Thrifty Gifting: Library Goodies with Poetry

Pop quiz, hot shot: It's the holidays, you have no money, shopping is not an option, a move is being planned, and the last thing you want is more crap in the house to pack up, but you still want to give someone a gift they really want and deserve for being an awesome uber-friend. What do you do? What do you do?

A: You make like Eve and go to the library. 

How I made an unforgettable gift with help from the library:
  • I reserved 10 items specifically selected for the gift-receiving uber-friend.
  • I penned a sufficient amount of lyrical prose to describe the gift.
  • I printed the itemized list and prose on a standard-size sheet of white copy paper.
  • I gave the paper a decorative trim with Fiskars paper edgers.
    • Caveat Crafter: Cheaper brands do not work as well as Fiskars.
  • I folded the paper neatly and sealed it with a sticker.
The gift was a wild success, not only because I managed to give something without bringing more crap into the house, but especially because I made sure to reserve Volume 1 of the first season of Breaking Bad. We had not seen any of the shows at that point and it had recently ended its run on air, so our curiosity had finally bested us and we wanted to watch it from the beginning. Renting or buying the series was not an option, so that is when I checked to see what the local library had in their online catalog. Wouldn't you know it, they had the entire series available on DVD. Now I was cooking. Once I made this discovery it was on like Donkey Kong and my thrifty gifting idea of library goodies fell into place from there.

Thanks to this gift of library goodies, we eventually worked our way through the entire series of Breaking Bad for less than $5, due to a couple late charges. It took us a few months to get through the series; I would reserve a DVD each time we finished one, since the series has to be watched in order. The first DVD took the longest to arrive, but after that the waiting lists got shorter. Since all the DVDs contained three to five episodes, it was always a mini-marathon when a new disc arrived. Sometimes we would go a few days waiting for the next DVD, but the break gave us time to speculate as to what could happen next in Walter White's world. Plus, the library was a 1-mile walk away so it didn't take anything but my bipedal abilities to get me there. Overall, a super successful thrifty gift that has my uber-friend and I eagerly awaiting the premiere of the follow-up prequel Better Call Saul.

Library Goodies Caveats:
  • Do not borrow anything that you cannot take responsibility for. Libraries may be open to everyone, but as a frequent user I can attest to the fact that not everyone knows how to use a library or how to take care of library items. Please learn what your responsibilities are from your local library before borrowing.
  • Library goodies require a modicum of supervision to ensure that the items are not lost or damaged. I gifted library goodies to an adult housemate, so the items did not leave my residence and I had supervision over them; I picked up and returned all items myself without passing the work on to my friend (FYI, errands are not gifts). If the library goodies will not be with you, or if the receiver is not responsible enough to properly take care of the library goodies, or if you have to pass the work on to someone else who will not ensure proper oversight of the library goodies, the gift may not work in your favor and may cost you money in the end.

Library Goodies Benefits:
  • Low maintenance: no unnecessary wrapping.
  • Minimalism: no excessive clutter after the holidays.
  • Little to no cost: so long as the items are not lost, damaged, or returned excessively late.
  • Want not, waste not: no throwing away of anything that is unwanted or has short-lived appeal since it all gets returned to the library.
  • Convenience: reserve library goodies any time online, while in your pajamas, naked, or even in the bathroom (library participation may vary). 
  • The gift that keeps giving: when one item is returned, reserve another item as a surprise to keep gifts coming all year.
  • Test run: find out if an item is worth purchasing by checking it out first.
  • Personal development: use creativity, ingenuity, and originality in selecting and presenting the gift.
  • Resourcefulness: utilize what you already pay for through taxation. 
Thrifty Gifting: Library Goodies with Poetry by Eve Penman
Merry Christmas from Eve Penman
I selected these items just for you and I hope you find that they will do.
Try them all out and see what you think; there's nothing to wrap and nothing to keep.
I'll pick them up and deliver them to you, and then I'll return them so they aren't overdue.
Should you want something longer than a few weeks, you'll have to buy it yourself because I'm too damn cheap.

What's your thrifty gifting idea?
Share it in a comment.

Thank you for reading.

Library Resources:

Get Eve In Your Feeds:


Winter Rage: A Light for the Darkness

Rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas

Please enjoy my color-infused photographs captioned with song lyrics.
(YouTube links included)
Rage on.
There's a dark and a troubled side of life,
but there's a bright and a sunny side, too.
Keep On The Sunny Side
There's a light in the darkness of everybody's life.
Rocky Horror Picture Show

Now I have traded the dark for the light.
I Saw The Light
Better get ready, gonna see the light.
Crystal Blue Persuasion
Your time has come to shine.
All your dreams are on their way.
Bridge Over Troubled Water
The breeze is so busy it don't miss a tree,
and the old weepin' willer is laughin' at me.
I'm never gonna stop the rain by complaining, because I'm free.
Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head
If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
Life of Brian
6 Practical and Powerful Ways to Overcome Depression

May the winter solstice bring with it the return of much sunlight!

