I’ve been mulling things over for awhile on the teacher’s strike here in Chicago.  I thought that negotiations over the weekend would prove fruitful, but no deal has been reached as of 9/17/2012 and even if the CTU (Chicago Teacher’s Union)  ends the strike, the deal must be accepted or the teachers can walk again.  Below is a link that details a study done by CTU and how education should be reformed.

http://www.ctunet.com/blog/text/SCSD_Report-02-16-2012-1.pdf

The study brings up many valid points and paints (or at least prints) a compelling story about education in Chicago.  It’s certainly about the kids, and how they need to be better served with small class sizes and a wealth of educational opportunity.  Of course there is the less politically charged “respect and development of professionals,” aka fair compensation.  But according to many facebook posts as well as news articles, this strike is not about money.  It’s about the kids.

Let’s be honest.  At the end of the day, it’s all about money.  Everything the CTU proposes will require money.  This is problematic because neither Illinois nor the city of Chicago has enough of it to go around.  Thus, there is the impasse.  The city has to decide how to allocate finite resources which conflicts with what CTU wants the city to do.  One is a question of resource management while the other is about education.

Or at least it’s supposed to be.  Let’s be honest about a second thing.  The CTU is looking after its constituents.  It’s what a union does, but the rhetoric makes it seem like it’s for the children’s sake.  While I am sympathetic to the teachers’ and think that they should get a “fair contract,” the sticking points in the new contract are NOT about the kids.  It’s about job security, which the unions are supposed to protect. 

Now, should teachers’ jobs be beholden to standardized tests?  Probably not, since as has been pointed out, environmental conditions affect learning.  This is unfair since different schools will have different environments based on how well they are funded and what programs available to the children.  An un-air conditioned room with a huge class size is atrocious.  The environment however, is also not the sole indicator of children’s ability to learn.   The teachers need to somehow be held accountable.  This isn’t anything ground-breaking since all professions have some type of evaluation, and if the strike is about the students, then their performance matters.  Performance is especially important because getting a high school education may not be enough to cut it in the global world, and teachers must deal with this daunting task.  They must be able to teach in a way that fosters student interest because eventually they will have to perform on an ACT, SAT, GED, GRE, GMAT, MCAT, or LSAT.  And you know what?  These are all standardized tests.

If indeed the issues at stake were about the children, then wouldn’t one proposal be no increases in salary and benefits or heaven forbid DECREASES to the average salary of $71,236 (according to the Illinois Interactive Report Card of Northern Illinois University) in order to finance school infrastructure and programs?  Of course not.  Why?  Because the 1% should pay its fair share of taxes through a progressive tax (of which, is not really fair in the wording of progressive.  A flat tax is “fair.”).  Furthermore, the CTU report has come up with creative solutions to raise even more money, which would affect the not only the top 1% but the top 5%.  A statewide capital gains tax on top of the federal capital gains tax?  A financial transaction tax on trades?  The report points to past tax rates, so the possibility does exist, but these seem unlikely as revenue sources because of the difficulty of passing such legislature (The study did not say what was done with capitial gains and dividends, ie whether they were reinvested or not).  Spending cuts in other areas of the state/city budget is more feasible, but the school system is going to need more than just $300 million from the 5% saved from the 6 billion sent to the Pentagon.  School infrastructure is not listed in the graph of school improvements.

Which is to say again, the issue in the strike is about money and how to use it.  Are the children caught in the middle of it?  Yes, but neither side should be using them as collateral in a bargaining agreement.  The CTU proposals do a lot of things.  Primarily among them will be more jobs, but not everyone can be hired.  Choices will have to be made among personnel, infrastructure, and programs with limited resources from viable sources.  This means that “privatization” of education must also be in the mix through corporate sponsorship because Property Taxes can only do so much.

So am I for or against the strike?  All things considered, I lean toward against the strike.  I do think that the issues brought up by the CTU study are important and should be addressed, but I don’t think that’s what the strike is about.  I have not heard anything where CTU has demanded proper school environments as part of its contract.  Given adequate funding, school environment is a priority, but there isn’t adequate funding.  Furthermore, the strike is not about proper legislature to raise revenues to pay for all of the above.  The issue boils down to resource management, both in terms of money and human power, and unfortunately the CTU might be bargaining for something that the city doesn’t have.

More resourses:

Chicago 2011 financial analysis

CPS FY2012 budget

Contract Issues

More Contract Issues

Whew!  *deep breath*  This could be a long one, but I'm going to try, try, to be reasonably lengthy on this one. 

