Food, As An Experience

About four months ago, I visited my home state of Illinois, a state that I hadn't seen in about a year's worth of time. I was there to visit both sides of my separated family, and tried to plan things out so that I'd see each half for half of the time that I was visiting. It was kind of strange how I planned it, in retrospect. I stayed with my mother and sister for the first couple days in a suburb called Batavia, outside of Chicago. After that, I rode down to Springfield with my sister in her new, red car, and stayed with my father for a few days before I went back up to Chicago to see my mother again.

Now, I'm not one to brag (genuinely, at least), but my mother's father, my grandfather, is an exceptional cook. He and his wife travel the world and eat well, then share their experiences with the family through their cooking. Since I and my sister are out of my mother's house and she's had time to be free from motherly obligation, she's taken the time to work on her own culinary adventures. When I visited last June, I noticed that she'd started subscribing to a magazine called "Bon Appetit".

I know how marketing works, and I'm very aware of how photography will make or break an advertisement. The pictures in this magazine got me drooling before I even made it halfway in. Roasted meats, grated cheeses, a spattering of water upon fresh tomatoes. Everything looked amazing, and after subsisting on my own very plain, simple diet, I started to second guess myself. So I humored this magazine, and I read the recipes.

"You mean I don't have to have a grill?" I remember thinking. The ingredients were simple, and for a lot of their recipes, not too costly. Part of me wonders if, as children, most of us never wonder how our food is made because our lives are so simple. There's an excerpt from the movie "Fearless", that I believe is fairly relevant to this idea. In the movie, a Japanese martial artist (Tanaka) is discussing his passion of tea with a Chinese martial artist (Huo), and it goes something like this:

Tanaka: Mr. Huo, according to what you say, you don’t really know the nature of tea.
Huo : It’s not that I don’t know. I don’t really want to know. Because I don’t care about evaluating teas. Tea is tea.
Tanaka : But each tea has its own character and properties.
Huo : What is the purpose of grading? These many teas are grown in nature, all of them. Is there a discernible difference?
Tanaka : Yes, once you learn this, you can tell the difference between the teas.
Huo : What you say may be right, but the way I see it is, the tea doesn’t judge itself. It’s people that judge its grading. Different people choose different things. As for me, as far as I’m concerned, I just don’t want to make any choice.
Tanaka : Oh, is that so?
Huo : Drinking tea is a mood, really. If you are in a good mood, the grade of tea doesn’t matter.
Tanaka : I've never looked at it like that. I understand that there are many wushu fighting styles. Are you saying that no style is greater than another?
Huo : That’s what I’m saying.
Tanaka : If that is true, I want to ask you: If wushu does not differ in any way, why do we fight each other?
Huo : I believe for all the styles of wushu, there is no single one that is superior. All of those who practice different styles of wushu, they would naturally have a different level of skill. Through competition, we can discover ourselves.

Profound? Debatable. True? From my experience, I couldn't agree more, and I want to make the argument that this kind of philosophy could be true about food in general. I know that if I'm in a sour mood, I tend to eat my food quickly while my mind bothers with distraction. If I'm in a good mood, retrospectively, I might take the time to savor and enjoy what I've chosen to eat. However, Tanaka does have a point that food has taste, and with taste comes variety.

After I returned to my townhouse back here in Houston, I willed that I would stop eating the same meal every night (which consisted of baked chicken, mixed greens out of a can, and beer), and open my mind and try to learn how to cook with diversity. I started this journey by purchasing my first Bon Appetit magazine, and grazed over the recipes before I found a very simple one, that consisted of white fish with tomatoes and basil. I'm very happy to say that it was my first successful venture into cooking, and has become one of my "go to" meals since then.

But I didn't stop there. I've since subscribed to the magazine, and have cooked at least two things out of every issue I've received. My roommates and I have taken to a habit of visiting a farmer's market every Saturday morning, where the same cheerful woman sits under a canvas canopy, eager to sell her various produce and make light conversation with us. Keep in mind, this isn't the block-long farmer's market in San Fransisco, teeming with people as they scramble for the choicest of what they can reach. It's a very small setup, with one or two people actually getting payed for their work, which includes the former woman.