Thank you for reading.

Get Eve In Your Feeds:


Caveat Lector: This Malignant Mirage by Andy Nowicki

A couple months ago Andy Nowicki contacted me to see if I would be interested in reviewing one of his books; a very pleasant surprise, indeed. I was familiar with Andy's name via Matt Forney, but not with his work, so I was pretty clueless (as always) as to what his writing was about. After reading an article of Andy's on the Alternative Right I responded in the affirmative to reviewing a book of his choice; based off his reading of my Carnal Haiku page, he thought I might enjoy 'This Malignant Mirage: Tales of Erotic Rage and Carnal Melancholia,' and upon my reading of the publisher's description of the book it definitely piqued my interest.

However, during my reading of the book I instead became piqued at the amount of misspellings and punctuation errors I found myself reading through...and I can only hope that I read through them correctly and that they did not interfere with the intended message. I am not writing this to be mean or because I am perfect (I make errors, too) -- I am writing this out of frustration, so pardon the digression:

A book at its base level is words and punctuation; if the words and punctuation are incorrect, then the message being conveyed through the words and punctuation could be incorrect as well. It may sound extreme, but in a courtroom all it can take is one error to raise doubt, that is it, and that is the venue for which I was trained to write. Due to this training, when I discover a technical error while reading published books, be it an atomic typo, a missing period at the end of a paragraph, or something that seems equally miniscule, my instinct is to question what I am reading. Sometimes, when there are enough errors, it even causes me to lose focus of the work itself. Because of the errors, I am left wondering: Am I reading what the author intended me to read or am I reading errors?

As odd and anal as all this may sound, I am not alone in recognizing that technical errors can cause reading disruptions, which is why I felt it necessary to address the matter since, after all, this is a review of the book. On a personal note, beyond being annoyed, it was almost insulting to my skills and out-of-work status to think that people were paid money to let errors get printed; good thing I have a sense of humor. If they were not paid money the insult is lessened, but it still does not reflect well. Therefore, when it comes to the publication of technical errors, I would like it noted that this digression is meant to reflect on those who were tasked with correcting errors before publication. Should any writer or publisher want to put my proofing skills to work, feel free to contact me.

To conclude this digression on a positive note, I addressed my nit-picky concerns and inquired as to whether a new edition will be released. I am super pleased to announce that an updated print edition of This Malignant Mirage is being planned for mid-2015. This is not to say that the current edition should be avoided or that it is impossible to read; however, if somebody gets as perturbed as I get at published errors, consider waiting for the updated edition. Now, on with my review.

When it comes to the publisher's description of This Malignant Mirage, one word I completely agree with is 'bizarre.' Not bizarre in a bad way, but in a way that told me I am not the demographic for the book at this point in my life. I think my younger self would have enjoyed it, and that is not to say the book is juvenile. I think the arguments presented would have captured my interest more had I read the book about seventeen years ago, only because that is when I was more intrigued by man-vs-woman arguments compared to now.

Granted, I knew the book had the man-vs-woman theme before reading it, but I did not want to let my personal bias stop me from reading the book. I genuinely wanted to see how the arguments would play out, because even though the arguments may be older than Shakespeare they can still be portrayed in a new way; the same can be said about sex, and I was curious how that would be portrayed, too.

What made the book bizarre to me was the eroticism of man vs. woman physically, which I dig, combined with the views of why man vs. woman, which I did not dig. I went through the Benedick-vs-Beatrice battle years ago, and as much as I kept an open mind while reading the book, in the end the man-vs-woman arguments disinterested me. I understand the arguments, and I have nothing against the arguments whether they are pro-man or pro-woman, because both sides have relatively valid arguments, as represented in all the stories. It is just that I see all the arguments, from both sexes, as equally futile and moot.

A female student using her assets to up her grade? She is no better than the male teacher who makes the most of the situation; and both were unoriginal characters. A high-society bitch with a 'Wild Things' daughter and a cheating husband? She is no better than the male teacher who loses control of his career along with his wife; no original characters in that story either. An overbearing and disappointed pregnant wife? She is no better than the sac-less husband who does not take a stand for himself; both pathetic and unoriginal characters, though I did enjoy their climactic conclusion.

A couple of the stories had different dynamics thrown in, such as a supernatural element and a story that turns the reader into the main character. Those stories were more intriguing, but the intrigue did not overpower the man-vs-woman arguments enough to draw me in to care about the characters, their views, or their orgasms.

