different opinions on the Weathermen. A lot, for example, really criticized them for originally committing to violence and militancy, and switching over to armed propaganda.

They still continued to plot on, but in 1977 they found out that their organization had been infiltrated by some FBI agents, and so their next plot (which was to bomb a California Senator's office) just plain failed. By 1979, most of the members had turned themselves in, taking advantage of Jimmy Carter's Amnesty for Draft Dodgers.

Ayers and Dohrn had some kids at this point, too, so those two founding members walked off, turned themselves in in 1980, basically got off scotch free - got probation and a fine. Though other members went on with other revolutionary groups, other revolutionary actions (most of them being violent at this point), those members either ended up quitting or getting caught by 1985, which is the last we really heard from the Weather Underground.

Members of the group have looked back with extremely mixed feelings. Some seem to regret it completely. Others stand by their decisions and say they'd do it all again. William Ayers, that terrorist that Obama palls around with, said in an interview

"We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. ... The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long. The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret."

Perhaps the most interesting to me is Mark Rudd, who's got really mixed feelings. He said:

"These are things I am not proud of, and I find it hard to speak publicly about them and to tease out what was right from what was wrong. I think that part of the Weatherman phenomenon that was right was our understanding of what the position of the United States is in the world. It was this knowledge that we just couldn't handle; it was too big. We didn't know what to do. In a way I still don't know what to do with this knowledge. I don't know what needs to be done now, and it's still eating away at me just as it did 30 years ago."

Whatever their feelings about it now, there are some things to examine about the Weather Underground. They've come under a lot of hot criticism, from one direction or another, for their actions - but whatever we criticize, a few things remain evident to me. One, they did not accomplish what they meant to accomplish. They did not get revolutionary support, they did not became central to a large set of other revolutionary organizations, and they did not overthrow the US Government.

Now, the reasons for this are many, but a lot is that, even though much of the counter-culture sympathized, very few were willing to join ranks. Even with the "person protecting" violence, Mark Rudd commented that "Americans are taught that all violence not sanctioned by the US Government is either criminal or mentally ill." He blames this mentality for the lack of support.

Mark Rudd also commented that the reason he feels he participated in revolutionary violence, while so many others in the movement didn't, was simple: Grief. Grief leading to outrage and then violence, in response to the US's actions. Mark Rudd has made statements implying that his path is now that of a non-violent revolutionary, having experienced the lack of effectiveness of revolutionary violence. He's qutoed a lot in another book, The Unconquerable World.

There are various critics who make their stance very clear, however. The WU was not unsuccessful because of a lack of revolutionary potential, or the way the American people approach things, but because they had no strategy, no perspective, and a lack of commitment. They did only minor material damage, didn't actually do much to the infrastructure of the US, didn't actually stop any US military actions, etc., etc., and their actions wound up as purely symbolic and ineffective. Basically, they relied on others to come in and do the "real damage," while they provided the symbolic platform of launch - and that, further, their guerrilla attacks being their approach, having come from the organizational background of the SDS, was a step backwards, into something even less effective. That all their high morality and sense of urgency was, in fact, little more than a cover for ineffectiveness and impotence.

So, again, we have this strong split about why the revolution of the Weathermen failed. A lot of people feel that the reason they weren't successfully revolutionary was because they were being violent, they should have been out organizing and grouping people together for non-violent protest, changing peoples minds, and making their mark that way - rather than antagonizing the US Government and providing a "poor example" of the anti-war movement. That perhaps the reason things failed was because the mindset of the American people was not yet sympathetic enough, or prepared enough for revolution. Others say that they failed because of incompetence and a lack of commitment, or true strategic directions. That the WU was, in fact, nothing more than a glorified anti-war movement that used rage-bound revolutionary ideology as a cover for a lack of effectiveness.

If you're interested in the other perspectives, William Ayers also published a book called "Fugitive Days," and there's a documentary available on YouTube titled The Weather Underground which is surprisingly well balanced in its presentation.

Other reading/viewing:

The Weather Underground Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7GSff4fIA)

"Fugitive Days" by William Ayers

The Unconquerable World: Power, Non-violence, and the Will of the People (http://books.google.com/books?id=_lzgxz8Q6pQC&dq=The+Unconquerable+World:+Power,+Non-violence,+and+the+Will+of+the+People&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=CX9XS8b6EYKiswOevO3FBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Underground, my Life with the Weathermen

Bringing the War Home

The Way the Wind Blew

Outlaws of America

-----

I was asked after, if I were the leader of the Weather Underground, what would I have done differently to make them successful? My answer:

Be patient, wait until we had the necessary resources and support, and then - if I'm going to do a campaign to incite the people - blow up a building per day, not a few times a year. :)