I responded to a listing for a group house on Craig's list by describing myself in something like
4 paragraphs, covering my job, interests, plans, personality, etc. Pretty standard stuff one would need to know about a potential roommate. I mentioned, among other things, "I'm going crazy in
suburbia", "[I'm] active with a few pick-up sports teams", and that I, "frequently enjoy social settings like parties (even throwing them)". I felt pretty confident sending it - no one could be turned off by such an amicable disclosure of one's personal life, I thought. The world I live in is made up of happy, benevolent, and interesting human beings and each connection promises new knowledge and experiences.

Here's what I got back:
"This is a serious professional adult environment, quiet, non-smoking/drugs, and we do not have parties, although one is allowed to socialize. Perhaps you may need to search for a location that is conducive to your enthusiastic environment. Thank you for your inquiry."

Damn. He didn't mention the animal sacrifices I specifically asked about. This guy took me apart, and for good reason - I am completely and 100% unprofessional. Now that I'm faced with it, I should just embrace my unprofessionalism.

The following is the case against me, as best I can construct, without a proper reading of "The Idiots Guide to Law".

The Facts
1. I typed the email while at work, not on my lunch break - Right away, an act most unprofessional. And he must have known, I mean, I sent it during business hours, when I should be performing mindless, repetitive task for the benefit of the hive. Also, that same day I had a fellow employee hold a Mango slicing demonstration.

2. My email contained spelling erros - how less professional can I be. I think my cell phone even has a spell checker. It's not that I can't remember how to properly spell "Horsdevors", I simply can't afford to - I'm saving space for full motion, uncompressed memory of when I finally sleep with Mila Jovovich.

3. I did not provide a bibliography - Not only did I forget to cite at least 10 sources and foolishly risk plagiarising my own life, I also didn't remember to forget that I should use inline notation, thus angering the MLA Manticore, the mythical being who meets you at death ready to punishes you for every misplaced semicolon, ever.

4. I am a Graphic Designer - art is not a profession, everyone knows that. I don't know even the slightest bit about finding, securing, or working a REAL job. Shame on me. I need to be honest and introduce myself as unemployed.

My reply, after careful consideration of my obvious inadequacies:

"Dear Sir: Yikes. I guess, thanks for the tip. No need to clarify, but that felt like a rap on the
nose. Good luck with your serious adult environment, where one is allowed to socialize. I will be
sure to toast proper behavior, vertically integrated business, and vitamin supplements at the bar tonight while enjoying my Tom Collins. Cherrio!"

I feel compelled to touch on a particularly frustrating quality that I find in quite a few people, and that is the inability to commit to something. I need to qualify my use of the word "commit" here - I am not talking about committing to a loved one or committing to owning a pet. Those are decisions that take a lot of thought and should be considered carefully. What I am talking about is the kind of commitment that leads you to following through on attending an event you're invited to, or sticking around long enough to see where a conversation goes.

I guess what I mean is allowing yourself the time to focus long enough on a particular, discrete thing (person, idea, newspaper) although you think you can or can't see any value in it. Let me put this in context. Let's assume you spend an evening with an interesting guy or girl. There is nothing wrong about this, in fact it is all good, to coin a phrase from "Good Burger" (1997). You are lucky to be in the presence of someone who pleases you. What's more is, you have no clue what tomorrow will bring (except a few repeatable things) or even what will happen in the next few hours. Things could change; you could be attacked by Lilliputians, get lost in your bathroom, or even qualify for a credit card (VISA made me write that). Thus, there is little you can predict about the immediate future except a continuation, however tenuous, of the present - this guy or girl is interesting and I am enjoying them.

My question is: why halt current events instead of let them run their course? You can rest assured that our example will have an end, any number of endings, based on a slew of possible actions. I think that all too often, people want to see the end before it is time, like how we jump paragraphs in books or read the synopsis before we see the flick.

How we listen to talking heads predict the future.

There are two ways that people deal with predicting the future, both involving control - if I can predict the future, I have some control over it in a granular, decision-tree-based way. The first way is to project forward and imagine an outcome that is pleasing. In this way, optimists embrace the world through their ability to assume positive outcomes. The other way is to see either an outcome which is displeasing or unknown - unknown, in this case, is the same as displeasing because I can't be pleased by something I don't know - which frames the position of a pessimist whose outlook is often limited by an inability to overcome conceptual barriers.