When it comes to strength, the characters demonstrated theirs during the erotic entanglements, understandably, but the weakness in the characters made the encounters more sordid than erotic. Had the characters exercised strength in their life situations rather than pitying themselves, and had they owned their lives instead of feeling ashamed of their settled-on lots, and had they done more than rely on spontaneous sex to save them at their final moments of desperation, I may have cared more for them.

Throughout all the stories, neither gender was proven more correct than the other, which tells me that both sexes are equally right...and equally wrong. There, now everyone wins, debate over. I hereby rule everyone equally mortal fools and that man-vs-woman is much ado about nothing, and here is why I think so: No matter the difference in views between man and woman, in the end man gets woman and woman gets man (heterosexually speaking), and they both get what they want and need from the other (sex!); thus, everyone wins once pride is overcome with genital goo...and everyone finally shuts up about who is right during a peaceful post-coital sleep. Seriously, what is more important: arguing about being right or fucking? Exactly. That is why the debate is moot to me -- fucking beats arguing. Case closed.

While the combination of themes left my gray matter a little dry, I do appreciate the bizarrity of the book's literary concepts because it was something new and different to read. Sometimes, though, it was a bit too literary. I ended up doing word counts on a few sentences, only because I got lost figuring out what was being described. When I saw word counts at over 100 words in a sentence I knew why I got lost -- literary overload. Between the themes, the word density and the language, I did not know whether I was supposed to be deciphering descriptions, analyzing argument, or getting gooey. I totally appreciate that the book is an exploration into erudite eroticism, but the end result did not work for me. More smut, less lit, please.

As well, I did not find anything erotic about some of the word choices, namely 'crotch,' 'cunt,' and 'lube.' I do not know if those words were intended for eroticism, if they were meant to portray the degradation of women and the situations, or if they meant nothing at all but were just used for shits and giggles, because not everything has to mean something.

'Crotch,' for whatever reason, does not work for me as an erotic word; maybe because the word 'rot' is contained in a word that simultaneously alludes to an erogenous zone. I don't know, but the one-syllable sound of 'crotch' makes me want to gag. As for the word 'cunt,' it has become overused slander against both sexes, maybe because 'bitch' is not shocking enough anymore; so it conveys slander before eroticism to me. And when it comes to the word 'lube,' that is a sterile, non-offensive term salespeople use in adult shops to sell Astroglide as an add-on; it also makes me think I am in a mechanic's garage. Again, I do not know if these rare word choices were for any particular reason, but they did not jive with me.

Still, in spite of my personal caveats towards This Malignant Mirage, none of this is to say that the book should be avoided. I recognize that I would have enjoyed this book at another time in my life, so I suspect others may enjoy it too. That is why I totally encourage people to read the book in order to draw their own conclusions, because "No two persons ever read the same book." Caveat lector.

Thank you for reading.

Please refer to the first paragraph for links to the book This Malignant Mirage via the publisher, Andy Nowicki's blog and more.

I Spy a Typo:
Today's Atomic Typo
Caught on Camera: Revealing the Truth
Typos from The Mysterious Affair at Styles :


Publication Contests on the Olympic Peninsula: Writers and Artists

While taking in local commerce on the Olympic Peninsula recently, I came across two announcements regarding publication contests that are currently accepting submissions. In the words of Dr. Sam Beckett: Oh, boy!

Contest Info and Links

Tidepools Magazine:
"Tidepools is a student run literary magazine produced at Peninsula College, serving both Jefferson and Clallam counties for over 50 years. We solicit local poetry and prose, fine and digital art, photography and music from residents of all ages. We publish one issue a year and release it during the first week in June."
  • Cash Prizes:
    • $100 = first place prize in each adult category plus publication
    • $25 = first place prize in each youth category 
    • 2nd/3rd place winners = guaranteed publication
  • Open to Clallam and Jefferson County residents
  • Adult entry fee $6.50
  • Youth entry fee $4.00
  • Non-contest entry is free (for chance at publication)
  • Online and snail-mail submissions accepted
  • Nameless submissions for blind judging
  • Deadline: January 16, 2015
Read all contest rules and submission info @ Tidepools Magazine Submissions

Rainshadow Poetry:
"April 2015 Competition: Celebrating National Poetry Month for adult and student poets in Clallam and Jefferson Counties."
  • Publication of winning poems
    • Winning poets receive copy of book
  • Open to Clallam and Jefferson County residents
  • Adult entry fee $10.00
  • Youth entry fee $5.00
  • Senior (65+) entry fee $7.00
  • Online and snail-mail submissions accepted 
  • Theme: A New Beginning
  • Deadline: January 23, 2015
Read all contest rules and submission info @ Rainshadow Poetry

Both contests are regional and only open to residents of Clallam and Jefferson Counties in Washington State. Out of curiosity I have looked up the population numbers to get an idea of the speculative odds. The combined population of the two counties in 2010 was 101,276, by comparison to Pierce County the same year at 795,225, where I last resided...and by comparison to King County (where Seattle is) with over 1,000,000 residents the same year. Damn, who knew a 2-hour move away from the I-5 corridor could make such a difference? Oh, yeah, I did.