I'll put this disclaimer upfront.  Although Apple makes good products, I am no lover of Apple products, so I might be biased against Apple.  Let's also put in the fact that I'm Korean and like Samsung products out there too.

While I haven't been losing sleep over the ruling in Apple's favor, it's been bothering me.  I am not a lawyer, despite the law shows that I watch on TV, so I sure that things did not play out as they do on Franklin and Bash, but more so maybe with Suits.  I've tried to do some due diligence before posting this, so bear with me here.  The conclusions that I've come to are the following:

1) There is confusion on what design patents, utility patents, and trademarks are.

2) Samsung indeed may have infringed on some patents, but not as originally ruled by the District court in California.

3) On the whole, Samsung appears to have infringe on tablet design, but smartphone design are open to interpretation.  The "bounce back" utility patent seems to be infringed upon.

4) The trial itself was biased and potentially compromised.

5) The court and Apple do not give adequate credit to the consumer in being able to differentiate consumer products.

In seeking opinion, I asked a lawyer friend for some information and was pointed to a website frequented by patent law professionals....or at least it seemed that way.  The basic questions of infringements can be found here in the appeal papers filed after the district court's initial ruling:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/guest-post-by-sarah-burstein-apple-v-samsung.html (there is also a link on that page to the actual filing)

And here is a primer on what design patents and trade dress are supposed to be:  http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120814110227662

And here is the ruling itself: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/jury-returns-verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/

Apple appears to be arguing on two fronts.  One on design and one on functionality.  Both are supposed to clearly represent something unique to Apple.  The test for design patent infringment is: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other." Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871).  The fact that Samsung is a major competitor and owns 24% of the US market vs Apple's 31% seems to have prompted Apple to seek litigation.  Worldwide, the numbers are reversed in Samsung's favor 30% to 17%.  Furthermore, Samsung accounts for 44% of all Android sales (see http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/apple-owns-us-smartphone-market-while-samsung-dominates-worldwide/).  I doubt that Apple would litigate if it were not for the success of Android and Samsung, and as failed injunctions of Samsung products testify, the delay in seeking an injunction from 2007 til now suggests that only recently, after seeing the success of a competitor, did Apple seek litigation.  The general feeling I get here is that in "slavishly copying" the iphone, Samsung has created a phone that infringed on an Apple product which creates a "unique user experience."

On design: There is much debate on what is considered prior art as a reference design.  For instance, the Federal Court of Appeals counters the District level ruling that the '087 patent (a rectangular smartphone consisting of a large rectangular display
occupying most of the phone’s front face. The corners of the phone are rounded) WAS anticipated from a prior Japanese design, meaning that the design of Apple's phone was indeed "novel," and could be infringed upon.  The difference?  A raised bezel that differentiates it from a entirely flat front surface.  However, the test for novelty is taken as a whole, and not "points of novelty (see above primer)."  The Appeals courts decision is curious since Apple essentially made its prosecution on the fact that on the whole, Samsung phones look "slavishly" like iphones.  Samsung took great pains to point out differentiating factors in its design, but failed to convince the jury that it was different.  No novelty.  Apple's newer '677 patent however, does not have the raised bezel, rather an entirely flat front.  Why this patent was not challenged on grounds of prior art is unknown.  Logically, the rulings between the '087 and the '677 should be reversed in reference to prior art.  Regardless, Samsung infringed on one of those design patents if argued as a whole, but only if the '087 patent stands up.  What I do not see here is how someone can argue both a gestalt and a detail orientated approach to design.  Much of this argument also applies to the tablet portion of the infringement case, Apple's '889 patent.  The difference here?  Two protrusions at the top of a prior art image as well as a non-flat front.

Utility:  I have less to say on utility since there appears to be less debate on infringement.  Samsung could not establish the invalidity of the '381 patent because the potential reference design was deemed functionally different.  That said, Apple sought damages based on functionality of the bounce back feature, but was denied because it was not the driver of customer purchases.

On Bias:  After reviewing juror comments after the case was decided, there appears to be potential bias against Samsung with influence from foreman of the jury who holds patents (ie he is more likely to uphold patent law despite "shodiness" by the USPTO).  He has been criticized for offering his own interpretation of patent law and not what he was instructed to do by the court.  See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963.  For a Youtube video of how the jury reached the verdict you can go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY.  Not withstanding the above, there are some who do not think that there was any bias.