I want to say that I'd never thought I'd live this kind of lifestyle in Houston, Texas, but I love it. Getting up early, sipping coffee while we drive about twenty minutes to the "market", sharing a bit of dialogue with the familiar woman before leaving. Then, after that, taking what we buy and making it into a meal that will feed three people for two days. It's inspiring to me, and after our last meal, I'm happy to say that I'm enjoying this cooking thing, and I'm mostly making this post today to encourage other people to get into it. For the sake of inspiration, I've got a couple pictures below of what I and my roommates have cooked in the past few weeks, however, I don't want to seem like an egotistical yuppy, so I'll spare you the details. If you're curious, though, feel free to ask me via keystrokegraffiti@gmail.com! Bon appetit!

The Wounds of September

I was 13 years old, in a Tech class at Batavia Middle School, in Batavia, Illinois. We were making little electronic devices that used a 9-volt battery to power lights or make sounds. I remember our PA system came on and instructed all of the teachers to turn on their TVs, and all of us kids watched the second tower go down.

So few of us actually knew what was going on, myself included. We were a bit awestruck at watching the events unfold, and the whole school seemed to become quiet and contemplative for the rest of that day. For myself, it was a reality check. People can be insane, violent, and heartless. Even faced with those kind of facts, though, I became motivated to grow up and change the world for the better. I got into politics, and learned about protests. I found System of a Down. I learned a lot about the people who attacked us, and why they did it.

For me, the experience was more of a personal growth, and less of a surge of patriotism. However, knowing that I have two brothers that will have been to the Middle East because they -personally- want to help heal the wounds of terrorism, fills me with pride. The terrorist group attacked us out of bitterness and religious fanaticism, and we are helping their civilians see the lies that have been spread to them about us. We might be ruled by people of greed and selfishness, but we are not a nation of evil.

In my opinion, all religions have their failings. All of them have drawbacks. However, there is a stark irony that has stayed with me, about the attack in September, 2001. They claimed that we were an evil people, who suppressed their religion and caused them pain. As far as I know, however, I can't think of any instance where a group of Islamic missionaries have traveled to a third-world country to teach children and offer food and clothing to the poverty-stricken. I can think of plenty instances of Christians doing this, however. In fact, it's almost a staple of the religion to go out and help people where and when you can. I may disagree with Christianity myself, but the hypocrisy of the reasoning given behind Osama bin-Laden's funded attack on us is glaring.

I'm not saying that Islamic people aren't kind and helpful. I've seen plenty documentaries of Muslim doctors from the Middle East going to offer their aid to poverty-stricken areas, to help out with HIV vaccinations and other similar forms of aid. It's not them that I'm talking about, it's the religiously-fanatic terrorists that claim our people are evil.

In conclusion, after September eleventh, I never feared a terrorist ever again. I saw their cowardice, and their weakness. I saw that they were acting like children who just wanted to blame someone and cause them pain, because it made them feel better. I, as the son of my mother and father, who happens to have been born in America, am a better person than that. And you are too.

Writing Blues

So, for the past four months, following my victorious attempt at NaNoWriMo, I've been unable to focus my mind on my writing and continue to work on my "talent". In December, I looked back over the story I'd been hashing away at for the past thirty days, only to realize that I had misinterpreted the meaning behind the contest. As many NaNo veterans would tell you, trying to blitz your way into a noteworthy, block-busting novel in thirty days is pretty rare (possible, but rare), and will most likely end up as something that you'll have to continue spamming away at into the next year.

My personal failing with my novel was that I didn't plan it appropriately, even considering the literal -days- of research I put into it. I had also come to understand, afterward, that this novel that I'd been writing, even though I'd poured so much time into it, was not the story that I've been wanting to tell since I started writing creatively. Don't get me wrong, I'm really interested in World War II and I'd be ecstatic to be able to interview a veteran from that era, but it isn't the story that I want to tell.

Sometime last week, I was randomly thrown a symphony that was originally created by the composer Tchaikovsky. What was given to me, was Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, as composed by Herbert von Karajan with the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra. Now, I've heard time and time again, that classical music inspires creativity in a way that modern music can't compare to, and from personal experience, I can wholeheartedly agree.

