Lightrail, Books & Mesa

I live in Mesa, Arizona. According to Wikipedia, it is the 38th most populous city in The United States, with 452,933 citizens (compared with neighboring Phoenix, which comes in at #5 on the list with just over 1.5 million citizens). That’s Mesa’s ranking out of 262 cities, with the extremes being New York with more than 8.2 million and Palm Bay, Florida with 100,116. So that’s a pretty respectable amount of people, right?

Well, our 452,933 citizens are spread out over 133 square miles, creating a rather small population density of only 3,171 people per square mile. Compare that to my originating hometown of Anaheim, California. While ranked at #55 with 333,249 citizens, it has a density of 6,708 people per square mile, while having only 50 square miles in total land. Much more dense than Mesa, right?

What’s the point of all of this? I like cities. And theoretically – I live in one of the nation’s largest. Why doesn’t it feel like it? There is something about city life that I love – and something I relatively can’t stand about spread apart, brand-spankin’ new suburban communities. To that end, I enjoy doing things that make me feel as if I live in an actual city.

All of that to say – I got a library card today. I haven’t had one in years; I’ve been locked into the mind-numbing trap of driving down to Barnes & Noble at Tempe Marketplace, or Borders at Superstition Springs, to buy a new book. Of course, those places have their advantages – I can buy a book, hang out and drink coffee, and use the (usually) free wifi – plus they are great people-watching places. But (this may seem weird coming from an author) I’m a little over buying books that I read once or twice and then stick on the bookshelf. I don’t mean fiction books like the works of Eggers and Hemingway – those I’ll gladly buy and display on my shelf for years on end – I mean books on fairly topical things like business, networking, marketing, et cetera.

After weeks of procrastinating on the whole library scene, I took advantage of the dreary afternoon and spent some time at the library hunting these books. Free library card. Free book rental. I rented eight books today – for free! And I have them until the 4th! Plus, there was something right about the library – two floors filled with business people to the homeless, something authentic. I felt, again, like I was in a real city.

One thing I’m also quite looking forward to that helps to evoke the city-mindset is the opening of the Light Rail in a couple weeks. Reading about it on handy sites like these have built up my excitement even more – I’m going to, at least twice a week, take the new express bus from my house directly to the Light Rail station on Dobson, transfer, and then rail it up clear to downtown, where I will enjoy the amazing cappucinno’s and free wifi of Lux Coffeeshop. And what, in my mind, will make that even better? Rainy days, clouds, and warm jackets.

I’m still working on finding some redeeming factors of this city though for the summertime … if you have any ideas, drop me a line.

New Year, New Look

So I spent some time today putting together some elements I’ve been working on and off with for the past week … we’ll call this “Phase 1.”

Some of the new enchancements around Sharoute.com:

1) New Sidebar Featuring a new welcome note, comments, and all that fun stuff. I seem to have lost my Clustermap in the transition and their site won’t recognize me for some reason. I’ll have to work on that. 

2) New Banner The new layout comes a new header image … a composite of five pictures that represent me fairly well. They are, in order: 1) a picture of the Sun Wheel at night from Disney’s California Adventure; 2) a pic I took last February in San Francisco with Justin at the Palace of Fine Arts, 3) A pen and paper, 4) the Haroyyken 48 Hostel in Tel Aviv, Israel that Jamie, David, and myself stayed at, and 5) an overview of the City of Phoenix. 

3) New Links Links going to my other projects (Will’s California Guidebook, Social Network Publishing, MyEditNow.com, and Cover It With Gravy), along with links to follow me on social networking sites Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace. 

4) New Pages These include a new and enlarged ‘About Will’ page, Contact, and a page dedicated to my newest book, “Dear World – A Novel.” Also included a page for my writing and editing services. 

5) It’s Snowing! A happy bit of holiday fun, thanks to a new WordPress widget!

“Dear World – A Novel” by WJNM Now Available!

 

Dear World – A Novel is the fictional story of Marc, a 21-year old Orange County resident who is struggling to come to terms with his Christian faith and realization of his own homosexuality. Emotions and tensions in his life have reached a breaking point; it has become too much to continue internalizing the stress and pain of such a dichotomy.