On Consumer purchases:  This part is purely subjective.  I've talked to many users of Apple products.  Sure some purchases are made because it looks "cool," but most buy them because they work much better than the competition.  Apple's evidence showing customers returning Galaxy Tabs because they thought it was an ipad is ridiculous.  Unless the salesman is an idiot, the store has mislabeled a product, or shipped an incorrect one, a customer doesn't return a product because they thought it was another.  It boils down to how it functions.  It might not work like an ipad because you know what?  IT ISN'T AN ipad!  The informed customer knows the difference between the two.  The icons are different, the "points of novelty" are different.  In other words, I don't think the design infringements pass the ordinary observer test.

The problem with this lawsuit is that it ties together functionality, design, and the success of the two.  Apple has clearly done well in this arena, but is crying foul now because it is falling behind in sales.  Where were their cries when no one believed that any technology could supplant the i-anythings?  How about all the would be i-phone killers that looked like the iphone but wasn't?  While design may have played a cool factor, functionality created the user experience.  That's what people are buying.  You want aesthetics?  Buy case for your non-iphone, and at the same time you can add that bezel to make it look like an iphone.  But you know exactly what that phone is and isn't. 

On 8/6/2012 a thrilling soccer semifinal between Canada and USA ended in US victory over Canada. 

I didn’t see the match, but oh did I read about the controversy.  What did I do?  I watched the highlights to see what all the fuss was about.  In my opinion Canada was unfortunate in the calls against them.  The delay of game penalty seemed BS, and what to do about the handball call?  This wasn’t a case of Maradona who previously used a handball to his advantage.  If you look at the replay, the Canadian player wasn’t even looking at the ball.  She was reacting to a blast from what, 20 feet in front of her, hands at her chest.  As the commenter suggested, the hands and arms were within the line of her body, but seriously she wasn’t even looking at the ball and was reacting in self-defense.  The ref could not be blind to that either since she had a good angle.  Does all this mean that Canada was robbed of the game?  No.  Perhaps it was unfair, but team Canada had to respond and it didn’t in extra time.

Now here’s the sportsmanship part that I’m angry about.  Maybe I’ve only read news pieces with comments about the controversy, and maybe the comments are out of context, but I see poor…VERY poor sportsmanship on the part of the US players.  Here’s a link to the story:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--fresh-take--alex-morgan-s-last-second-goal-gives-u-s--the-win-over-a-bitter-canada.html

Part of it is psychology.  When things go wrong you want to blame someone/thing else.  Canada was trying to blame the referee.  It’s like when people do poorly on exams, it is often the exam’s fault, not the test taker’s lack of studying.  Ms. Abby Wambach, you certainly can blame referees because they too are prone to error.  Or did you forget about a certain punch to the eye you received in a previous match?  Ms. Alex Morgan suggested instead that the Canadians were just not as physically fit as the Americans.  Could the Canadians been more prepared fitness-wise as Ms. Morgan suggested?  Maybe, but Ms. Morgan, just because your team won and you THINK you saw them on the ground more does not mean that team Canada was any less fit or less strong.  The fact that team USA played catch up for most of the match and that you happened to be at the right place at the right time until extra time nearly expired, suggests that the Canadians were equally up to the task. 

Then came the brash comment by Ms. Hope Solo.  You would deny a brilliant performance by Ms. Christine Sinclair because team USA made her look good?  We (USA) didn’t win those aerial battles?  I am baffled by that comment.  Could it be that you didn’t win them because someone outplayed you?  The first goal wasn’t even in the air, but was blown past you.  Yes, you Hope Solo.  On the second goal Sinclair was in front of her defender and had position.  Only in the last goal was Sinclair behind the defender.  And then, she headed the ball right where you had one of your own teammates in the way, covering the far post since you were guarding the near post.  Just as Ms. Megan Rapinoe played a brilliant game, give credit where credit is due Ms. Solo.  Or do you think that hat tricks are common place among soccer players? 

Finally, the last comment by Ms. Morgan just irked me.  You wanted to beat Canada so bad?  Why the Darwinian approach?  Coupled with your previous statement, it sounds like survival of the fittest.  The problem with this is that the love of the game has been co-opted for personal gain.  It’s not about the game anymore as it is about the team/individual, and this saddens me.  Competition is meant to bring out the best in us, not the worst.  As players we aspire to perform at higher and higher levels, but always with a respect for our opponents.  What you should have said was that you wanted to win so badly.  There’s a difference between that and beating a team.  One is based on the spirit of competition and performance, exactly what the Olympics are supposed to be about.  The other?  Well, the only words I can think of right now is selfish pride. 

