2026-08-14 04:33:08
for the same reason I don't want to live in an authoritarian state, even if my quality of life is good.
I believe in the right to self determination. For myself. For other individuals. For our communities. And for our society at large.
Large-scale capitalist firms, run by small boards of elites, owned by shareholders, do not provide self determination. These are top-down control structures.
We have some ability to influence the decisions these companies/elites make by "voting" with our wallets, by submitting feedback to customer service, and by lobbying legislators where regulation is important. These things matter and should be done. They can help improve what we have.
But these tactics, under a capitalist power structure, still put the power in the hands of the few, in the hands of the people at the top. I want to take away their power and democratize it, spread it to the people.
In some cases, this would be in the form of worker-ownership or community ownership of factories. It would involve less vertical integration. It would involve, even, small capitalist firms like local restaurants or repair shops. It would still involve markets. It would also involve some central planning, at least with certain industries like health care. It could come in other forms - I'm not really that stingy about the exact implementation, as long as its democratic.
2026-08-14 01:40:00
I've written a lot of book reviews, and I write one for every book I read now, sometimes including books I don't finish. And they are, arguably, bad reviews. Poorly written. Full of spoilers. Not enough detail to hook you. Too much yammering.
But I spend a week or two reading a book (if it's fiction. Non-fiction I tend to spend months on one book), and I just wanna YAP ABOUT IT.
I'm not in any book clubs. None of my friends read the same books as me, certainly not at the same time as me. I don't participate in online forums.
And so the book reviews are a really nice outlet for me. I get to just pour out all of my thoughts. It's really nice. I enjoy it.
I especially enjoy it when I'm extremely critical of a book! I hated A Court of Thorns and Roses and it felt so good to bitch about it lol. I also really enjoyed writing up my review of the history of physics book that I read, partially because the review was a reflection on things I learned.
I also like having a documentary record of all the books I've read. That way, I can always go check my list when I want to recommend a book to somebody.
I also
LOVE
recommending N.K. Jemisin. I love her so much. Go read her.
2026-08-13 03:37:00
I was feeling really good yesterday. I'm feeling pretty good today too.
These days scare me a little.
I'm happy, I'm energetic, I'm fairly capable.
And then the ideas start coming.
I haven't been very involved in the world over the last 2 years due to my mental disability.
I used to get ideas and run with them and burnout. I don't do that any more.
But on days like yesterday, it feels like I could jump back in, get into coding again, get into journalism again, or participate in a local political group.
I get excited, I feel like the world has opened up to me again, I feel like I could do it.
But I check myself. I remember last week was a bad week. I could barely even take care of myself.
I remind myself that this energy likely won't last, that I need to continue building & growing.
I hold onto hope that I'll get there one day. That I'll be able to do it all again.
Patience.
2026-08-13 02:11:00
The Foxglove King is a fantasy novel set in sort-of medieval times, but with magic things. The main (perhaps only) magic system is around death, called 'Mortem'. There is an underground market of people who run and sell poison. People take small doses of poison, which can get them high. Or it can prolong their life. Basically they walk the edge of death and it allows them to live longer lives.
Some people can wield Mortem (death magic), and our main character Lore is one of them. Lore is part of a poison running crew.
The storytelling is pretty good. The development of the fantasy world is very good. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I'm kind of a fan. The writing style isn't always my favorite, though. There's nothing wrong with it, persay. It's just a taste thing that I don't know how to describe. Like, I like it but I wasn't going to call it one of my favorites because it just didn't have that special sauce that feels like it's made just for me.
And THEN, it turns into romance. I didn't know it was going to be romance when I checked it out. The library website had recommended it to me, the description sounded good, so I had placed it on hold and picked it up a week thereafter. It was about 80 pages in when the romance began.
And, well, I think it's a good book. The romance was born from the plot. The story seems to genuinely and deeply care about it's plot, about it's magic system, and the romance comes from these things. I think it's very well done. It is still not my taste. I just got bored as Lore and her surely-soon-to-be-lover were getting to know eachother. Nothing was bad about it. It just wasn't for me. I gave up on reading it after skimmming about 10-15 pages. I clearly had lost interest. So I can't speak for the entire book, but if this is your kind of genre, I'd definitely recommend checking it out.