Good luck, contestants!


The Economics of Not Calling Law Enforcement: News From Eve's View

Good news begets more good news, and this is the good-news-begetting headline that caught my attention the other day: American flags stolen near Veterans' Day in Port Ludlow are returned to East Jefferson Rotary Club.

The brief news article is linked above for reading, but to surmise: 13 stolen American flags were returned anonymously; an anonymous citizen contacted the club with information concerning the flags and performed an independent investigation which led the citizen to all 13 stolen flags. Good work, anonymous citizen!

As if that isn't good enough, it gets better.  While reading the article I came across something that was so mind-boggling, so shocking, so...dare I say it, anarchical?...that it triggered my writer's reflex to share what I read with others.  Please, prepare yourself for the sentence that follows; sit down, take a deep breath, and read:
"Law enforcement was not involved in the recovery and will not be contacted to find the culprits, who were not identified, [Rotary Club President] Luce said."

Yes, you read that right; law enforcement was not involved. It is a Festivus miracle!

However, while it says that law enforcement was not involved, I do not automatically infer from the statement that the culprits got off without consequences for their actions, but everyone is free to infer what they wish.  For all I can speculate, the anonymous citizen and anyone else who discovered what the culprits did may have decided that it was best to privately handle the matter amongst themselves; perhaps the parties felt they were responsible enough to handle the matter without resorting to being babied with oversight from bureaucratic officers who are trained to lock people up (physically and financially with excessive fees, fines and penalties) rather than listen to them.

Whatever the reason for not involving law enforcement, I applaud it. After all, is that not a right the parties have, to not call law enforcement? Furthermore, whether or not it is a right, leaving law enforcement out of the matter is what was agreed upon by all the parties. Because, you see, law enforcers are not called when people are in agreement. Had the parties not agreed on that particular issue of not involving law enforcement, my recovering Stenog Sense leads me to be 99.9% certain that law enforcement would have been called as a result of such a disagreement, and this story would not have resulted the way that it did.

Ultimately, what I find to be so important about this news story that others should know about it is that people exercised their abilities, and rights, by independently handling the matter amongst themselves in a way they determined to be sufficient, instead of automatically turning to law enforcement to solve the problem at a cost to the taxpayers.

Does it still sound absolutely appalling that law enforcement was not called?  Then please consider this:
  • No taxpayer money was spent on excessive investigation expenses;
  • No law enforcement officers were pulled away from more immediate matters to take care of a matter that was satisfactorily dealt with; and
  • Nobody became a victim of the American legal system that continues to grow more questionable every time someone is violated at the hands of law enforcement officers.
Not only did the rotary club win by having property returned, but the taxpayers economically won by people handling the matter on their own and law enforcement not becoming involved. I even think the culprits received a reasonable win by having their identities withheld, along with being protected from an encroaching legal system by having the matter dealt with privately, but I digress.

When it comes to the cost of crime, in 2010 a team from Iowa State University calculated the societal costs of five major crimes, one of which was burglary. The ISU team calculated that the direct and collateral costs of burglary to society is $41,288. I do not know if the flag thefts would be legally classified as burglary, but that category is most closely related to theft of the five crimes and proves that theft via burglary is a financial burden on society. Had the flags been stolen out of a car, for instance, then it would qualify as burglary in ISU's calculations, according to the article True Crime Costs: Does every murder in the U.S. really cost society $17 million?

Therefore, with taxpayer money not wasted on investigating a matter that was taken care of through vigilant citizens working together, that money has potential to be used in other ways. Thus, the economy and the people stand to benefit from not losing taxpayer money to the expenses of prosecuting culprits through an overpriced legal system, hypothetically and speculatively speaking of course. But, is this only a hypothetical, or did the economy and people truly benefit in this news story? Hold on to yourselves; there is still more good news evidencing the mechanics of Frederic Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy, the idea that destruction of property does not benefit the economy, as alluded to above in the ISU calculations.

Consider that the cost of the stolen flags, when purchased new, was $455. Now, if the club would have paid to replace the stolen flags, that $455 would have come out of scholarship funds, forcing the club to use funds they had not intended to use and ultimately taking away from hard-working students. Fortunately, after the flags were stolen, anonymous donations were made to replace the flags. However, now that the flags have been returned, thus eliminating the need to spend funds on flags if none are damaged, the scholarship funds remain untouched and the donations now have potential to be turned into additional scholastic funds for students in the community. If that does not qualify Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy as an economic reality, call me a Keynesian.