The symphony is a beautiful, thought-provoking, goosebumps-driven piece of music, but it was the finale, "Adagio Lamentoso", that helped my imagination to create the story I've been trying to tell. This particular story started, ironically, through the music I was listening to when I was about seventeen years old, almost seven years ago. At the time, I was listening to a lot darker stuff than I'd previously heard, mixed with religious and semi-religious undertones. It was, more specifically, a combination of Mudvayne, UnderOath, Oh, Sleeper, and As I Lay Dying.

I can't help but think that most intellectuals would look down on me for being inspired by that sort of music, but it created a story, for me. I had to nurture this story with my imagination, which manifested itself into my life in various ways, from studying current events on social justice, to role-playing a character on a video game. It took a lot of time for me to get my main character down, but once I did, and once I saw how people reacted to them, it became clear that this was something people wanted to care about.

The tragic hero has always been something that I've emotionally connected to. Someone who has burning passions and is constantly fighting to achieve them, though their effort is mostly in vain. It's something about stubborn, ardent passion through adversity that just clicks with me, and the stories that embody that description are the ones that end up sticking with me the longest. I don't know whether or not the finale in Symphony No. 6 was meant to be a requiem, but the sadness that is invoked near the end of the piece created an image so vivid in my head, that it solidified this character that I've been slowly creating.

In consequence, I'm happy to say that I've finally got the novel idea that I want to write. It's taking a lot of time to figure out my universe, but at least I know that this is something I'll be able to focus on and enjoy. Special thanks to the guy that happened to show me Tchaikovsky's No. 6, you know who you are, brah.

And lo, the music did play, and it was good

If you didn't watch the Grammy Awards this year, don't worry, because you didn't miss much. What you did miss was another award show that looks and feels like yet another glorified circle-jerk for the tried and popular. The thing that upsets me the most, is the complete lack of effort on the nominee selection process. In case you didn't know, the nominees are chosen by the collective effort of one-hundred and fifty people who are described as "leading experts in the industry".

If you ask me, these guys aren't trying hard enough. Throwing up "Coldplay" and "Kings of Leon" in the rock category is not only bad joke, it's an insult to the genre. Either these experts were given a list of names to choose from, or they Googled "popular bands of 2011" and pinned the tail on the donkey five or six times per award. If you don't believe me, here's a list of band that oozed with talent last year, who were utterly left out of last night's ceremony:

-Evanescence (Rock)
-Ha Ha Tonka (Rock)
-Common (Hip Hop)
-Protest The Hero (Rock)
-Talib Kweli (Hip Hop)
-The Roots (Hip Hop)
-Florence + The Machine (Pop)
-Thrice (Rock)

Granted, I personally enjoy listening to most of this list, but you have to at least give credit to positive reviews and exploding fan bases. I would argue that "Undun", The Roots' newest album, is the best they've recorded thus far (and I wouldn't be the only one), and they didn't even get a nomination.

If the "leading experts" and going to allow good talent to remain in the shadows, then a twenty-something from Illinois will at least try to light a candle. Stay tuned, people, and start getting outside of your boxes and digging for music.

My religion is -me-

I recently had a thought-provoking discussion with my roommates about faith, that motivated me to look a bit deeper inside my head to discover what I believe, and why I believe it. Let me say, from the get-go, that there are reasons why I don't call myself a Christian, but there are also reasons why I don't call myself an Agnostic. There are reasons why I'm not Buddhist or Taoist, and others still as to why I don't call myself an Atheist.

If you want the bittersweet summary of "why?", it's because I don't believe that I should have to categorize what I feel. I don't like being asked the question, "what are you?" Well, I'm human, firstly. I'm male, as well. I don't really have a racial identity, since my blood is mixed with a handful of nationalities. As far as what I am, in relation to religion? I can't answer that the way that you want me to. The best way for me to tell you, is that I have my own beliefs, and I don't really feel like sharing them with someone who categorizes faith into brand names.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some soulless individual who shies away from having a moral identity. I'm not a big fan of philosophy, but I respect it, and the lessons it can teach. I disagree with many teachings from religious individuals, but I don't shun them (unless they're Fred Phelps).