I sincerely hope that going forward, Team USA will be more humble in its comments and more respectful of its competition.

So this post has been a long time brewing.  It's the question of what a musician does in performing music, and how that relates to the beauty of music itself.

I would venture to say that when most of us go to music, we seek to be entertained.  Venue makes a difference since going to Grant Park in Chicago will have a distinctly different feeling than going to the Symphony.  Here the participant is engaged in making a conscious choice in seeking the environment that plays to the sides of entertainment or Art.  Of course seldom is it one or the other, but my perception is that pop "concert" venues with wine and cheese look for entertainment value rather than an artistic quality found at hushed concert halls.  The important thing here is the audience.  Venue aside however, the music itself is the same and must be interpreted by the one(s) playing it. 

Below you will find links to Vivaldi's Presto section in "Summer." (originally I wanted to compare He's a Pirate, but this was more interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLiipyXcjo (a more "classical version")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcYT7jpH9E%20 (Joshua Bell, lots of energy, but still in classical mode)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g65oWFMSoK0&feature=related (Mari Silje, less energy than Bell, still in classical mode)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3OVQPjk7nE (David Garrett, edited video, fast, very separated notes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EHhxPF1-YA&feature=related (Vanessa Mae, music video, lots of energy, introduction of techno beat)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o8SqEvwu0 (Bond, quartet, studio produced, "plain" classical sound, techno + electronic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcl1ZDL-0Sg (Epica, Metal/Rock instrumentation in addition to symphony orchestra)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_eIM0jqEAo&feature=watch_response (Samvel Yervinyan/Yanni/et. al, free-form based Summer [skipping cello part], almost military, superfast, does Yervinyan ever really smile?)

These are all different takes on Vivaldi, but I think you will notice a shift in artistic rendering.  I've given notes on a few things that I think differentiates them and what the performed music is trying to do.  It seems the more solo driven and the more orchestral in nature, the more entertainment value there is.  Note also the shift in staying "traditional" to the music and the embellishments and genre interpretations that alter/mask it.  Now should musicians be concerned with "tainting" the original beauty of a piece, the Urtext, so to speak, or should musicians celebrate what can be seen as innovation in musical interpretation?  Are any of these renditions "truer" to what Vivaldi had intended when he composed "Summer?"  Or is there something behind any piece of music, an essence that remains unchanged and ready to be expressed differently?

I think part of the answer lies in whether one is trying to entertain or to present art.  Again, it's seldom one or the other, and I don't know if Vivaldi would have been concerned with such a question.  Given technology now would Vivaldi had done something different with his Summer?  Of course this is only a hypothetical question.  It's not like we can steal Vivaldi from time in a phone booth and let him wander into a store with electronic keyboards (Bill and Ted anyone?).  No, I think the answer resides with the performer of music and where that person wants the listener to go.  If a person or entity's purpose is to entertain, then the music stops with him/her/it.  Music becomes the artist's tool to point to him/herself as the main attraction and not the music.  How many times have you said, “I’m going to see Bon Jovi tonight?”  Or “I’m going to the symphony tonight?”  True, it’s just easier to reference the artist than the myriad of songs or pieces to be played, but doesn’t it seem like the music gets lost?  So what of art?  Even those that seek to entertain will stake a claim to the music itself.  After all, they are the ones playing it.  I make a subtle distinction here.  Whereas entertainment enslaves music to the musician, art (music) empowers the musician to free it so that it transcends the player, pointing beyond the musician to the music itself. 

For example, I recently got the itch to start playing the piano again.  It’s amazing what I “remember” playing.  I haven’t played Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” (1^st and 3^rd movements) or his Pathetique for more than a decade, yet my fingers warmed up to the notes nicely.  During one of my run-throughs of Moonlight, I felt something I really hadn’t felt before, or maybe I just wasn’t cognizant of it.  In my early days, I was fairly wooden.  I was focused on technique and playing the notes correctly.  Sure I would pay attention to my dynamics, but you would see little movement from me.  I was in control of the music.  During my run-through, I found the opposite happening.  I breathed with the music, moved with it.  I let it flow naturally, as if moonlight itself were tickling the keys.  I could imagine an old grandfather clock keeping time.  I could sense the beats of each measure as almost heartbeats.  Yeah.  It was unexpected.  Sure, I made mistakes along the way, but I didn’t really care.  I made the correction and moved on.

I do not know the historicity of “Moonlight,” but I would hope that a listener would be able to feel the music as I had, or at least sense its transcendence because of the way I had played it.  Of course I could never know the reasons or the process that went into the composition of “Moonlight,” but can certainly point to the music and say that it’s in there somewhere. 

