Peace of the Pie

In June 2010, I quit my job so I could bike around Europe for the summer. I planned to return to San Francisco in September. 'Sure the economy's rough,' I figured, 'but I'll find something.'

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Meet the peeps

Last week was Technical Week, which was every bit as tedious as it sounds. So I’m not going to waste too much precious blog space talking about it. A quick recap: we spent a lot of our time preparing and facilitating a meeting at the local coffee cooperative. The volunteer who lives there permanently has worked with the cooperative to develop vision and mission statements, and to formulate a business plan. It all seemed terrifically boring; hopefully I won’t end up doing the same sort of thing. The best thing about this week was getting to see again all the people we were separated from during Cultural Week the week before. It was strange to realize that after only a few weeks, I could miss these people. On that corny note, here a few of my best friends so far.

Fred AKA ‘Pájero Loco’

Fred might be the most well-known gringo in town, and that is due almost entirely to his infamous pájero loco (crazy bird) call. It’s impossible to replicate here, something like ah-AHH!!, but Fred’s expression while making this call gives you a pretty good idea. Here in the photo he is doing just that, as him and I had just climbed a tree. Every kid in town has their own, usually frighteningly bad, version of the pájero loco that greets Fred wherever he goes. Our personalities are damn near opposite, especially in terms of the introvert/extrovert scale, but we’ve become close friends. Like all friendships to some extent I guess, ours is one partly of coincidence. Fred lives just a few minutes down the hill from me, we’re in the same section, and we had all our language classes together.

Mo

Mo, seen here swinging wildly inaccurately at a piñata, is probably my best friend here. Like Fred, she ended up living relatively close by and was in our small language class. Now we’re the only two learning Ngabe, so I think we’re officially sick of each other. Since we will both be living in Ngabe sites, we were the only two that lived with Ngabe families in Las Nubes, and even though her situation wasn’t as extreme as mine, it was nice to have someone with whom to commiserate. Mo grew up on the Virgin Islands, so even though she is just as white as they come, she can quickly turn into ‘Island Mo,’ replete with neck-rolling attitude and a slanted form of English called ‘patwa.’

Elizabeth AKA ‘Hones’

Elizabeth, on the left in the picture, is my Northwest homie, originally from Portland. Her family pronounces her last name, Jones, ‘Hones,’ which is where her nickname comes from. She’s a Frisbee badass, and a badass in general. She lives just down the hill and is definitely one of the nicest people I know.

Dave AKA ‘Jersey Dave’

Dave, seen here about to die from putting too many marshmallows in his mouth at the same time, lost that particular game of ‘chubby bunny.’ Dave, despite his insistence that he doesn’t care if no one likes him, is the heart of our group. He refers to himself in the third person as ‘dudes,’ which is really obnoxious, but Dave is nothing if not obnoxious. And he can do Gob’s chicken dance amazingly well.

Stacey AKA ‘Rube’

In Spanish, ‘rubia’ means blonde, and even though Stacey dyed and cut her long, blonde, Southern California locks before Peace Corps, she can’t escape her rubianess, so she’s the Rube. She does and says so pretty dumb stuff, and, as per the requirement of living close to LA, cares about some really dumb stuff, but at heart she’s a nice person. This picture was taken at Las Lajas, where we spent our free day after Technical Week. The water was dirty, but it was beautiful.

Colin AKA ‘Modern Savage’

Colin is the only person from the other section (environment) with whom I am pretty close. I like most everybody in other group, in fact my closest volunteer in Cerro Iglesias is going to be a girl from that group, but we rarely get a chance to see them unfortunately. Colin’s nickname fits him to a t, as he is probably the most rugged volunteer in our group. Him and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, like reasons for being vegetarian and who would win in a battle between an elephant, a bear and a tiger (a tiger of course).

9 Comments:

  • At 8:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Wow. Who knew Peace Corps volunteers could be so attractive? You'd think that do-gooding was one of those things that ugly people try in pursuit of "inner beauty"... can't say I blame those poor bastards, tho. but that's neither here nor there... can you snag that LA bimbo's number for me? ... what's Ngabe for "creepy"?
    Oh, and great picture of Mo... everyone else gets a head shot and she gets the backside 100 meter dash? Did you take this picture from a goddamn tree while you "bird calling"? Piss poor.

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    uhhh...Zeke, actually, tigers do kill elephants, albeit infrequently...

    http://www.answers.com/topic/bengal-tiger

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    First of all "uncle steve", if that is your real name, how do you know my name is zeke? you assume (!!) ezekiel and this person you call zeke are infact, the same person... and we all know what happens when you assume.

    Irregardlessly. Secondly.

    "Typically, tigers do not prey on adult elephants or rhinos but at least one such case has been documented where the WWF is taking care of an orphaned rhino whose mother was killed by a tiger. Furthermore, in India, there have been several cases of a lone tiger bringing down a bull tusker (a large male elephant with big tusks)."

    Frequency bears to the very heart of this matter. Suffice it to say: none of us, in our lifetimes, will ever, EVER witness a tiger killing an elephant. The "lone tiger" referenced here introduces himself last-name-first, has opposable thumbs, and enjoys glass of cognac following a new york strip medium rare. The hypothetical outcome cannot be infuenced by once-in-a-lifetime deviants. Perhaps an Indian (dots, not feathers) virtuoso-in-stripes has freakishly managed pick off a straggling, almost-dead rhino or baby elephant (undoubtedly festering with plague or pox) once or twice in all of natural history; but the proposed situation inherently places an AVERAGE bear, elefant, and tiger in a small room, each with the intent to kill the others. You have to factor in will-power. An elefant with the "will to kill", if YOU will, has never met a tiger, or a bear for that matter, that the bull tusker couldn't gore.

    And that, "uncle steve", is the sound of inevitability.

     
  • At 2:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1. "Libby" referred to you as "zeke" in a comment on one of Adam's 1st posts.
    2. "irregardlessly" is redundant and improper.
    "Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term." - answers.com
    3. If you use the argument that none of us will ever witness a tiger killing an elephant, then that would presume that anything un-witnessed does not take place. Which is an old philosophical question, but in this case, this event has been witnessed; therefore, unless you’re claiming that this is a conspiracy then I think it’s safe to say, that while tigers usually eat hoofed, terrestrial mammals, they can and will eat anything that they come across if hungry, including elephants.
    4. Tigers tend to be solitary animals and therefore the “lone tiger” comment would apply to most tigers. Not to mention that infrequent does not mean only occurring once in all natural history.
    5. The question was not asking which animal would eat the other, it was which would win a battle with the other. This is especially important since elephants and sloth bears have diets consisting of termites, ants and grass.
    6. If you’re going to claim the need to use “average” animals then it would also be important to assume that all the animals are male, with intent to kill out of defense or hunger, healthy, and all adults at their most optimal state of being. So then the question is a question of physics and more importantly a question of behavior. Since we’ve already started with the Bengal Tiger then we need to use the Sloth Bear and the Asian Elephant as they all live in the same region. In the wild, the elephant would most likely win as they’re not solitary animals and could rip any lone tiger into shreds. In a small room, I think a tiger would win as the 8000 lb and 9 ft tall elephant would have little room to maneuver, and the smaller and quicker 50 mph tiger, with the bear as a scapegoat, could make its way to the neck of the elephant and suffocate him, but not without a life-threatening gash of some sort (remaining alive after the battle was not a stipulation for winning).

    Having said all that, with current deforestation, the ivory trade, the entertainment industry, eastern medicine, revenge killing from live-stalk owners and poaching I highly doubt that this argument need be; they all have bigger problems to worry about.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "sabina", if that is your real name, allow me to redress your commentary.

    1. there was indeed a comment made regarding the alleged "zeke" by one "libby" in the initial portion of this blog. however, this comment was neither confirmed, nor aknowledged by myself, or anyone else typing in the name "ezekiel" when entering commentary, so no one can say for sure what exactly transpired between one "zeke" and "libby" that might have provoked such an aknowlegement.

    2. "irregardless" is a nonsense word that often effuses its way into conversation, and is absolutely ridiculous. by adding a "ly" to the end of said word, i had hoped that its ridiculousness would have reached such a point that anyone in their right mind reading it would realize that its roots were as tongue-in-cheek as this sentence is long. apparently, an "ing" or an additional "ly", or perhaps both, was required to get the point across. Noted.

    3. My point was infrequency. This re-affirms the point.

    4. "Lone tiger" was meant to emphasize that this tiger was special insofar as it was capable of taking down a weakling elephant, not that its social habits were different than those of other tigers.