Yes, you might fall in love. Yes, you might misinterpret someone's actions and learn them later. Yes, you quite possibly might be confused, heaven forbid. All of these, if you notice, are possible outcomes that one must be prepared for. By artificially limiting your outcomes through fear of the unknown you automatically limit your pool of experiences. And since you learn from experience, you are impacting your learning ability. Way to make yourself stupid, stupid. The best way I see to avoid that happening is to make all attempts to see things through, although in many cases, it is not up to you. Be receptive - be a Phillips and a Flathead - and learn to go with the flow. As an exercise, try not steering a conversation, just contributing to it. If someone says, "call me", actually call them.

Woody Allen once said, "Seventy percent of success in life is showing up". So do it and realize that the more you show up (which is to say, surrender to life by going with the flow), the less missed opportunities you will accrue and the more experience you will gain. And we can all live with that.

A few years back, Hollywood did something amazing. They listened to their audience goers. Well, they didn't so much as listen as they responded to dropping theatre attendance, citing (of all things) dwindling interest in the quality of their product, namely the same 4 movies they kept making with the same 10 actors. This revelation was made public, is still making headlines and editorials, and (hopefully) will continue to serve as a warning to a monolithic industry that maybe what they do over there in California is not so much dictate what we like as come awfully close enough that we won't say anything. Then again, we probably don't need them anyway - we have an uncanny ability to find a way to entertain ourselves regardless of what's offered.

Cue the metaphor. A few years back, we elected to the position of president a man who ran on a platform of everything the majority of America had seen before and was comfortable with. I raised no objection at the time, was complacent with the same story line and the same 5 cabinet members, and was unaware of a drop in quality of idea and execution coming out of Washington. But something changed. I became aware of an entirely different set of ideas and began to see alternatives.

If our current administration were subject to the fickleness of our free market, not only would you see an immediate change (i.e. millions of votes, aggregated into decision making), you would also see a slew of new politicians and ideas being seeded, the result of which, I have no doubt, would be a truer version of what our founders had in mind - a pool of ideas and political innovation that would not only average out to very little government at all, but ultimately the very best it had to offer.

I want to talk about something that I've been thinking about for awhile - an idea that attempts to combine progressive thought with entrenched conservatism, based on my observations and experiences with both sides. What I'm calling "Inclusive Progressiveness" is a concept that follows from the idea that progressive ideals will probably always be challenged and held back by the oldest (and most politically and economically involved) generation. The motivation for this generation is to pull up the ladders and keep things status quo so as not to damage the well-earned lifestyle they have worked their entire lives to gain. This is to be respected as they are the reason younger people are around and if the future is to pass on to us, we owe them much more than consideration in the twilight of their lives. I will not be the one to tell my parents they no longer matter.

What does need to be communicated, or realized, (I feel) is that a lot of political issues that become important later on in life tend to be ones concerned with self-preservation as opposed to those benefiting the common good. Even issues completely unrelated to one's well-being are confused into threats, radical paradigm shift, and degradation - and in this way are highly effective. They hit their mark with the very people for whom these messages carry the most weight.

Our current generation has to make it clear through our actions, public policy, and person-to-person interactions that each one of us will take personal responsibility to care for our elders (once again) so that they can trust us to take the helm when the time comes. The "time" is amorphous, the "helm" is everywhere and the "trust" must be so well-ingrained that our elders have no reason why progressive ideas couldn't come about without opposition. Inclusive Progressiveness means including our mothers, fathers and grandparents in our lives so that they in turn will include us. It is a realization that our respect and deference will earn us necessary lee-way in the future, a veritable back-scratching that is not taking place currently and leads us all into not so much class-warfare as age-warfare.

At some point, I realize my personal ideas and concerns will no longer be completely applicable to my nation at large. It's happening already and I notice it - things that once were within my realm such as video games and toys have developed past what I knew and was comfortable with. But I don't greet this change with fear. I realize that it's all contributing to public discourse and really has very little net affect on me and my future. To this end, I will continue to vote when I get older but my votes will not be cast with my eventual demise in mind. What is usually framed as "us vs. them" is no more than a disguise for "me vs. you".

If change is constant, younger generations must create a climate in which older generations feel less need not stop it, if only to (presumably) save themselves. This would reduce the inclination to say "no" and produce a "maybe" which, when combined with the progressive "yes", is more than enough to achieve the desired affects - a slower, more American version of the "Grand March" which would have at it's center a combination of aspiration and humility, which still defines the citizens of our country today.