The key difference in presenting music and entertaining is the symbolism that an artist is supposed to represent.  An entertainer takes the music for his or her own, as if the entertainer IS the music.  I’m sure some of you have heard a certain musician IS rock or IS country.  The symbolism is lost.  An artist however, only points to the music because at best the artist can only reveal a part of the process that went into making it, even if he or she was the original composer.  Thus as symbol, the musician embodies the soul of music.  The cold rational process of technique is melded with the abstraction of warm feeling.  As a result, the musician draws an audience into their interpretive framework that ultimately ends with the music, its soul, not the musician him/herself.

Throughout this post, I’ve set up opposing sides of entertainer and artist as if one could not do what the other could.  At the beginning of my post however, I mentioned the beauty of music, and I think it appropriate to end on that note.  People have different opinions on this, but I think that the appreciation of beauty can only be felt, not analyzed.  As such, entertainer and artist are able to do both as long as they allow the music to transcend and retain the function of symbolism.  Before I go, here is another link to an old favorite musician that I think embodies the soul of music when she plays her solos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ppgiK8R3OA (Karen Briggs)

The baseball All-Star game has passed with the Senior Circuit (aka National League) pounding the Junior Circuit (aka American League).  The National League will have home field advantage this year, but this is not the reason for this blog.

Rather, the home run derby is topic and the vociferous boos that Robinson Cano of the New Yankees received when he came up to bat.  Some have said that it was much a boo about nothing.  Fans boo players all the time, and that Cano deserved it.  There is some truth to that, but in my analysis there was something clearly amiss during his at bat. 

First, there is the perceived injustice of the Kansas City fans.  Supposedly, Cano has been put on record as saying that he WILL choose Billy Butler of the KC Royals to fill the final slot for the AL.  I have yet to see this promise in print as direct quotes.  I have read that Cano thought that Butler SHOULD be the pick, and that it was the right thing to do, but this is not a binding promise.  His pick to fill that last spot?  Mike Trout of the LA Angels.  Let's compare some stats:

Bulter: .348 AVG, 12 HR, 61 R, 42 RBI, 30 SB; 68 Games

Trout:  .294 AVG, 17 HR, 32 R, 54 RBI, 2 SB; 87 Games

Clearly, Butler CAN hit the long ball, and he is from KC although only 6 of his 17 home runs were hit at home.  COULD Butler have competed well in the competition?  Yes, he could have, and the home town fans would have appreciated it.  But when it comes to the Derby, winning isn't everything....at least for the baseball fan.  At best, the HR derby is show of power.  The longer the HR the better....with exceptions.  Did you see the low ball shot to CF that Trout hit?  Everyone was talking about because it wasn't your typical home run.  It wasn't the moon shots that Fielder (the eventual winner) hit, but one of those "line drive" shots that was a display of raw power.  Could Butler have done this?  Probably not.  Now, I know that KC fans were clamoring for something cheer about, but is the All Star game about the city or is it about baseball?  The home run derby, which does nothing for either AL or NL is about baseball, not the city.  As a fan, you just got to see the "best" home run hitters in baseball, and for some of you KC fans, you got to catch some of those home runs.  You know what else?  You just got a glimpse at one of the best young talent in baseball.  Sure, KC is in the American League so from time to time you'll get to see Trout when he comes to town, but imagine if you were an NL town.  Again, the HR Derby is about baseball, not about city allegiance. 

Second, booing against a player is one thing, acceptable even, but CHEERING against someone purely for failure purposes is quite another.  This is probably the most bothersome aspect of the Cano spectacle.  In games fans often cheer when players fail.  The strikeout is a prime example, but note that there is always a contrasting side.  The pitcher made that strikeout.  Even during the cheering of an error, it results from direct competition from an opponent.  Where was such a contrast with Cano?  In fact, the only contrasts seems to be the booing at his at bat with the cheer when he fails.  Is it about competition?  No.  If it was, then other competitors should have been booed as well.  Instead, you have Cano's father throwing pitches, hearing the boos.  You don't think that bothered him at all?  Don't you remember last year's HR Derby, where the Father/Son duo was the story of the Derby?  Why KC fans, would you jeer at Cano's family in the stands because of the choice of Trout?  The only reason is spite.  KC fans feel spurned and that's understandable, but the cacophony of boos and cheers which increased to new levels with each recorded out was unwarranted.  It was beneath the baseball fan.  

