Culture Spotlight: National Coffee Day!

Happy National Coffee Day!
This is a really quick article- it won't take up much of your time- I promise!
Coffee is the drug of choice for many people around the world, and quite a necessity for some people.
It's a unique culture for real lovers of it.
In celebration of this culture (which admittedly I am a part of) and to raise some awareness about its intricacies, let's list some interesting coffee trivia and tips:

• Coffee is the national drink of Ethiopia!
• Press is one of the best ways to make coffee on so many ways. (There are many types of press pots. Choose one that is convenient for you.)
• For stronger yet smoother tasting coffee, don't be afraid to use more coffee and less brew time.  The shorter the time the extracting medium (typically water or steam) is exposed to the beans, the greater the ratio of aromatic oils (the stuff we want) to the bitter-tasting parts of it.
• The darker the roast, the less the caffeine.
• A "stovetop espresso maker" is really a moka pot. Yes, it is still delicious.
• Espresso is a way to make coffee, not a type of roast.
• Espresso Rule of Thumb: For a single shot, use 7 grams of fine ground coffee (texture of table salt), which should yield about 1 to 1.5 fl oz of espresso in about 20 to 25 seconds.  For a double shot, use twice the coffee. To speed up the shot, use a coarser grind and/or less tamp pressure.  To slow it down, use a finer grind and/or more tamp pressure.
• For cold coffee drinks with less planning, try keeping making some ice cubes of espresso or black coffee to quickly cool down your coffee without watering it down.
• The amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee is extremely variable.  The generally used number is 55mg per cup, but the ballpark is rather large.
• It's a good idea to invest in a quality burr grinder. Consistently ground whole beans make a whole world of difference over pre-ground coffee.

Commonly used Terms:

• Press - Coarse ground beans are soaked in hot water (ideally around 180 degrees) for some time (typically 4-5 minutes).  Press is extremely effective at extracting aromatic oils and one of the preferred ways to make coffee.
• Cold Brew - Coarse ground beans are soaked in cold water for an extended period of time.  Very strong, but low on caffeine and less bitter.
• Espresso - Steam pushed through coffee beans to extract the aromatic oils. See espresso rule of thumb above.
• Demitasse - a 2-3 oz cup.  Literally means "half cup."
• Doppio/doubleshot: 2 oz of espresso.
• Steamed milk - To steam milk, put the steamer at the bottom of the milk cup until milk is hot.
• Froth - To froth, simply put the steamer close to the surface so it starts bubbling vigorously.
• Ristretto- Like Espresso, but with a shorter "pull" (about half the amount of water).  Extremely strong taste.

Common Coffee Drinks

• Americano - one part espresso to 6 parts hot water.  About the same strength as drip coffee, but sweeter and with a different aroma
• Cappuccino - equal parts espresso, steamed milk, frothed milk
• Cafe Latte (Latte for short) - 1 part espresso to 2 parts steamed milk
• Cafe Breve - 1 part espresso to 2 parts steamed half and half
• Cafe Macchiato - In a demitasse, use a single shot of Espresso and spoon just enough frothed milk on top to cover.

Hope you enjoy coffee in your own way.  Have you tried these ways?

• Guillermo - Pour a doubleshot over a few thin slices of lime.
• Affogato - Pour some espresso over gelato (similar to pouring coffee liqueur over ice cream)
• Medici - Put a tsp of chocolate syrup and orange zest in the bottom of a cup.  Add a doubleshot.
• Enjoy your coffee with some biscotti.
• Irish coffee is extremely easy to make at home or at a party: in a 6 oz cup, put 1-3 teaspoons of sugar, pour about 4 oz of hot coffee, give it a quick stir, then top it off with some whipped cream (no, not from a can, I mean cream that you have whipped). Drink responsibly!
• One little demonstration I would give to students is with a jar, some walnuts, and some peanuts.  First, I show them that if you try to put the peanuts in first and then the walnuts, it won't fit, but it works the other way around.  So I say, "You have to first put in the big and important things in your life first, then you can fit in the small things."  Then I ask, "Is there any room to put anything else in here?"  They usually say no.  Then I take some sand and pour it in there.  I ask again, "Now is there room for anything else in here?"  They will say no as well.  Then I take some coffee and pour it in.  Then I say, "This just comes to show you, no matter how full you think your life is, you always have room for coffee with a friend."