How awesome is all that for good news?! 
Stolen property was found and returned; law enforcement was not involved; no one became a victim to the legal system; no one had privacy violated by being named; student scholarships did not lose funds and could possibly gain funds; plus, it was all serendipitously tied up with an important economics lesson in the Broken Window Fallacy. Now that is totally awesome news...totally.
  • Have you seen (or experienced) examples of the Broken Window Fallacy?
  • Do you think people should attempt to work out problems for themselves before involving law enforcement and the legal system?
  • If you had discovered the culprits, what would you have done?
 Please share your thoughts in a comment.

Thank you for reading.

Where in the world is Port Ludlow?


I Wanna Sax You Up: Christmas Sax

Twas the Night of Christmas Sax (A Visit from Kenny G)
by Eve Penman

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house
a creature was heard stirring and it was my spouse.
A new sax had been placed by the chimney with care,
but he couldn’t resist once it was there.

He forgot about the time, people asleep in beds,
so he picked up the sax and he started to tread.
He crossed over the floor, to a chair where he sat,
then he started to finger this pretty new sax.

When out in the street there arose such a clatter,
he sprang from the chair to see what was the matter.
Away to the window he flew like the Flash,
he gazed through the shutters still holding his sax.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
reflected through the window and up to his ‘phone.
When what to his wondering eyes did appear,
but…Kenny G…and eight sax-playing reindeer.

With a curl in the hair, so bouncy and blithe,
my spouse stopped to wonder if he could be high.
As smooth as syrup the reindeer did play,
each fingering its sax as Kenny proclaimed:

"Blow, Dasher! Blow, Dancer! Blow, Prancer! Blow, Vixen!
Blow, Comet! Blow, Cupid! Blow, Donner! Blow, Blitzen!
To the top of the porch and to the top of the wall!
The glory of Christmas Sax must be heard by all!"

As dry reeds that before a wild solo are applied,
when they meet with a saxist the spit doth fly.
So up to the rooftop the sounds of Christmas Sax flew,
with the reindeer blowing hard, and Kenny G too.

And then, in a measure, there was on the roof
the prancing and pawing of little saxist hooves.
As my spouse scratched his head he sat back down,
when Kenny G came down in a melodic bound.

He was dressed in Alpaca fur, from his curls to his feet;
his clothes were untarnished and he even had pleats.
With his sloth named Murph hanging across his back,
Kenny G turned and said: Let’s make some Christmas Sax.

His eyes, how they twinkled! His dimples, so merry!
His curls were like a phone cord from the 20th Century!
His pert little mouth gave a blissful blow,
while the reindeer played outside, enjoying sax in the snow.

Kenny blew hard and he felt it in his feet;
all this Christmas sax made him want to eat.
He felt the hunger rumble in his empty belly;
he salivated for a sandwich from the deli.

Still, Kenny blew on, in spite of his own self,
but my spouse knew that look and erected himself.
With a wink of his eye and a cock of his head,
he took to the kitchen to get Kenny G fed.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to work,
he made Kenny a sandwich; then he turned with a jerk.
Kenny was there and they stood nose to nose,
then Kenny snatched the sandwich and did a selfie pose!

As he danced across the floor he tweeted his post-sax pic,
then away they all blew, the Christmas Sax over so quick.
But he was heard exclaiming as he disappeared from sight,
"Christmas Sax to all, and to all a good night!"

Thank you for reading.

Get Eve In Your Feeds:
Get Saxed Up:
Buy the album:
Get saxy with Kenny G this Christmas

For the saxists:
Big Book of Christmas Songs for Alto Sax

Sax it up for Santa:
An Erotic Sax Christmas
(Sexy Holiday Favorites on Saxaphone)


Q: Is There Something Worse Than a Racist?

A: Yes, there is.  

I present Exhibits 1 through 25, researched and compiled from Dictionary.com:
  1. Ape:  An imitator; mimic.  
  2. AutomatonA person or animal that acts in a monotonous, routine manner, without active intelligence. 
  3. BigotA person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
  4. Busybody:  A person who pries into or meddles in the affairs of others. 
  5. Buttinsky:  A person who interferes in the affairs of others; meddler. 
  6. CopycatA person or thing that copies, imitates, mimics, or follows the lead of another, as a child who says or does exactly the same as another child. 
  7. EchoA person who reflects or imitates another; any repetition or close imitation, as of the ideas or opinions of another. 
  8. FussbudgetA fussy or needlessly fault-finding person. 
  9. GossipA person who partakes in idle talk or rumors, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. 
  10. IgnoramusAn extremely ignorant person. 
  11. Imitator:  A person who follows or endeavors to follow as a model or example.
  12. InterloperA person who interferes or meddles in the affairs of others. 
  13. Intermeddler:  A person who takes part in a matter, especially officiously; meddle.
  14. MeddlerA person who involves themselves in a matter without right or invitation; a person who interferes officiously and unwantedly.
  15. MimicA person who imitates in a servile or unthinking way; ape. 
  16. MisinformerA person who gives false or misleading information.
  17. NewsmongerA person who spreads gossip or idle talk; a gossip or gossipmonger. 
  18. Nosy ParkerA nosy, overly inquisitive person. 
  19. ParrotA person who, without thought or understanding, merely repeats the words or imitates the actions of another. 
  20. Scandalmonger:  A person who spreads scandal or gossip. 
  21. ScaremongerA person who creates or spreads alarming news. 
  22. Sensationalist:  A person who uses subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling impressions, or to excite and please vulgar taste.
  23. TattletaleA talebearer or informer, especially among children. 
  24. ToolA person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends; cat's-paw. 
  25. YentaA person, especially a woman, who is a busybody or gossip.