I once had a discussion with an old friend of mine about morals versus religion. I have always found it irritating that people associate good moral fortitude with religion, and at the time, I was passionate enough about the subject that it made me angry. Religion may define what is considered good and bad for the people who follow it, but I don't like the idea of someone believing that they have the power to tell me what is right and wrong.

This is the best definition for "moral", that I have been able to find:

"Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations."

While that's a bit of a textbook definition, perhaps a better way to describe the word, would be: the way that a human decides whether or not something emotionally feels right. As you can surmise, someone who thinks morally, would be the polar opposite of someone who thinks logically. A logical thinker is able to see a situation without any filter or flavoring, and can make a decision without subconsciously checking a moral code for the appropriate response.

Let it be said, that if I have only one good thing to say about myself, it's that I have no illusions as to who I am, and what made me into the person that I am today. I am not a logical thinker, and I highly envy those of my friends that are. If confronted with the lives of a mother and her child, I would not be able to choose which one would live, without consulting my emotional conscience. It is a burden to me, but I freely admit that I am a moral thinker.

I did not get my set of morals from a book, however. I got them from my family, friends, and sometimes even some of my school teachers. Although I may act as though I were Christian, or Buddhist, or otherwise, I don't follow their teachings. Most of what I have learned has come from my mother, my father, and both of their mothers (my grandmothers). I will not argue that what they taught me had its own influences, but it managed to get its way to me without coming from a congregation.

Do not misunderstand me, however, I will admit that certain people within religions are able to teach good habits to their listeners, whether with the aid of a book, or not. I almost want to say that if the Bible were written by Jesus himself, I would be a lot more inclined to read it. But it wasn't, unfortunately, and because of that, its messages are often twisted or misconstrued.

That is one reason why I do not call myself a Christian, or otherwise. It's because I do not wish to go into a room that is full of convinced people, and listen to someone explain their opinion on another person's opinion on another person's teachings, then feel guilty that I have not shared this perspective previously to that day. I harbor no ill will to the people who attend these meetings, but it isn't something that I want in my life.

Keep in mind that what I am about to write, is not intended to be insulting or offensive. I am describing myself to you, and I in no way believe that the way I live is the "right" way to live, or that I'm justified in describing the way that people are.

That being considered, another reason that I do not follow a religion, is because they appear to be self-defeating, to me. Guilt is enough of a punishment for not being a perfect person, so I feel like I shouldn't need to perform specific religious practices of atonement, or live my life according to someone else in order to feel like I'm being a good person. I don't need a spiritual reward to encourage me to follow my morals. Instead, I should try my best to follow the wisdom that I have gained from the people around me, and learn from my mistakes and from my misjudgments, then use that experience to strengthen my knowledge and turn my moral thinking into logical thinking.

I'm more than certain that I'd see a lot of hands raised, if I asked this next question to an open forum. How many of you know someone who identifies themselves as a Christian, but admits to performing at least one 'sin' on a daily basis? I know hundreds of these people, and I respect a good amount of them, but their situation confuses me. Why would you continue to identify with something that you repeatedly contradict, simply out of your own nature? For example, why would you tell me that you're a Christian, yet you regularly have sex with an unmarried partner? Following that, why would you then confess to me that you feel guilty that you are not following your religion's beliefs, then go and pray for forgiveness?

Why do you feel as though you need to repent for disobeying someone's teachings, that you "disobeyed" simply out of human behavior? These people owe nothing to anyone but themselves, and it pains me to think that they may not realize it. It seems like they are forever trapped in trying to attain an identity that isn't their own, and don't realize that it's futile. People can only be themselves, no matter how much they try to be like someone else.

I suppose that what I want my friends to understand from this (aside from getting a good look at my own narrow-minded psyche), is that I don't want to follow a religion because I don't want it to take away from who I am. I don't want to follow it, because I don't think it, as a brand name, could help be to be a better person. If you have advice you feel could help me, then tell me. Wisdom is as precious to me as life itself, and if there is something that I can learn from someone, be it a family member, friend, teacher, or otherwise, I'd rather have it fed to me raw, and unaltered. Without reservation. No hidden agendas. Void of subliminal opinion. You get the idea.

Anyway, that's enough of me rattling on for tonight. Thoughts, comments, feel free. My brain is yours to make fun of.