To reach out for someone – anyone – to vent to, Marc begins a flow-of-consciousness blog where he lets anonymous, and sometimes not so anonymous, readers see into his pain for purposes not rooted in self-pity, but rather in a desire to have a sounding board coupled with a venue for others who might feel the same. Perhaps, if he does feel all hope is lost for him, at least others can gain some insight and he can help those who secretly struggle not with “sin,” but with the hurt and loneliness oft inflected by a supposed “caring” world.

The e-book, in an effort to get it to as many people as possible, is free to download (the link is below). If, however, you wish to donate to the author’s funds, before or after reading the book, you may do so at the link below. All funds go to the author, with a percentage retained to continue the art and work of Social Network Publishing; any amount is appreciated.

“Dear World – A Novel” by William J. Nash-McAdam

Please make your donation via PayPal to info@socialnetworkpublishing.com…thank you!

 

Hacking Knowledge

Taking a web surfing break today, I came across a link to this article describing “77 ways to learn faster, better, and deeper.” Take a look … there’s some good info here, beyond just the basics.

HT: Matt Mullenweg

To Writers & Artists: Coffee?

I would like to begin a weekly meet-up, over coffee or such, of writers and artists in the Phoenix areas. We could meet in our homes or at a coffee shop. We can enjoy mocha lattes, chair, red wine, or Stella Artois. The purpose of the group would be to discuss, critique, encourage, or think. Would anyone out there be interested? If so, leave a comment or email me at jeff.nash@gmail.com and we’ll work out the details from there.

A Public Invitation

On his website, 4Simpsons Blog, I have been having a rather intense debate with Neil Simpson, a conservative Christian, on the issue of marriage. Neil first came to me and posted a comment on my blog inviting my readers to check out his blog that was in general protest of some of the content of the Jack Black Proposition 8 Video. I previously posted. Both sides of this argument have integrated personal attacks, which have solved nothing, and I apologized to him for my end of this. 

However, in the interest of debate, I have asked him (and the at-large conservative Christian community) to provide a few bits of information as it relates to their protest of gay marriage and clinging to Levitical Law on this one issue. I feel as if he has continually dodged these questions at worse, or mishandled them at best. Tiring of a circular argument, he has told me he will be moderating my posts. That’s fine, it’s his blog and I respect that. But to that end, I offered him one last chance to directly address my quest for answers. In an effort to keep the conversation moving and to avoid my quest for answers being ended by hitting the ‘delete’ button (by a man who claims to have these answers) my last comment to him was a request to directly answer my questions with applicable scripture references, while informing him that I would be posting this request, and links back to his site, on my blog. If he can do this, I will publically admit I am wrong. If he can’t, or refuses, then my claims about him and the Christian Right will have been validated. Let’s see. 

My last comment on his post: 

Neil, I too, am growing weary of you avoiding the facts in many of posts… My original post to you was informing you that my copy of Strong’s Concordance refers to ‘abomination’ being the same word (and same meaning) in the Hebrew … a direct conflict of what you stated in your original post. I asked you to provide the reference you were using, you have not done this. In numerous posts, I have asked you to tell me exactly where in the Bible marriage is defined as you claim it to be. I told you I knew of some examples of unions in the Bible being this way. What you and your friend provided were examples. But examples are not definitions. My most recent post on my blog uses websters to define ‘definition’ and ‘example.’ They are not the same. You have not done this. You claim, in your second to most recent response, that I will see this definition if I read further. So here, I am sincerely asking for your help – so me the definition (again, not example) of where Christ says this, and I will happily post a comment here and a post on my blog announcing that I was wrong. This isn’t a challenge, this is a sincere request for assistance – I do not want to be a person who does the opposite of what I’m accusing you of: claiming that something is not in the Bible when it is. Can you do me this one favor? I am fearful that in your most recent response, you are illogical again: “Jesus is God and Leviticus is his word.” Jesus claims to have come to abolish the law, does He not? So how is applying (in this day and age) the rules of Levitical law to Christians even at all relevant? The whole word-origin issue of “abomination” aside, why would Christians even attempt to discuss Levitical law when Christ came to abolish it? Please advise. In addition, Levitical Law does advise of many other things (pointing out that the video says “The Bible says alot of things” was one of your beefs, if I recall). Say that you’re right and the word “abomination” around the shellfish argument does not mean what we mean it to mean. You want to apply the verse regarding men laying with men, but what about the other Levitical verses about being unclean after men’s semen ejaculations? About women’s menstruation cycles? Sincerely, I am in all seriousness asking you … do you apply this to your life? If not, why? Do you feel that modern hygenics has overruled the scriptures? How do you feel that this relates to Jack Black’s claim that Christians “pick and choose” what they want to believe from Levitical Law? These are all honest, sincere questions, not sarcasm or personal attacks. I do invite you to my blog to engage in discussion when I post religious-oriented content. To that end, I do acknowledge that I have been harsh with the personal attacks and I apologize for any offense. I invite you to my site and offer the apology in hopes that we can continue this discussion and have future discussions … it is clear we will not agree on many things, but that is the purpose of discussion, to work things out, no? The only conditions of this (and your response, even on your own blog) is that you, too, will avoid the personal attacks or any semblance of them, as I will. If you are up for this, please directly (not indirectly) response to my questions with definitions and the requested scripture references. If not, then you can choose to delete this comment, obviously, and you will have to forgive me if at that point I lose any respect for you or your word. Regardless of the outcome, I will be posting this response as a new post on my blog with a link back to your site and this post. This is your chance to prove me wrong and validate your claims in a fashion where we both act mature and logical … are you up for it? 