More Words to Consider:
  1. Bigotry:  Complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
  2. PrejudiceAny preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.  
  3. RacismA belief/doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others;  
    1. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Eve's Definition:
  • Racist: The first person who cries 'racist' when they disagree with what they hear.

In conclusion, I question: 
  • If racism is 'hatred or intolerance,' then who is the bigger racist: the person who says an unpopular comment, or the person who is intolerant and hateful toward the person who said the unpopular comment? 
  • What makes a statement racist; is it always the person making the statement who is racist, or is it ever the person passively hearing and (mis)interpreting what is being said who is the racist?
  • Why should it matter if someone says something unpopular when that is what freedom of speech is about; in other words, does everybody have to think the same?
  • And if a person makes a racist statement and nobody cries about it, will bears be able to shit in the woods in peace?
Got a thought? Leave a comment.
Thank you for reading.

'Masterpiece of Nonsense' from Hank Williams, Sr.:
Mind Your Own Business


Fungal Inversions: A Photographic Trip Through 2015

Why You Need Eve's
 * * * * *
> Fungus Rules <
 > Original Photography <
> Educational Wonder <
> Uniquely Northwest <
> Universal Appeal <
> 2014 is History <

Visit Zazzle.com/ProseAndPix
Too drunk? 
Too stoned? 
Too naked? 
Can't leave your llama?
Twin Peaks by David Lynch
No problem.

Visit Eve's ProseAndPix Zazzle Shop
from your kitchen, bathroom, couch, bedroom,
and anywhere else technology allows.

Thank you for reading


Affordable Care: Unaffordable To Millions

Affordable Healthcare has Financial Assistance.
Wait, what?
(Scroll down to Part II for my Affordable Care analysis)

Part I:
My return to Washington State has brought the boob tube back into my life. Thanks to the nearly 5-year hiatus I took from television programming while participating in and learning about legal systems through work as a freelance court reporter, I am now more critical and cynical of everything I watch, which is all the better.

For example, these past couple years I have noticed the numerous ads for mandated insurance, popularly and misguidedly called 'healthcare'. Pardon me for being obvious, but insurance is not healthcare. The two words do not even look the same, nor are they.

I understand that various dictionaries these days define healthcare as not just maintaining and treating one's health, but also treatment by professionals or other medical services; thus making it sound as if one's healthcare is dependent on others, and that people, in turn, have an entitlement to services from medical professionals because that is, supposedly, what healthcare is now -- entitled dependency on others. To that I say poppycock.

Yes, healthcare is caring for and maintaining health, no doubt about it, but since when does caring for and maintaining one's health require the time, labor, skill and ability of someone else? Am I not able to care for my health any longer, because overreaching bureaucrats think they know what is best for me....while continuing wars? Those are the so-called leaders in government I am supposed to listen to? As Mr. Hand poignantly questioned: What are you people, on dope!?

I have no right to the time, labor, skill, ability, money, or anything that belongs to another. It does not matter if they are a teacher, doctor, lawyer, garbage man, hotel heiress, movie star, sports star, or billionaire philanthropist. I have no right to what is theirs simply because they have skills or luxuries I do not. What makes you think that you do? Why are you so entitled to someone's time, labor, skill, ability, and money?

Please, in all sincerity, leave a comment so that I may better understand the mindset of someone who believes they are entitled to what another has when they have done nothing to earn it themselves. Please, explain to me why you are entitled; is it a disability, an injury, political philosophy, complacent laziness? Whatever the explanation, my comment box awaits below as does my e-mail.

If I am wrong in thinking that people should not be entitled to take from others what is not theirs, you are openly invited to explain to me where I am wrong. Granted, that does not mean calling me a cunt when you have no argument because you did not read the entire article. However, I cannot stop ignorance, I can only ignore it; for ignorance is bliss and who am I to deny anyone of their bliss. But I digress.