In the end, it's not even about the level of booing for in all likelihood Cano has heard worse.  Rather the All star game is about respect and watching your baseball stars shine regardless of team affiliation.  

*Disclaimer: I am a Yankee fan so perhaps my view is colored, but foremost I am a baseball fan.   

If you recall, I created a blog about Call Me Maybe and online dating.  Well, here's one with height.

Methodology: 203 profiles were viewed across ages.  Preferred height differentials were recorded from my saved search parameters, people who viewed my profile, and mutual searches.  Data was compiled in two batches of about 100 each.  Women who listed height preferences 5 foot upward to 7 or 8 feet were classified as not having a height preference.  None of the women counted were taller than 5' 8" and only one was under 5' 0".

Results:

Don't care: 24

-1: 2

 0: 12

 1: 17

 2: 26

 3: 39

 4: 34

 5: 22

 6: 14

 7: 11

 8: 2

Total: 203

Of course these results are only a reflection of my searches and as "random" as I can make them.  They are still however, women's preferences because they listed an ideal height for a man.  I wish I could have done a histogram to show you a nice bell curve, but alas my stats program is on another computer.  Just looking at women who did care, the preference was 3 or 4 inches taller, accounting for 36% of the data.  While an average height of women sampled would have provided a mean measure to judge relative tallness in potential men, the height of the woman did not appear to be a factor in determining height differential based on a small sampling (data not shown), so regardless of height, 2-5 inches taller was the preference, accounting for 60% of the data.  Taller men were a clear preference since women who did not care, could go shorter than their own height or at least at their height, accounted for only 19% of the data, nearly half the amount who preferred 3-4 inches taller.

Discussion: There are some caveats to this "experiment."  The first is that data was compiled in two batches.  The first batch mixed in "mutual" matches, which means that both parties matched each others height specifics.  As data was collected, I noticed that "mutual" matches tended to have more women who did not care about height.  In fact, after tabulation, the "don't care" category had the largest number.  Thus, a second tally with a preferred search parameter was done to see if there was any difference.  While the overall pattern was the same, there was a drastic reduction in the "don't care" category that shifted to the 3-4 inch taller preference.  These results suggest that certain parameters can affect height preference.  More research will be needed to be done in order to parcel out the affects of search parameters.

I’ve started my dream journal again.  So you, dear readers, will get a glimpse into my unconscious mind.  Hope it’s entertaining and let the analysis begin!  Here’s one I had last week.

Sometimes actual people appear in my dreams, like friends, family, etc.  But for the first time She made an appearance.  I don’t know what preceded the dream sequence, but this part was the last thing I remember before I woke up.

The scene was in a pasture of sorts.  There was thick, lush grass on one side by a small wooded area with open, green fields that stretched out into the countryside.  Now there are some dreams where you just watch what’s happening, but there are others where you are a character too.  This was one was a bit of both.  I had spotted Her emerging from the wooded area on a big, light chestnut colored horse, the kind that had a bit of shaggy hair over the hooves.  She was dressed in riding gear.  Knee-high black boots, white pants, a top of some kind but I don’t remember what.  No helmet, you know the black round kind with the chin strap.  Alongside her was a dog/fox hybrid.  It was like a squat, fat dog, but with fox features.  It even walked like a fox. 

She kicked the horse into a cantor and soon it was flat out galloping.  The “dox” kept pace, even frolicking dangerously close to the horse’s legs as if goading the horse into play.  The horse more than obliged as it slowed and played back.  All the while She was smiling and laughing atop the horse as if three good friends had gone out for the day. 

I don’t remember if She went back to the wood or not, but I ended up going to a shaded area around a bend near the wood where there stood an old looking house.  Gray flaking paint, wooden steps.   I rang the doorbell.  It was one of those old metal round ones with the black button in the middle.  There was a layer of rust on it.  The buzz was electric sounding and echoed after it stopped ringing.  She came to answer it, but stopped short and turned around.  I don’t know if She saw me, but shortly later the keeper of the house came and let me in.  We walked through the doorway, but upon entering the house, it was mansion like.  Polished wood everywhere, libraries on walls, and a long spacious open great hall. 

I asked, “What’s the room and board?” 

She replied, “Not much, but first you’re going to clean and polish your shoes.  Go up the stairs and you’ll find something to use.”  I went up and found the items.  Perry Ellis shoe polish?  I took off my shoes and noticed they were black dress shoes that somehow were splattered with a thin layer of mud.  I hastily tried to clean the mud off with a rag, but it didn’t work well.  Then I noticed a worn brush off to the side, which of course worked much better.