This is in stark contrast to A Court of Thorns and Roses, which I think was a terrible book, with bad character development, a lack of interest in the plot and magical systems, romance that feels forced and not meaningfully connected to the rest of the storyline. I got through 220 pages of it. My nephew later told me the rest of the plot of Court...Roses and I'm so glad I didn't finish it. It just sounded so freaking stupid. But I hear a lot of people really love this book, so idunno, to each their own. But if you're considering Court...Roses, well, I'd really recommend Foxglove King instead.
2026-08-13 01:50:00
It is genuinely one of the most fun experiences I've had. There were 11 of us.
There are no physical props; all props are imaginary. So our instructor, C, says "I have a red ball" and pantomimes, and then she throws it to someone, who catches it. And we go around the circle, saying "Reed, here's the red ball; M, here's the red ball" throwing it to one another.
C grew the red ball & shrank the red ball and eventually I ate it and then conjured a blue ball. C then shifted us to ... you smash (or whatever) the object and turn it into a new object and throw it to the next person. A paper airplane, a flower, a Dove was turned into a fly, etc etc.
Then we did a game "Zip, zap, zop" which was surprisingly more fun than it sounded. One person says "zip" and makes a hand motion toward another person in the circle (like a clap but one hand goes forward, the other comes inward). The target then "zaps" to another, who then "zops" to the next, and we go around zip/zap/zopping eachother. It's funny when someone messes up & zaps after a zap; we chuckle and just go with the flow.
Then we clapped at eachother in a circle. You make eye contact with your direct neighbor, then you clap at the same time. Your neighbor can either then clap at their other neighbor or clap back at you. You can then clap at your other neighbor or risk getting caught in a clap-back war. We had all been loosening up the whole time, but this game is where I feel like we all really started to get on the same wavelength. Again, this was surprisingly fun, despite its simplicity.
Next we get into two different lines. The person at the front of each line steps forward onto the "stage". One asks a question, the other responds with a question, and back and forth question & question & question. If you make a statement or freeze up, then you go to the back of the line. This was, perhaps, my favorite. A was asking really deep questions which was fun. My first encounter was with C (instructor) who played, like, emotionally distraught and defensive.
I was pretty good at the questions battle - the second time I made it up there, I cooked & defeated multiple people, finishing with "Have you .. ever . hit ... a baby?" LOL. Later in the evening, I would be self-conscious about this - was I trying too hard, maybe I should have made more room for other people, failed on purpose, got too competitive. It seemed like the vibes were all good, and I'm just doing an anxiety. (I was not self-conscious about the hitting a baby question; that was so funny.)
But I did learn from this experience, and some from the reflection. Some of my questions were out-of-the-blue, off-topic, didn't follow my sparring partner. C talked about this later in the session too. And in the future, I want to try and build more off what my partner is saying/asking rather than just competing my little heart out. I would also like to bring more emotion into it the way C did.
While the anxious voice in my head is fairly self-critical here, my thoughtful voice is not. Literally my first time ever doing formal improv. It's good that I'm learning. It's good that I'm looking back and thinking "Oh, this is what I could do differently." My anxious voice is not so easily sated, but that's okay. It will pass.
The next game was the same as the questions-game but we did statements instead. I liked that one less. Possibly because I was making statements about myself, on a topic I feel a little insecure about. Also because of the too-competitiveness and self-criticism I mentioned before. Also the questions were just, idk, fun. I just liked the questions.
Then we chatted about improv for a few minutes before the next game - also talked about bears some because I leaned on bears during the statements & because I love bears & because I had bear facts I wanted to share LOL. I also happened to be wearing a bear shirt. (E also favorites bears, and A also had a bear fact to share)
So, the next game we all stood in a single line, shoulder-to-shoulder. I forgot the first prompt, but it's essentially the same as the second. The second prompt was "Having sex with me is like [verb], _______". All of us would shout out a verb and then whoever's leading that round would choose which verb to go with. "Cooking" was good. "Driving" was excellent.