Invitation to Conversation: Addressing the Fringe Members of a Community

American society greatly values free speech, which leads to more extreme views being heard.  Of note this year are some incidents at the GOP debates (i.e. http://bit.ly/rg8HHd | http://bit.ly/pzn8oo).  I note that the conservative establishment in America  has been treating its more... fringe members (e.g. http://bit.ly/acglx) about the same way Lindy Hoppers treat their more... flamboyant members (e.g. http://bit.ly/q2Qj9r).
Like it or not, while these people are not representative of the larger community, they are still part of it.  If we should address them at all, how can we address them more proactively?

What does Pro-Choice mean anyways?

Admittedly this is a very difficult and divisive subject, and I hesitate to publish anything so one-sided, but ultimately, everything will be written with a point of view.  But are we so divided as we think?  I think we can all agree the status quo is unacceptable.  Currently, ONE IN FIVE pregnancies in America ends in abortion, and I think everyone wants to change this.  The disagreement lies in how.
That said, I believe these views summarize and reflect the general view of the pro-choice movement:

The fact that abortion exists in our society is simply a symptom of greater systemic problems in our system: The lack of effective resources regarding sexual health.

First, I think we need to teach kids what sex is and to treat it responsibly. Our approach of putting on blinders and using abstinence-only programs sets them up for failure.  Abstinence-only education not only produces people that have equal number of sexual partners as non-participants, but are more likely to engage in unprotected and unsafe sex.

Second, we need to invest far greater resources into family planning and sexual health resources. This can limit the greater stress on society posed by unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  Well-known fact: No federal dollars given to Planned Parenthood go towards abortion. Money given to sexual health resources like Planned Parenthood goes towards: reducing lost productivity by mothers and fathers, reducing stress on government resources like welfare (note that birth rates are inversely proportional to household income and most other socioeconomic status indicators), and most importantly, reducing abortions.  That's right, removing funding from Planned Parenthood might make some feel better, but that actually increases the risk factors for abortion.

That being said, outlawing abortion is not such a simple thing.  Just because you outlaw abortion doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Outlawing assault weapons doesn't stop assault weapons from being acquired or used (http://bit.ly/n1ANZj | http://bit.ly/pKom4w).  Outlawing speech doesn't prevent opinions from being expressed by other means (http://bit.ly/pqtu1E | http://bit.ly/ogZNvH).  Outlawing drugs doesn't stop drugs from being distributed- in fact, it actually builds an industry (http://bit.ly/rlS7qB | http://on.cfr.org/f5MVEP).  I'll say it again- outlawing abortion does not preclude its occurrence.  Don't get me wrong. I don't like abortion. I don't want it to happen. Nobody does.  It's a very difficult decision that should be made by the individual, and definitely not by the government. And if you want to stop abortion, pull it up by the roots.  Tell your congressman that you want comprehensive sexual education.  Tell your congressman you'd rather fund condoms and birth control over jails and welfare. That's how you stop abortion.

Bottom line: Society is not and will never be perfect. Cut and dry morals may work for the individual (with a lot of cognitive dissonance), and is for the individual to pursue. Government can only protect the rights of its citizens and for proponents of greater government control, take proactive measures to improve the quality of life for its citizens. These will not be perfect either, and many unpleasant decisions will have to be made.  However, those decisions should never be meant to be set in stone. Constant reforms must be implemented by a government to reflect lessons learned by an evolving society so that the government can adequately respond to the needs of its people.  These opinions and recommendations are made from the best of our current knowledge, and someday abortion will hopefully be unnecessary and obsolete.

Endogamy Within the Swing Dance Community

This article is going to be brief for now until I determine a better direction than the one I have been going in (circles).  I may either edit this to focus on that or make new posts to focus on those.  This is definitely still in draft form, but I’m publishing it to open it up for input since I was sitting on it for months.  You may see some of my thinking-aloud notes here: feel free to comment on them if you want to hear more or if you have your own opinion on it.

The swing dance culture is an ever-evolving one and shares quite a bit with organized religion.  It generally involves a knowledge of history, culture, famous historical and influential figures, etc.  It has all the workings of a church.  It even has scripture.

There is really no central authority (see Protestantism, but rather people tend to congregate around certain schools of thought.  People tend to idolize certain people, sometimes to the point of fanaticism, emulating them.
These are all important traits, but our main topic of focus is endogamy within the swing dancing community.
Generally, people who dance Lindy Hop either dabble in or fully embrace the culture.  What I am describing is the difference between two dancers who have been dancing for 5 years but one has acquired a substantially greater amount of skill and fluency than the other.

Interestingly, an immersed Lindy Hopper often feels the urge to share the joy of swing dancing with one who does not do so, or one who has been doing so for less time.  This form of evangelism fortunately seems to be more successful than most other kinds because it includes an activity that many people actually find enjoyable.

Now like it or not, one of the latent functions of a church is to marry its members.  Yes, I am saying that a church functions as a singles group, and I touched on it in my last post  It is easy to see how this function evolved.  Put people with similar values together- sparks are bound to fly.  Lindy Hop is the same way.  Don’t believe me?  I have proof,* with special guest who I won't spoil if you haven't heard it yet.

===partnerships===
To compete effectively, dancers invariable find a partners to practice with or compete with.  This may not necessarily be a platonic relationship.  However, romantic relationships and dance partnerships can be entwined quite quickly.  One can easily see many examples* of where dance partnerships and romantic relationships coincide- it is an extremely beneficial relationship.  As romantic partners, the pair spends a lot of time together which is conducive to practice, and as practice partners, the pair spends a lot of time together practicing which is good for the romantic relationship.
However, sometimes one or both members are already engaged in romantic relationships with a third (or sometimes fourth party).  This is a definite area of conflict, and I know of several examples* where people divorced over a difference in the prioritization of dancing.
A story I often hear* is that one person started dancing because his or her significant other did, and one of them stopped.

//talk about conflict of values

===the ahnold effect====
//Probably a topic for another post.
In our current society, powerful men tend to become sexually promiscuous (if they weren’t already).  Or as to use a crude word, they tend to be pigs.  This holds true in the dance community as well.


===funny quote for the conclusion===
With that, I will leave you with this article giving an extremely accurate and disinterested account of the man-woman relationship during dancing.
From The Ballroom To Hell, by T. A. Faulkner, 1892
"She is now in the vile embrace of the Apollo of the evening. Her head rests upon his shoulder, her face is upturned to his, her bare arm is almost around his neck, her partly nude swelling breast heaves tumultuously against his, face to face they whirl on, his limbs interwoven with hers, his strong right arm around her yielding form, he presses her to him until every curve in the contour of her body thrills with the amorous contact. Her eyes look into his, but she sees nothing; the soft music fills the room, but she hears it not; he bends her body to and fro, but she knows it not; his hot breath, tainted with strong drink, is on her hair and cheek, his lips almost fierce, intolerable lust, gloat over her, yet she does not quail. She is filled with the rapture of sin in its intensity; her spirit is inflamed with passion and lust is gratified in thought. With the last low wail the music ceases, and the dance for the night is ended, but not the evil work of the night."

*yes, I know, anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for statistical evidence, but there is virtually zero research done on this subculture


======Other side notes====
Yes, I know this subject is extremely monogamy/heterosexual-centric and doesn’t talk about poly relationships and homosexual/bisexual people.  Yes, I know they exist in the dance scene and no, I’m not sure how representative it is.

Religion, Part 1

Religion is such a critical topic I wish to start off addressing it.  I understand this may seem like a bad idea to start off on as it is an extremely touchy subject- one that people should avoid in day to day conversation.  However, it is extremely important to us- especially of our country nonetheless.  In fact, at the time of this writing, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a report that 83% of Americans subscribe to organized religion.  I bring up this topic not because I mean to espouse or detract from religion, but that I wish to describe its social structures and why they were created, and how they are present in similar social structures.  For the sake of brevity and to minimize the chance of mistakes, I will use examples from the religions I am most familiar with.