Once my shoes were clean, I went back downstairs and found dinner was ready.  I sat down with a group of people, though I can’t remember specific features or who they were.  She was conspicuously absent though.  Dinner was a pasta fagioli, but there weren’t enough bowls.  The keeper of the house rectified this by using a plastic top as her “bowl,” the kind that comes with sheet cakes.  We all had our portions ladled out, but I got up and went to the front porch where I saw Her.

She had changed attire into a summer dress.  It was a plaidish design, white and navy.  Not big ones, but smaller ones.  I really couldn’t tell since she was standing in the shadows.  The shoulder straps were about where an inch thick, with a slightly angled neckline.  The dress came down to about the knees but there weren’t any frills or pleats.  The dress didn’t need a belt since it hugged her frame, and the rest draped very well.  I guess you could call it a tank dress….and yes I had to look this up.  She was standing sideways, looking off in the distance when I walked up to her.  Her left foot, back against the porch railing, her left arm extended for support.

We both locked eyes for a moment before simultaneously looking toward the setting sun.

I said, “I didn’t expect you to be here yet.” 

She sheepishly grinned.  “Well, I came a little early.”

I didn’t tell her I had seen her riding the horse that day, nor did I ask her why she wasn’t at dinner.  I had the feeling though that we had arranged to be there that day.  Then I woke up.

Ok.....so I am utterly confused now by this song and why women choose to use it for their dating headlines.  As you may have deduced, yes, I have looked online for dating purposes and I swear someone could write a PhD on some sociological topic.  This is not it, but here are some observations.

There are many a profiles that reference this song.  I hate this song...It's catchy and sticks in your head.  Not what I want to be humming while working out.  But I digress.  I recently saw the music video, and it makes no sense when used with dating websites. 

First, women complain that men often take shirtless photos of themselves and post them on their profiles.  Apparently it happens a lot, but what happens at the very beginning of the music video?  The guy is shirtless while mowing the lawn, and she is totally flustered by him.  She also happens to be reading romance novels which have shirtless beaus on the cover.  The message I get is that eye candy is appealing, especially if you have a body like the guy in the video (I suppose the tattoos help too).  I haven't gone looking at men's profiles, so I have no idea what's being posted, but I would assume that if a guy is going to post a shirtless photo, they could pull it off.  It is possible that women are complaining because men CAN'T pull it off, and they don't want to see all that.  The justification of the complaint however, doesn't hold water because a view of a rockin' bod is exactly what they want, and men try to cater to that desire.  Failure or success, you can't blame men for trying.

Second, what's the deal with the Call Me Maybe line?  Until the end she hasn't even given a number yet, nor has she met him.  She's missing him even before she's met him, and apparently there are other boys who are chasing her.  This makes no sense with the video and even less so with online profiles.  The way people "meet" online is by VIEWING profiles, which does nothing to determine actual interest.  This is even more problematic with sites which require paid subscriptions to access who has viewed your profile in the first place.  Assuming you can, how does a man gauge interest, especially if the expectation is for the man to contact the woman?  Is a profile viewing the Call Me Maybe equivalent?  This is hard to do considering there are no numbers (and rightly so), so there is no "Call."  For that matter, there is no "Maybe" either.  In the video she WANTS him to call her.  To be fair, there are now ways where calling/texting is an option, but you'll have to pay extra for it. 

Third, total confusion at the end of the music video.  The guy is gay/bi, or at least it appears that way with the XOXO.  I assume that women who use Call Me Maybe have seen the music video.  It's probably a bad assumption.  The screening criteria for a woman in looking for a straight man, well, excludes gay men.  So, why would you reference a song that has a shirtless guy who you've been missing even though you haven't met him, only to find out he's gay?  Is that the purpose of Calling Maybe?  Is that what a woman wants?

In all honesty, I do understand why a woman would use the line.  Apart from any context, it's just a straight up hey-if-you're-interested-after-looking at pictures and READING-my-profile-call-me thing.  The maybe might be there because sometimes a woman DOESN'T want someone to "call" her.  In a public, online environment this is certainly understandable.  In using those very lines however, there is an implicit knowledge of the song.  What she doesn't account for was any matching up of the video with song, the portrayed female desires of the song, or the problematic...logistics...of Calling Maybe on online dating sites.  I suggest that women avoid using references to Call Me Maybe.  It would avoid confusion.

Comments?

I was thinking about Greek the other day, and how much I've forgotten it.  I have made it a project of mine to memorize the Lord's Prayer in Greek this summer.  The question is....which one? 