    5. Did I say the elephant would eat the bear or the tiger? Or that any eating of any kind was going on? No.

    6. An angry elephant in a small room leads to a wall with a hole, and thus, a larger room. I hold that while the animal remains unrestrained, it will remain victorious over any silly tiger or bear scampering about at its feet. However, the rest of the "averages" that you put forward seem reasonable... except this ridiculous strangulation bit. I'd love to see a tiger try to wrap its tiny paws around an elephant's neck. Even with a full on jaw-lock on the jugular, I'd say its teeth would be hard pressed to sink through the skin and cause severe enough hemmorhaging to stop the elephant from goring it, and terminating its life force first.

    Indeed, bigger problems do exist in this mad mad mad mad world... but it's good to know that reasonable people can all agree on the simple ones: the elephant wins.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, Sabina is my real name. Is yours Zeke? (to avoid future needless discussion)

    1. My point was merely that it was uncontested by you, and since empirically you’ve been so quick to advocate accuracy then to not hear a retort from you on the original comment, had it in fact been inaccurate, is surprising.
    2. “Irregardless” is a pet-peeve of mine, and I find that we should take the opportunity to educate others as a serious responsibility. As I found some of your other points faulty I could not, in good conscious, assume that you used it for effect and not error. I won't apologize for not assuming, but I apologize as you were already aware.
    3. You’re absolutely right that frequency bears importance for the hypothetical situation; however, your initial comment was, “tigers don’t kill elephants” which is very absolute. Also, I was commenting on your “once-in-a-lifetime” comment as being inaccurate.
    4. You are inaccurately citing the quotation from answers.com. The “one such case” was referencing the rhino, not the tiger. And the “lone tiger” brought down a “bull tusker” which is a “large male elephant with big tusks” not a “weakling elephant” with “plague or pox.”
    5. No, you did not say they would eat the tiger, but you did say eating was going on. You said “have you ever seen a tiger eating an elephant” which was tweaking the original “battle” from Adam’s original statement. Since you later made the case that “will-power” was a factor then I thought it important to point out that the tiger had the added incentive of a meal after the battle that the other two did not. I will concede that survival from a predator is as driving a motivation as survival for sustenance, and therefore, neither can outweigh the other in competition for which has more “will-power” to live.
    6. I concede that poor infrastructure could lead to a “wall with a hole” but if that’s the case, then I still feel that the tiger’s speed would be even more beneficial. Secondly, the Asian elephant’s skin is “finer” than African elephant's. While they are known as “pachyderms” that only applies to certain spots on their body like trunk, legs, and back where the skin is 2.5-3 cm thick. This is to accommodate their high inner pressure, not for external protection. Places like the chest and shoulders the skin is “as this as paper.” Tigers have 10.16 cm long teeth, and so even if they went for a thick area they would still be successful in penetrating the skin. It is true that elephants have thicker vessel walls, but to support such a large body, their blood pressure is also much higher. Therefore, a tiger’s adequate teeth could penetrate the skin and the vessels of an Asian elephant (at the neck) and due to the elephant’s high vascular pressure would be capable of causing a large enough hemorrhage to bring down the animal. Especially since an elephant’s heart only beats 28 times a minute, and its heart size would not be able to accommodate the cardiac output needs of the animal’s size if hemorrhaging.

    So the tiger wins.
    And that is what a sensible person would think based on accurate use of the facts. Even if the existence of this entire debate is not.

    http://www.upali.ch/skin_en.html http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Anatomy/Internal_Systems/The_Circulatory_System/the_circulatory_system.html

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh and by the way: redress is to make ammends, which means that you cannot redress a comment that you did not make. You should have used the word address instead.
    Oh, and I didn't even bothering commenting on your strangulation via paw comment, as it is ridiculous to even imagine a tiger mounted on an elephant trying to suffocate the poor animal. And I thought we were being sensible.

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    oh snap. give me some time to finish up at work, and i'll match your efforts... gotta say on first skim tho, i like it, but i'm unconvinced. ;)

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ummm, or i could just forget all about this and do no research whatsoever. at this point, i think the prosecution will rest, placing faith in the current foundation of sarcasm, mis-direction, and movie quotation on which our argument teeters... with one caveat: redress is used correctly here, although the context that you suggest is also correct... see the definition of "amend"... anything can be fixed/altered/corrected... not just personal statements... even laws... at least, in this country... albeit not always for the better (thank you GW)... god bless those founding fathers and their crazy constitution.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home