Religions are far more complex systems than merely a belief.  Religious socialization endows a set of values, morals, and code of conduct onto its members.  One may argue that these rules are very burdensome, but in cases like nomadic Israel, all the rules that Mosaic law imposed upon the people were critical to their survival.
One example that comes up (at least in my life frequently) is kosher food.  It seems to be quite troublesome to follow such strict diet regulations, but take a look at the clean and unclean rules that the Israelites had regarding animals.  A brief look would reveal that in general, only herbivores were eaten, which minimizes the chance that the animals would consume other unclean things.  Scavengers like pigs and birds of prey were expressly forbidden (and are also considered haraam in Islamic law). Hopefully, I need not elaborate on the benefits of abstaining from such food in those days.  One can argue also that not eating pork, shellfish, and such can also lead to less risk of food allergies, as well as lower cholesterol and fat, something we care about more these days than at that time (probably for the reason that we are eating them!).  Such rules like these assist in the physical survival of the group but there were also some codified standards of behavior and that minimized strife within the group. I could explain this much further, but perhaps for another time.
Not only must a religion have these codes to maintain cohesion and identity, a religion must contend with intersecting cultures.  A religion must be able to redefine itself to be relevant in the face of majority groups, or it may be rejected in favor of new value systems.

This brings us to our next discussion: Many religions have codes regarding endogamy, or the selection of mates within a group. The principal benefit of endogamy to a religion is the creation of further and deeper ties in the group, particularly with that of sacraments and customs associated with mate selection. I believe the codifying of this value is almost moot point, but a value beneficial to the religion nonetheless.  Let me explain.  First, I will concede that by the codifying the choice of partners within the group, additional moral feedback can be given by other members in the group, thus presenting additional barriers to departure from the group. In other words, having this manifest rule stigmatizes the behavior of intermarriage outside of the religious group, garnering criticism from peers, and thus discouraging the behavior.
That aside, if the pursuit of religion occupies a significant portion of one's life, it is difficult to depart from the lifestyle one is accustomed to.  If there was conflict between their religion and their partner(s), ultimately a decision must be made, and the goats are parted from the lambs, so to speak.  One who is not firmly rooted within that lifestyle will leave for another.  Take for example, according to US census data, from 1945 to 1995, the intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews increased from 1 in 10 to 1 in 2, and the percentage of Jews in America has dropped from 4 to 2%.  This should be no surprise to anyone: the melting pot in this instance means the erosion of the Jewish culture by assimilation into our modern day cultures.  In this light, we should marvel that that we can even find this culture thousands of years later- a testament to the incredible power of religion as a cultural preservation mechanism.

In Part 2, we will discuss modern day social phenomena with great resemblances to religious cultures.

A brief start: Redefining the Golden Rule

I just want to start off with something very simple.  If you ask someone what the golden rule is, you frequently hear something that equates to reciprocity.


This would be a good rule to follow for someone within the same culture and context, but surely we of the 21st century, belonging to a myriad of these cultures and contexts, realize that even such a general rule does not have all the answers.  The golden rule is not something so simple as tit for tat.
To use a very, very simple example: If I was served a juicy ribeye steak, I would think consider this to be a marvelous gesture. If I invited a vegetarian over for dinner, would I therefore offer a ribeye?
This may seem so cut and dry, but surely a host has mistakenly cooked a steak for a vegetarian.
What is one to do in this scenario?  This crash of multiple microcosms: One person has conflicting role of being a chef and a host.  Another has found that the roles being a guest and being a vegetarian have come in conflict.
They could both feel insulted.  They could feel they have injuries against each other that deserve reparation.  But reparations paid for sleights do not change history or correct, but merely appease.
Or they can look at things another way.  Rather than view these things as injury or insult, they can seek understand the motivations of the other's behavior.  The host was merely trying to serve the best food to his or her knowledge.  The guest cannot accept the host's gift because he or she cannot consume meat.  In such a light, these minor things are not sleights, but misunderstandings.  Misunderstandings can be clarified, and what would have been reparations proposed by another party are instead synergistic solutions built by both parties. With better understanding, better relationships can be built.
I posit then that the golden rule is in fact empathy, or to understand another.


In the course of this blog, we will surely encounter subcultures we are not familiar with. When I (or other people) write these posts, I have a targeted audience in mind.  I write with the vocabulary and the language of that audience.  But the audience I net is a little harder to predict.  I can try my best to anticipate this, but when someone outside of my targeted audience reads this, they can see things in a different context from what I intended.  Surely some may also voice their disagreement. In any of these cases, I thank you for taking the time to read my views, and I hope I can learn much from understanding your unique perspectives.