So when one of us thought of something, we'd clap and step forward and say "Having sex with me is like driving, I forgot where I was going." (I had a good one and I stepped forward and I literally forgot what I was gonna say, and then this came out which actually worked pretty well lol).
(Edit: OH! The first prompt was "It's not you, it's me" and then we'd say something with regard to a chosen category. Like, E said, for 'animals' category, roughly "It's not me, it's you, I can BEARly stand you")
After this game, we got back in circle for a bit of debrief, and for planning. I'm hoping we do some one-on-one improv next time, where we play out scenes a bit more. Other ideas were floated, and I'm not sure what C landed on.
Then it was time, we were done. Most of us stood around for the next 30 minutes, until the library actually closed, just chatting with eachother about who knows what. I talked with H about meditation and psychedelics. I talked with M about the gym, and M invited me to the Library's new monthly chess club. J talked about a maker-space they participate in. Oh! speaking of "they", there was actually one other enby there, and that made me happy.
I've never done formal improv before. One Bestie & I will improv sometimes on the phone - one of us answers doing a bit, and the other plays along. I played a short Pathfinder (D&D-ish) campaign and that was improvised role play. I've played imaginary with kids. I think those small bits of experience helped. But this was a whole nother level of improv and fun. The vibes with everybody were so good. And I can't wait for next time.
Next time, in the post-improv chit-chat, I want to be better about asking questions (I'm a yapper and M was asking me questions, and I was not doing well at returning the favor. H was also a yapper, less an asker, and so I didn't have the same concern with H). In the post-improv reflections, I want to be less focused on myself - I remember a lot of things I said/did, and much less of what other people did; I want to change that. During improv, I want to build off what my partner is doing (I did a fair bit this time, but I want to more!)
I was so nervous about going. I decided I would go when I saw the sign at the library last Wednesday. Several times, I had to talk myself out of skipping it bc I was nervous and shy about it. I can be bashful. Just, like, admitting that there's a thing I want to do and that I want to meet and hang out with other people is ... something I often feel insecure about. Huh. I think I'm often bashful about positive emotions. But that's a thought for another day.
2026-08-11 02:46:00
I've had conflicts with a couple friends recently who have approached the conflicts in ways I'm not very happy about. I've struggled a lot with how I felt about it. I've been angry, I've been defensive, and I've debated about how much I'm willing to tolerate, debated about where my boundaries lie.
And I've asked myself: What if they were kids?
It's a difficult question because they are not kids. It's difficult because I don't want to belittle them or put myself on a pedestal as "the only adult here". It's difficult because I love them & want to give them grace, but I also require respect in my friendships.
It's also difficult because I'm not a parent - I am an auncle. I've been temporary guardian. I've pissed the older kid off making them wake up from a day-nap, or enforcing bedtime, or i don't even remember what else. I'm also an older sibling, who was primary guardian to my sister for a short period. And boy, I pissed her off sometimes too. I've listened to the youngins vent about other relationships.
And part of it is, I don't want to take kids too seriously when they're upset. They can have really big feelings, feelings that are not proportional. They can be unreasonable. They aren't necessarily good at respecting boundaries. I care about how they feel, and want to navigate situations better if I can. I want to be respectful of their needs. But to some extent, as an adult with 34 years, lots of therapy, who's navigated difficult relationships ... we're just not on the same level - especially when the kid is upset.
And sometimes it feels that way with friends, particularly if those friends are upset.
And I know I'm not always on the same level as my higher self. I can have really intense emotional reactions, get really worked up, get really angry. I navigate that by venting to friends, reflecting, journaling, walking, processing, meditating, finding grace & forgiveness. Usually. I rarely ever bring that intense self to the person who is upsetting me.
So, there's this part of me that wants to approach conflicts with infinite grace and patience and understanding. And there's the part of me that is actually in the conflict, who needs to stand up for themselves and have boundaries.
And I just find myself asking: What if they were kids?
P.S. I have two friends who have really good communication skills and are emotionally mature, and when we have conflicts, it is remarkably refreshing how well the communication goes.