Dungeness Geoducks and Environmental Red Herrings: News From Eve's View

Here is my breakdown of a local news story in the Sequim Gazette regarding Taylor Shellfish Farms' permitting process for a 30-acre geoduck farm in Dungeness Bay. This is not an attack on the reporting or reporter; I thought the article was well done as it gave helpful information and insight to differing sides of the issue; it also left me with questions, which is a good thing in my book. Please read the above linked article for yourself to form your own opinion.

The first item that captured my attention was the word 'permitting' because I have come to learn through life experience that while the word is used in everyday vernacular not everyone understands the meaning of the word. However, if you're not from the Northwest the word 'geoduck' may have captured your attention more. Learn what a geoduck is here.

Do you know how permit is defined in an English dictionary? Permit means to allow or to give authorization to do something. Likewise, to get a permit or to be permitted to do something one must first ask permission. Just like a child in school having to ask permission to go to the bathroom (a necessary function for human existence), adults must first get permission a great majority of the time to work, build, and conduct business transactions (necessary functions for human sustainability and progress). It is nothing short of crappy how much permission-seeking is required these days to either be comfortable and/or improve one's position in life, but I digress.

Taylor Shellfish Farms started in the 1890s and is now in its fifth generation. Count that -- one, two, three, four, five -- five generations of a successful business. That being said, I must query: How many businesses these days make it to two or three generations; two or three decades; two or three years? Operating on 11,000 acres of tidelands throughout Washington State and British Columbia while succeeding into its fifth generation are facts which indicate to me that Taylor Shellfish Farms and its management know how to work with the environment in order to operate and sustain a farming culture for years to come into the future.

Being in their fifth generation, they probably also know plenty about the various permitting processes required for business, which in this instance is being done via the Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA). By clicking the link you can learn for yourself what is required of Taylor Shellfish Farms in the permitting process along with the fees associated. I never cease to be amazed at the amount of requirements on businesses and individuals to be allowed to conduct work. More power to those who jump through one hoop after another in order to succeed; it is not easy.

One issue that may not be easy for the proposed geoduck farm to overcome in the Olympic Peninsula is the environment, as that is the highlighted concern at the bottom of the article as well as the only issue brought up in the comments at the time of my reading.

I understand the need to protect the environment so that it is sustainable for future generations, but am I the only one that picked up on Taylor Shellfish Farms being in its fifth generation? Is it therefore not reasonable for me to deduce that they understand the importance of maintaining land for future generations? Reasonable, indeed. In fact, the article gives a quote from Diani Taylor, a fifth-generation farmer, that alludes to this very concept: Because we can’t farm when the water quality is downgraded, the health of the surrounding ecosystem is important to us. Therefore, in order to be successful and profitable Taylor has to take care of the land and environment for their own good.

Any business that has depended on the land to be successful, and has done it for five generations, is not about to let what they depend on turn to garbage; that makes about as much sense as depreciation. In order to prepare for the environmental challenges, according to the article, Taylor Shellfish Farms hired independent consultants for the express purpose of conducting a 'geoduck aquaculture biological evaluation' so that farming practices can be structured according to the environment's needs. Therefore, it sounds as if Taylor has jumped through the needed environmental hoops. 

Unfortunately, these days, private enterprise often comes in second to the environment due to cries of preserving the land for...drum roll please...future generations. Pardon the juvenile eye roll, but Taylor Shellfish Farms is already doing that by being in business and using the land productively. Am I the only one seeing this? What is everyone else smoking? Not the good stuff apparently.

Granted, I have not spent hours researching Taylor's history of business practices, nor have I spent hours researching what are the proper business practices for such a business, nor have I spent hours researching what is best for Dungeness Bay itself. If someone has done the research and wants to inform me, please leave a comment. However, based on the evidence presented in the article, I can't say that it looks as if the environment will lose out by Taylor Shellfish Farms operating a farm in Dungeness Bay.

Who will lose out though, in my untrained opinion, are the people of Dungeness Bay and the surrounding areas if a geoduck farm is kept from operating a business due to reactionary and questionable environmental concerns. Speaking as a 36-year-old keeper of two cats, I can't say that I am all that concerned about future generations when I don't have any present generations to be concerned about now. Therefore that argument is moot on my meow-filled ears; try another one.

If I sound like an earth hater, all I can say is pardon me that my concerns lie in the here and now, also known as the present (how Zen of me). The 'here' is Clallam County and the 'now' is the Great Recession that Americans have been living through since 2007; I am more interested in the life that is here now being preserved and improved upon via sustainable private enterprise. And while I am no supporter of state-required permitting and licensing, I do acknowledge its overreaching importance in modern-day business. If jumping through the requisite hoops gets Taylor Shellfish Farms another operational farm and carries them into their sixth generation to continue employing people and creating commerce in the Puget Sound, then they have my support.

Granted, I do not know the full ecological ramifications involved nor am I aware of the history of the area beyond what is in the article, so I do give weight to the environmental arguments but only until I find questionable flaws.