And it begins.

Defining Marriage As One Man and One Woman: Biblical?

For the last day or so, I’ve been involved in a discussion with an evangelical Christian gentleman, Neil, regarding this post (read the comments for the full debate). The debate has turned into a discussion about what many Christians say: “The Bible clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman.” This is oft used in protests of homosexuals, and as it pertains to our discussion, the passing of California’s Prop 8 legislation. Putting aside the emotions and numerous side-debates that this discussion can produce, I am after one claim: Does the Bible define marriage in this way? I want to know, because many Christians outright claim that the Bible clearly defines this. 

My argument is this: While the Bible most certainly provides examples of a union between one man and one woman, the Bible does not clearly “define” marriage in this sense. To be clear, I would have NO issue with people saying that “the Bible provides examples of unions between one man and one woman. That would be legit to say. My biggest issue is with Christians misquoting the Bible on ANY subject. And since many Christians have a desire to get technical when opposing combating viewpoints, fine, let’s get technical:

The verses that Christians have pointed out to me are these two passages, one from Genesis and one from Christ himself: 

Genesis 2:23-25 (from blueletterbible.com)

“And Adam said, this now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Matthew 19:4-6 (same source):

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore hath God joined together, let not man put asunder.” 

So this is an example of a union, both physical and spirtual, of man and women. This is a beautiful passage. However, where in this passage does it say “Marriage is between one man and one woman exlusively”? It does not. Now, emotions aside, let me state the following: In this post, I am not making the claim that God approves of gay marriage, I’m not making the claim that it was designed to be that way. I am making the claim that Christians are purposely misrepresenting the Bible and the words of Christ by citing this passage to say somethng it does not. 

These passages are beautiful examples, but are not definitions of the topic at hand (if you want to get technical, the topic at hand in the second passage was divorce). If Christians want to claim to what IS in this passage, they should (with equal or greater passion) claim that any man that does NOT leave “father and mother” and marry is sinning against the Lord. Still single? That could be, if you wanted, a case for not doing God’s will. 

So while I do appreciate Neil and the others for attempting to use the Bible as a reference, I fail to see how it clearly defines marriage. At best, it provides an example. 

Let’s turn to Websters, and examine the difference between the words “definition” and “example.” 

The definition of, um, definition: 

“1. The act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.”

The definition of example: 

“1. One of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole; an instance serving for illustration.” 

Providing the example of a union in the Bible is not the same thing as defining exactly what that union is. Let’s look at other, um, examples, of what the difference is between definition and example:

Definition of Worship:

“1. The reverant honor or homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.”

Examples of worship: 

1. Bowing in prayer at a Luthern church.
2. Taking communion at a Baptist church.
3. Native Americans dancing in honor of a spirit. 
4. Wiccans casting a circle to thank the earth at Harvest moon.

Definition of work:

“1. Exertion or effort dedicated to produce or accomplish something; labor, toil.”

Examples of work:

1. Laboring in construction in the hot Arizona day to build a house.
2. Acting as a server at a restaurant. 
3. Making telemarketing calls to sell a product or service.
4. Me sitting at a coffee shop doing copywriting. 

There are some people, usually narrow-minded individuals, who claim that you aren’t “really worshipping” unless you attend a church of an organized religion; house churches and individual Bible study don’t count. There are some people who claim that you aren’t “doing real work” unless it’s back-breaking and sweat-inducing. Sitting at a coffee house typing doesn’t count. To that end, there are some people whom claim that “real marriage” is only between a man and a woman. Gay marriage doesn’t count. 

You know what? If any of these people believe any of these things, that’s just fine with me. But just because their personal viewpoint doesn’t hold it as valid doesn’t mean that it is so. My friend Brandon works as a web and software developer; I consider his day of work at the office and in meetings to be just as valid as the day of work that my friend Steve, who works construction, puts in. I am not claiming everything to be relative, but I am claiming that examples fit into the broader catagory of definitions, regardless of your personal preference. 

Again, I am not claiming that my view is supreme, I am not claiming that gay marriage is approved by God, I am not trying to convert anyone to my viewpoints. I am merely stating that is dangerous and incorrect to state something as clearly defined fact when it is not a clearly defined fact. When only examples are provided, you cannot deduce a logical, all-inclusive definition from the examples. 

There are many other facets of this to discuss, such as the separation of church and state – and religious freedom – that this country was founded on. We could discuss the idea that many literal-interpretation believers like to hit people over the head for not recognizing the authority of the Bible or God when, in reality, these people never claimed to subscribe to that authority. Criticizing someone who does not believe exactly like you do – and who never even claimed to subscribe to those same beliefs – would be the same as getting angry at some random dude on the street because he doesn’t know how to perform brain surgery, when in fact he never claimed to have this knowledge. I do have faith, but I take a very logical approach to that faith, and I realize that there is some room for error and interpretation, especially in a text that’s been handled by hundreds of special-interest groups over the last 2,000 years and interpreted by said groups many times. That’s why they call it faith – if everything about it was provable and logical and written outright with exact definitions, it wouldn’t be “faith.” It would be called “science.” If you are a believer, you have to work on how you view that faith and come to your own conclusions on it – and while you may hold truly to what conclusions you’ve come to (and I hope you do), you still have to recognize that this faith contains variables, and you can’t argue logic and absolutes when accompanied only by examples, ideas, and interpretations as your backbone defense.

Progress

As stated before, there is a good deal of things changing around in my life now that I’m not at the ole 9-5′er. I’m taking advantage of some of this time – or most of this time, really – to really begin hammering out some projects I’ve had floating in my head for some time. It feels good. I’m not nearly at the point I want to be at, but I am envisioning myself at that point and am making the foundational steps to reach that point. The long-term goals are always sharply in conflict with the short-term needs (doing enough actual work to pay the bills), but I was fortunate enough to make it all work in November and am aiming to do so again in December. It’s a bit of an uphill battle with the economy in a spiral and the coupling with the holidays, but it makes it more fun, too. Plus, I am confident that if I can make a couple start-ups and ideas work in this challenging time, I will have made it through the biggest hurdle. I have also been fortunate enough to be able to recruit the services of a couple of close friends to fill in the gaps to the areas I lack. Again, not everything off the bat is exactly where I want it, but most things will be much better than if I was going at it solo. 

To that end, if you actually visit the blog rather than gather updates through a non-display reader, you will have noticed a couple of things. I have reworked the blog quite a bit, but this is not finished. I have taken down the “current projects” and other pages for now so that I may put up new information that is actually relevant to my current work. To that end, there are a few projects I’ve had in the past that I’ve been asked about, and here are the updates on them: 

Project Forever: I started Project Forever Artists Collective in 2005, mostly as a publishing platform for my first book “Churches, Pubs and Hostels.” It went through various uses, the most recent of which was an abandoned social networking concept that was going to be tied into some of my other upcoming projects. Rather than bite off too much than I can chew and venture too far into areas I wasn’t familiar with, the social networking side of it will be closed down next week. Project Forever will remain, but not as a small independent publisher nor as an artist collective; it will be in name only. It has become the umbrella organization name for which everything else will fall under. I toyed with this and with WJNM Enterprises, but that one never did settle with me too well. 

The Vagrant Literary Quarterly: The second-generation cousin to the never-launched concept of 2005’s Project Forever 101 Quarterly, The Vagrant has now been abandoned. It survived two issues. It was a good concept, we got great stories and some modest sales, but it was really just too much for me to handle at that point in time. During the two issues, I had three assistant editors, none of whom ended up working out. The goal, a year from now, is to have a small staff at Project Forever, and maybe this is an idea that can be revisited in the future. But it will not be called The Vagrant. 

BraveOrbit: A book I was working on, previously listed in my “Current Projects” section. This was being worked on with a gentleman who kept a diary as he backpacked the world, and was to be published through Project Forever. Creative differences. 

Unnamed History Book for Children: A collection of over 100 histories on world landmarks, being written in conjunction with San Diego-based Paper Models, Inc. Still in the works, just delayed. Getting this out will be my next book focus after the launch of “Dear World.” 

Avenue of the Giants / Peace and Destruction from the Ramparts at Damascus Gate: This book has been picked up by a major publisher, but has been pushed back due to the economy. I was one of three books to be published from this company in January, with the other two being books by celebrities. Sounds cool, right? Economic downturn happened – two of us were able to keep delayed contracts, one got booted. I still consider myself lucky not to have been the one booted. 

Now, all of the future projects I have, which I’ll be discussing in the next few weeks, are things I can handle. They are things I am passionate about, excited about, and will be working on with a team. This is exciting.

Barack Obama and His Birth Certificate: Evidence Enough?

According to CNN’s “American Morning” this morning, the US Supreme Cout today will decide whether or not to hear a case. What’s so signifcant about that? The case is being brought on by a small sect of the Republican party and is challenging if President-Elect Barrack is really an American citizen. <sigh>

The issue is not a question if he was born in The United States or not – the Obama camp long ago turned over his birth certificate – it was even shown on CNN. He was clearly born in Hawaii on August 8th, 1961. So no questions there. The issue at hand is the fact that the GOP is taking advantage of a small bit of haze in the Constitution. This founding document states that in order to be President one must be a “natural born citizen.” The only issue is that it does not define to a specific state what a “natural born citizen” is. 

Here’s where Obama comes into play: even though his mother was American and he was born on United States soil, his father was Kenyan. At the time, Kenya was a mandate of Britain. This makes his father a British citizen. Under British law, any son (born anywhere) to a British citizen is automatically granted British citizenship at birth until the age of 24; at that age, the individual has the option to renewal his citizenship or permantly lose it. So, while Barrack Obama was clearly born a US Citizen, he was also clearly born a British Citizen. According to the lawsuit, those born with the birthright (if you will) of dual citizenship are most deffinitly should be excluded from the term “natural born citizen” since they are actually “natural born dual citizens.” Not lying. 

The GOP fails to mention, however, that President-Elect Obama voluntarily chose to resign his British citizenship at 24 and retain only his American citizenship. 

Now, I really am curious what the main goal of those bringing the lawsuit is. Did the Democrats file a huge lawsuit in 2000 when GOP canidate George W. Bush became president – when he was clearly not the actual winner? No. Barrack was very clearly the winner against Senator John McCain this year – it couldn’t have been any clearer even if Obama was running against a blind pack mule. So what is the end goal, exactly?

I doubt it is to have Vice President-Elect Biden take up the main seat – he’s a Democrat. 

I doubt it is to have a second run-off election (please God, no) because the other obvious contender to Senator McCain (assuming Obama was disqualified) would be Senator Clinton – and you know she would wipe the floor with the man (that would be quite ammusing to see, under different circumstances of course). 

There is no way in hell that a disqualification of Obama would result in an automatic promotion of John McCain to the Oval Office – he was the clear loser. Besides – he wasn’t even born in the States; he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Classified as U.S. soil or not – that seems like a much bigger argument than the one about Obama if the GOP really wants to take to task the issue of birthing conditions).  

Some “patriotic” Americans may ignorantly stand-by the claim that he’s not a real American citizen (when the facts show otherwise, very obviously), but when you think about it, there is no clearer motivation than race. What other motivation is there at this point? If you were to look at me and say, “It’s not a matter of race – we just want to make sure the person in office is a real American citizen!”

Well, he is. Check out this story on PolitiFact about it, complete with a picture of the certificate itself. 

Point is, you have the evidence in front of you. If at that point you can’t accept that he’s an American, then I will hotly fill you full of my own invented falacies – I will aruge with you that Walt Disney World is located in Sandusky, Ohio; I will convince you that the World Trade Center is still standing; I will convince you that James Earl Jones is a white Southern Baptist preacher man. No matter how much evidence you try to throw at me, I will convince you otherwise – I will find something to argue against. Trust me, I’m a writer, I can do it. My dispaly of ignorance on these issues will be as great as yours. 

While I have written a good deal on this blog in the last month about our President-Elect, the point of today’s post really isn’t about me defending him and his policies. It’s merely about combating ignorance. Those who know me are aware of the fact that I can’t stand stupid people. Hey, if you’re misinformed or simply mistaken or unaware, that’s cool – let’s talk; I hope somone would do the same for me. But being misinformed is not the same as being ignorant and close-minded; those are the sorts of people who can try to craft what they think is a witty and compelling argument based off of pure emotions and their personal absorbtion and subsequent personification and ownership of outright lies. Throw a little itchin’ for a good-ole-fashion lynchin’ in there too, while you’re at it. Whitey. 

I will conclude with an actual conversation I had a few days ago with an individual at a local coffee shop: 

Them: “They call it The White House for a reason!”

Me: “You do know that slaves actually built The White House, right?”

Them: “Well that should be the only thing their kind has to do with it!”

Busy

Now that the children of the corn have left the coffee shop, my headache seems to have left with them. Or maybe it’s the ultra-grassy green tea I’m drinking? Either way, things have been busy. For those who don’t know, I no longer have a steady, 7-4 cubicle or barista-type job. I am a fulltime freelance writer and editor, working (for the most part) from home. Two common misconceptions I have encountered regarding this:

“Wow! You’re living the dream now!” Hmmm, as with most things, that phrase and its application relies on relativism. What do you consider ‘the dream’? If you’re living in India, perhaps, working as a slave writing 4,000-word articles for $2 US Dollars apiece and dreaming of staying at home and writing significantly shorter articles for significantly more while enjoying a glass of wine or a cup of Starbucks, surrounded by bull dogs, then yes, I am living the dream. If your definition, however, is sleeping in everyday, working a few hours, going for hikes, going out every night, and traveling the globe because you’re now a “writer,” no … not so much. I work longer and harder now than I ever have before; and this is coupled with the stress of usually having to find and negotiate for your work (and thus your paycheck). You can’t just show up and merely exist in a cubicle. 

“Are you now enjoying all the free time you have?”/”What are you doing with all of your time off of work?” Again – I’m not “off work” nor excessively loaded with free time. I am working. Believe me, if I was independently wealthy (writer does not equal independently wealthy) and had loads of free time, I sure as hell wouldn’t be bumming around Phoenix when I didn’t have to be. And I do frequent coffee houses, sometimes bars, sometimes random libraries, but I do this because I need to get out of the house. All of these places have free wireless internet. Due to the nature of my job, I need free wireless internet. I have it at my house, but I have learned that I have to exit the house on occassion, otherwise I begin personifying the dogs and I have mental wars with them. 

Nothing would make me happier than to write a book or a screenplay and get paid large amounts of cash for it. In fact, I have already done that – but due to the economical situation at hand, Big Publisher in New York is holding off at the moment. Lucky me. So hopefully my manuscript is being held down with a really really nice paperweight at their office in the Empire State Building. 

So for the meantime, for the numerous people who have said that they are “jealous” of my current lifestyle, or those obsessed with the idea that I’m a bad friend because I’m not always at their house – this is why. I’m at work. But all perceived complaining aside – I do love what I do, and I actually wake up everyday excited to begin working. I am done with the corporate scene – if I take another regular job – it will be doing what I love to do. And even that will have to be a pretty sweet offer; you would have no idea how fucking sweet it is to work when I want to and have all of this free time on my hands that I’m not spending in the car. And I love not having a job.