[Currently listening to: Oh, Sleeper - Son of the Morning]

Occupy Wall Street

A couple videos have been released, that have displayed the NYPD using physical force toward the protestors aligned with the Occupy Wall Street movement. After watching a few of these videos, I'm on the fence on if the police are using this as intimidation, or if they're being cornered and provoked into self-defense.

Most of my hesitation is due to poor camera handling, but I suppose that it's difficult to maintain a stationary position in the middle of a protest. In a lot of instances, I've been shown clips of police grabbing random people in crowds, throwing them to the ground, and bracing their knees against the protestors' necks while two to four other officers assist in arresting them for no visible reason. That's the poor camera handling that I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not one to speak ill of police officers, but history, even recent history in my own neighborhood, has taught us that excessive force is a real thing. In some circumstances, this maybe be exaggerated, but the thing I'm worried about is the possibility of another Rodney King fallout.

If you're unaware of the Los Angeles riots of 1992, I'm summarize it for you. After a video was publicly released by a local media network, that depicted an African-American man being beaten by police, a trial was held to determine the validity of excessive force and police brutality. All of the five officers involved were acquitted of assault, and three of the five were acquitted of excessive force. This sparked an enormous outrage from the people of Los Angeles, who took to the streets in a violent "protest" that ended in a six-day riot involving widespread arson, violence, and even murder. All in all, the fallout included:

"...53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses."

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been labeled as a "peaceful" protest, and given that no one has died or received fatal injury, I'm willing to agree with the description. However, the videos recorded by the protestors have disturbed the surface of this metaphorical pond, so to speak, and it's the ripples that I'm worried about. The video I linked at the top of this post displays many attempts by officers to "subdue" random protestors that aren't visibly causing disruption, but the question of provocation still lingers.

Though I'm not particularly worried about this escalating to the level of Tienanmen Square, I am worried about the possibility of media coverage being skewed in favor of the protestors, and the consequence leading to a non-peaceful movement. Right now, the people involved in Occupy Wall Street are doing the right thing by gathering together and attempting to incur peaceful change. I won't argue that they're very unorganized, and that their "demands" (more seemingly "suggestions") of taxation on the rich and universal healthcare are a bit generalized and are without any sort of "how", but plenty of "why". The fact that they're gathering plenty of support, however, might indicate that this movement is really a movement, and not some short-lived media event.

All in all, I'm hoping that Occupy Wall Street continues as peacefully as possible, yet that it also continues to expand beyond New York. As long as the protestors refrain from provoking police officers, they'll have my support if any sort of police brutality occurs.

In light of this all, I encourage you to follow these links to some easy reading and listening. It's totally relevant, and is in no way me exploiting the topic to get you to listen to my music. Not at all. Now go listen.

Say "no" to retail

In an effort to dissuade people from getting sucked into the life that I did, I'm dedicating my writing today toward informing you all of the disadvantages of the retail industry, and why you should never apply to a retail chain.

"But why?", you ask. "Why would you dissuade me from getting a job? Jobs are so scarce as it is, shouldn't I be thankful for any kind of work?"

That kind of talk may have flown one or two years ago, but there is absolutely no excuse to find better work right now. Unemployment is high in our country, yes, but it's not due to low job availability. There are plenty of jobs out there and very few of them, believe it or not, are related to the retail field. Go look on Craigslist or any job-finder website, and make sure not to limit yourself to retail.

Before you do that, however, let me give you some motivation to go outside of your bubble, as it were. I don't want you to just think that I'm some anti-establishment rebel who has it out for retail companies, so hear me out. There are many reasons to seek work elsewhere, and I'm going to expound upon three of them. So, take off your name badge and get out of those uncomfortable khakis. Just relax, and read on.

1. Employment relationship

Most retail companies these days are "At-Will" employers that don't have unions, which means that both the employee and employer hold the legal right to end the employment at any given time. In other words:

" ...any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Don't misunderstand me, they can't fire you for anything involving discrimination that is defined by the EEOC, but they can terminate you for broadly-encompassing reasons such as "performance", which is defined in the company's handbook or whatever compliance material they provide their employees with.