For instance, it is pointed out that the idea of Taylor Shellfish Farms even applying for a permit in such a "pristine place" is "fascinating" since "literally millions of dollars" have been put to use in restoration work. Restoration work for what, you may wonder. It appears as though due to a history of shellfish farming in the area the Bay was downgraded by the Washington State Department of Health, but with implemented shellfish protection the bay is once again at a "quality suitable for farming." In fact, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe who once farmed shellfish in the Bay does not have a problem with Taylor's proposed operation and says it could be beneficial to the ecology; that is a blessing in my view. Therefore, with so much approval by local entities, why not farm the land now that it is suitable and let the joy of taxpaying be shared with new businesses?

Seriously, B. This is what makes no sense to me here in the Olympic Peninsula. With the denial of industrial cannabis applications and now people against geoduck farms, it is as if the people who live here want the joy of paying all the taxes themselves. Really??  Is that what people want; to not let other businesses come and share in the opportunities of the Olympic Peninsula by offering commerce, jobs, tourism, and best of all money to the counties, cities, and state? Granted, I am no supporter of arbitrary taxation, but for the people who believe in such a thing, why not share that belief with others who are willing, and wanting, to step up and do the deed? Gozer knows that is a dirty deed I have no interest in, so I applaud others who do it while grumbling under their breath.

Unfortunately it is not the sarcastic sharing of taxation that folks in the Olympic Peninsula are against. If only that were the case I would be more amused. The real victim under the environmental red herring, as deduced from one statement, is free enterprise. Read the evidence for yourself: We’re not saying don’t do aquaculture, but there needs to be limits to the expansion of industrial aquaculture. Therefore, in other words, do aquaculture but only within the bounds someone else sets. That is what is being said here and that is truly -- not literally -- scary.

Now, pardon me for thinking, but isn't Taylor Shellfish Farms already operating under the requirements of JARPA, which is through the State of Washington and the Federal Government? Are those not limits enough? Pray tell, what more limits should be proposed, specifically? And who should impose and enforce said limits; environmental groups? The article does a thorough job of stating everything that Taylor is doing to work with the environment and community to make the geoduck farm possible, so what is the real reason to stop the operation besides speculated problems that haven't been experienced yet?

For instance, as the article mentions, the potential problem of pollution due to the high winds blowing the geoduck farming plastics around. Considering that the 30-acre farm is being leased on a 350-acre plot of private property, I can't say with certainty the pollution will get to the public since I do not know the specific location. However, if the pollution is a problem and it is not air-quality related (which is harder to maintain), maybe Taylor Shellfish Farms will implement litter control in the area to make sure the "pristine place" that is Dungeness Bay remains that way. How about that, job creation from a private entity. That's what I'm talking about. Those are the solutions needed in these trying times -- private sector jobs created through free market enterprise -- and not reactionary roadblocks.

If you want to block something, humor me and go block the war machine that continues to tax Americans at home while simultaneously leading American soldiers to dismemberment and death overseas.

As far as Dungeness Bay being such a pristine place, that is nothing more than smug talk. Sure, the Bay is nice, but that does not stop it from being what it is at its base level: A public shitter for wildlife and possibly wild humans. Oh my word, I bet wild animals even have sex in the open out there. Is there a permit for that? Seriously, if animals get to use the Bay for a toilet and mating grounds, then can't humans at least use the clean areas to be productive in, to sustain human life and the environment by offering opportunities to the people who live in the area and others who travel vast distances to explore the Pacific Northwest? The idea of placing the future of eelgrass before the needs of humans who are alive right now is environmental worship that I do not follow.

Putting the environment before man's needs begs the question: Why is the environment more important than mankind? And why aren't people who believe that idea exercising their beliefs by killing themselves and their carbon footprint? Wouldn't that save Dungeness Spit and the earth if there were no humans around? After all, it isn't humans continuously fighting that makes the sun rise and set, now, is it; the earth seems to get on just fine without humans. Therefore an earth-first argument is not only moot, it is dead, and anyone who brings up such an argument to me would prove their point best by being dead.

In conclusion I reflectively ponder: When does the environment put humans first? The eruption of Mount St. Helens, was that humans coming first? When people are attacked in the wild by animals, is that humans coming first? Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, unexplainable and violent migratory swarms; is that humans coming first? Rain at an outdoor wedding or a game called off due to weather, is that humans coming first? I think not. Therefore, I do not blindly buy into putting the environment first, nor do I buy into the eye-rolling environmental red-herring opposition to Taylor Shellfish Farms expanding into Dungeness Bay. Gag me with a geoduck.

Is there opposition to business in your area due to environmental concerns?
Leave a comment.

Thank you for reading.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
For more dissension from the herd,
check out my new book: