In honor of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, tonight’s ‘Stories Behind the Music’ will detail the story behind the song OHIO, penned in order to bring to the public stage another tragic shooting at a well known university.

 

---

 

Song 1:  Neil Young – OHIO

 

 

Edited from Wikipedia:

 

"Ohio" is a protest song performed by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, and written by Neil Young in reaction to the Kent State shootings of May 4, 1970.  It was released as a single, peaking at #14 on the Billboard Hot 100.  Although a live version of the song was included on the group's 1971 double album Four Way Street, the studio version of the song did not appear on an album until the group's So Far compilation was released in 1974.  This song also features at number 385 on the Rolling Stone Magazines Top 500 Songs Of All Time.

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970.  Four students were killed and nine others wounded.  The students were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched on April 25, and announced in a television address five days later.

There was a significant national response to the shootings: hundreds of universities, colleges, high schools, and even middle schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country along political lines.

Historical background

Richard Nixon had been elected President in 1968, promising to end the Vietnam War.  In November 1969 the My Lai Massacre was exposed, prompting widespread outrage around the world and leading to increased public opposition to the war.  In addition, the following month saw the first draft lottery instituted since World War II. The war had appeared to be winding down throughout 1969 so a new invasion of Cambodia angered those who felt it only exacerbated the conflict.

Many young people, including college students and teachers, were concerned about being drafted to fight in a war that they strongly opposed.  The expansion of that war into another country appeared to them to have increased that risk.  Across the country, campuses erupted in protests in what Time magazine called "a nation-wide student strike", setting the stage for the events of early May 1970.

Timeline

Friday, May 1

At Kent State, a massive demonstration was held on May 1 on the Commons (a grassy area in the center of campus traditionally used as a gathering place for rallies), and another had been planned for May 4.  There was widespread anger, and many protesters issued a call to "bring the war home."

Trouble erupted at around midnight when intoxicated bikers left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts.  In the process they broke a bank window which set off an alarm. T he news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble.  Before long more people had joined the vandalism and looting, while others remained bystanders.

By the time police arrived, a crowd of about 100 had already gathered.  Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street.  The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and out-of town youths who regularly came to Kent's bars.  A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them.  The disturbance lasted for about an hour before the police restored order.  By that time most of the bars were closed and the downtown and campus were quiet.

Saturday, May 2

Kent's Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency on May 2 and, later that afternoon, asked Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes to send the National Guard to Kent to help maintain order.

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was already underway and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building (which had been boarded up and scheduled for demolition) was burning.  The arsonists were never caught.  No one was hurt in the fire.  Over a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered the building's burning.  While attempting to extinguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were hit with rocks and other objects by those standing near the fire.  More than one fire engine company had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.   Again, a call for assistance went out. At 10:00 p.m., the National Guard entered the campus for the first time and set up camp directly on campus.  There were many arrests made, tear gas was used, and at least one student was wounded with a bayonet.  

Sunday, May 3

By Sunday, May 3, there were nearly 1,000 National Guardsmen on campus to control the students.

During a press conference, Governor Rhodes called the protesters un-American and referred to the protesters as revolutionaries set on destroying higher education in Ohio.  "They're worse than the brownshirts and the communist element and also the nightriders and the vigilantes," Rhodes said.  "They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America.  I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America."

He also claimed he would obtain a court order declaring a state of emergency, banning further demonstrations, and gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared.  However, Rhodes did not declare the state of emergency, which would have made the May 3 and May 4 protests illegal.

During the day some students came into downtown Kent to help with cleanup efforts after the rioting, which met with mixed reactions from local businessmen.  Mayor Satrom, under pressure from frightened citizens, ordered a curfew until further notice.

Around 8:00 p.m., another rally was held on the campus Commons.  By 8:45 p.m. the Guard used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and the students reassembled at the intersection of Lincoln and Main Streets, holding a sit-in in the hopes of gaining a meeting with Mayor Satrom and President White.  At 11:00 p.m., the Guard announced that a curfew had gone into effect and began forcing the students back to their dorms. Ten Guardsmen were injured and at least one student was bayoneted by a Guardsman.