Matthew uses the word opheilēmata which translates as debts.  Luke uses the word hamartias which translates as sins.  Both talk about other our debtors, but what to do with the personal nature of debts and sins?  The curious thing is that a lot of churches use "trespasses" and of course the ending, "for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever, Amen," which is not in the text.  Right now I'm leaning towards sin, but Matthew's version has an important part lacking in Luke.  Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.  I dare say though, that Matthew's version seems more "low" theology than "high" theology if there are such things.  There's a certain social justice ring to isn't there?

On another note....the one line I haven't forgotten in Greek.  Amēn, amēn legō hymin (Truly, Truly, I say to you)

I got around to thinking more about this question the other day.  Why?  Let's say that I've been more liberal with giving 10 numbers to people I don't know.  I've also been reading Home by Marilynne Robinson, the author of the Pulitzer winning Gilead.  In it there's an ongoing dialogue of what it means to come home, what home was, and now is after a long period of time.

Perhaps I'm being nostalgic, but maybe also critical of the modern nomadic person and the technology that has contributed to it.  Well, that's being a bit harsh.  I use my phone on a daily basis and am more "connected" to it than in the past.  The fact remains however, that mobile phones have made nomadic existence much easier.  You've all seen it.  People can get absorbed into their phones, as if their very soul was being sucked into it.  A lizard-like affect.  They don't blink and are obsessively tapping their phone.  Ok.  Harsh again.  Mobile phones have been the bearer of good news, a connecting device that allows for otherwise painfully slow communication.  Remember writing letters?  I do, but that's a different blog.  Concerning mobile phone numbers, though. 

It used to be that giving someone a phone number was directly tied to the home.  If a boy or girl gave you a number, it went through the house (unless of course you had independent lines).  You could try to keep things secret for awhile by dashing to the phone yelling, "I'll get it."  Eventually though, someone would figure it out.  In giving out a phone number, there was an invitation into the home.  To be sure, it wasn't the type where you physically welcomed someone into the house, but there was a sort of respectfulness or trust that was given as if it was.  Why do you think people are so annoyed with unwanted solicitation on the phone?  It's a violation of trust and respect that applied to the home.

Mobile phones don't appear to have either.  Part of it has to do with mobile existence.  Home is wherever we are.  Where we once occupied a home, the home now occupies us if you can call it that.  It's even more ironic because we tote it in our pockets or in our purses.  The other part has to do with information and its ability to become disposable.  If you don't like your mobile phone number for whatever reason, you can easily get a new one.  Yes, there is the annoyance of having to tell everyone and their mother that you've gotten a new phone number, but with Google backup and Facebook, this can be easily done.....though you'll lose all your pictures and videos if you haven't backed those up.  The point is, home USED to be where your heart was.  Now it's in a piece of technology that makes being an individual far to easy.  Ever wonder why we can only remember our own numbers and not anyone elses?  We don't have to because it's not important enough and we can always just look it up....or tap the screen.

And there's the shift. 

The focus is now on the private individual.  Mom, dad, brother, or sister does not get to know who you talk to unless you tell them.  There is no need to run to a phone because its vibrating in your pocket.  You don't even have to answer it because you have your very own voicemail which you can answer as time allows.  True, answering machines did have the ability for separate voicemails, but more often then not it was communal.  "You have reached the __________ residence, please leave your...etc."  Of course when we leave the home, we go into that nomadic existence.  It happened then as it does now, except now, we can do it as children.  We "grow-up" much faster than before.

So back to what prompted this blog in the first place.

I wonder if people's perception of phone numbers has changed.  I think it has, which can be liberating but frightening too.  In the past I've hesitated to give my number out.  I still hang on to that old-fashioned sense of home.  There's a trust and respect there, where I am inviting someone into my "home,"  even if it sits on a shelf at work or in my pocket.  It's permission to interrupt my day, so that you can become a part of it.  It's not simply information.  It can't be.  If it is, then it really is frightening because trust and respect have been thrown out the window.  Then one must live with the uncertainty that nothing malicious is being done with information, that nothing bad will happen to your "home."  In an information age where it's hard to know what is real and what is not, the startling conclusion is that we really do trust implicitly.  I mean, do you really know if that shoe you want to buy online is out there and will come to your door as advertised?  Do you really know if that online profile is authentic?  No, we don't.

And there's the reason for giving phone numbers so long as it isn't simply information.  It's a trust based on a concept of home that speaks to authenticity.

Ok.  Enough talk.  Time to settle down with a nice scotch for the night.