There are a lot of ways this employment relationship could be abused, but that's not to say that this is the case for the majority of retail terminations. However, say that you're a supervisor at a small retail store, and due to a combination of increased customer traffic and changes in your store's administration (managers, assistant managers), you've had a difficult time finishing some of your weekly tasks. This happens often enough and, depending on your company's termination procedures, they could fire you for "bad performance".

Keep in mind, this doesn't always involve a phone call before your shift. You could very well show up to work, be there for an hour, and then get called into a meeting. Alternatively, you could work the whole day, and then be approached at the end of your shift. This varies between companies, but all At-Will employers can do this, so keep it in mind. You could be the hardest worker at your store, but if it isn't properly staffed, your "performance" can very easily slip out of your own control.

2. Wage

The federal hourly minimum wage is currently at $7.25. Unless you've already had retail experience, or you're great at argument, this is what you will be getting paid. Let's put this into a larger perspective for you. Though it's very unlikely, say that you work 40 hours a week. If you get paid weekly, and don't count income tax, you'll be making $290 a week. Four weeks is a month, and that's $1,160. Twelve months is a year, and that's $13,920.

The 2011 Poverty Line, as defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lists this year's threshold at $13,600 for Alaska, $12,540 for Hawaii, and $10,890 for the rest of us. This means that although you're just above the poverty line, if you're living on your own and working at $7.25 an hour, you're going to be doing without a lot of conveniences other job fields will be able to afford.

There is somewhat of a luster to the lining, if you want to be positive. Most retail companies will offer an employee review with a wage increase, though this differs vastly between companies. The review could occur every 6 months, or it could be once a year. The wage increase could be a possibility, and not a requirement. It all depends on the company's policies.

"But Keith, you could say that about any field. All companies are going to have different policies."

Oh, certainly, I don't deny that a lot of companies in unrelated fields have this same outlook on promotion and wage increase for hourly positions. In fact, I'd agree that most of them have the same approach. However, there are other fields that involve things like gratuity, and commission. Being a waitress or waiter at a restaurant could turn out to be highly lucrative, depending on the hours the employee works, and how good they are at their job. A salesperson at a car dealership could be outstanding at reading their customers, and make a great amount of money based off of their commission pay.

What I'm trying to say, is that with retail, your wage is your wage. It is a constant. Though in some circumstances this could be a good thing, a good bartender could work a busy Saturday night and make more in that night than your wage offers you in a 40-hour week.

3. Benefits

This is the worst part of the retail business. For the sake of argument, let's say that you haven't yet received any management training, and you're either entry level, or you've even been with the company over 90 days (the usual probational period). Most companies only offer benefits to employees who have met the 90-day probation period, were hired on as a full-time employee, and are currently working 40 hours a week.

Meaning, that if you're a part-time employee who's working 40 hours or more a week, you won't get benefits. Combined with the rampant discouraging of overtime by your administration (and yes, they will highly discourage it, but I'll get into that in a second), there is literally no incentive to working part-time in retail. You will get no overtime, you are getting paid a flat rate, and you will get no benefits. At least in fields that offer gratuity or commission, you can still make more money doing part-time work.

As I said earlier, your administration will discourage any overtime that you accrue. They are required by the US Department of Labor to pay you 150% of your regular wage for anything exceeding 40 hours of work per week, and if they can do anything to prevent that from happening, it will improve their budget and make the company look better on paper. I would like to note here that companies are not required to change your status from part-time to full-time if you are working 40-hour weeks. That is a very common misconception, and most companies have a very defined process for making an employee eligible for full-time benefits such as health insurance.

In conclusion, when you're going on the job hunt, you now have 3 reasons to search elsewhere of the retail field. If you want to look at it logically, think about it like this: if, for now, you are going to be a part of the bottom 90%, you might as well be the slice in the pie chart that's getting the most out of their job. Look for something that offers commission, or gratuity. Even if it's less hours, you have a better chance at making more money in less time, and who doesn't want that? Just get good at your job, smile more often, and talk to your customers. As much as people like to complain, none of those things are difficult if you put forth the effort. So get out of retail, and start enjoying your job!

[Currently listening to: City And Colour - In The Water I Am Beautiful]