Monday, May 4

On Monday, May 4, a protest was scheduled to be held at noon, as had been planned three days earlier.  University officials attempted to ban the gathering, handing out 12,000 leaflets stating that the event was canceled.  Despite this, an estimated 2,000 people gathered on the university's Commons, near Taylor Hall.  The protest began with the ringing of the campus's iron victory bell (which had historically been used to signal victories in football games) to signal the beginning of the rally, and the first protester began to speak.

Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio ARNG, the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students.  The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial.  On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.

The dispersal process began late in the morning with a police official, riding in a Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest.  The protesters pelted the Jeep with rocks, forcing it to retreat. One Guardsman was injured in the attack.

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse.  When they refused, the Guard used tear gas.  Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some began a second rock attack with chants of "Pigs off campus!"  The students also utilized the tear gas canisters and threw them back at the National Guardsmen.  The only protection the soldiers had were their steel helmets. They had no body armor or face shields, although they had put on gas masks upon first using tear gas.

When it was obvious the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G began to advance on the hundreds of protesters with bayonets fixed on their weapons.  The guardsmen had had little training in riot control.  As the guardsmen advanced, the protesters retreated up and over a hill (Blanket Hill) heading out of The Commons area . Once over the hill, the students, in a loose group, moved northeast along the front of a building (Taylor Hall), with some continuing toward a parking lot in front of another building (Prentice Hall, slightly northeast of and perpendicular to Taylor Hall).  The guardsmen pursued the protesters over the hill, but rather than veering left as the protesters had, they continued straight, heading down toward an athletic practice field enclosed by a chain link fence.  Here they remained for about ten minutes, unsure of how to get out of the area short of retracing their entrance path (a move some guardsmen considered could be viewed as a retreat).  During this time, the bulk of the students were off to the left and front of the Guardsmen, approximately 50 to 75 meters away, on the veranda of Taylor Hall.  Others were scattered between Taylor Hall and the Prentice Hall parking lot, while still others, perhaps 35 or 40, were standing in the parking lot, or dispersing through the lot as had been previously ordered.

While on the practice field, the guardsmen generally faced the parking lot which was about 100 meters away.  At one point some of the guardsmen knelt and aimed their weapons toward the parking lot, then stood up again.  For a few moments several guardsmen formed a loose huddle and appeared to be talking to one another.  The guardsmen appeared to be unclear as to what to do next. They had cleared the protesters from The Commons area, and many students had left, but many stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters.  At the end of about ten minutes the Guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward The Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as the latter passed over the top of the hill and headed back down into The Commons.

At this point, a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired into the students.  The guardsmen directed their fire not at the closest students, who were on the Taylor Hall veranda, but at those on the grass area and concrete walkway below the veranda, at those on the service road between the veranda and the parking lot, and at those in the parking lot.  Bullets were not sprayed in all directions, but instead were confined to a fairly limited line of fire leading from the top of the hill to the parking lot. Not all the soldiers who fired their weapons directed their fire into the students.  Some soldiers fired into the ground while a few fired into the air.  In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons.  A total of 67 bullets were fired.  The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer."  

The question of why the shots were fired is widely debated.  The Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation.  Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance of the wounded students.  Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State".  The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened, but harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, concluding that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

The shootings killed four students and wounded nine.  Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, were walking from one class to the next.  Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter.  Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet (22 m) to the guardsmen.  Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet (81 m) away.

Casualties

Killed (and approximate distance from the National Guard):

• Allison Krause 343 ft (105 m); fatal left chest wound
• Jeffrey Glen Miller 265 ft (81 m); shot through the mouth - killed instantly
• Sandra Lee Scheuer 390 ft (119 m); fatal neck wound
• William Knox Schroeder 382 ft (116 m); fatal chest wound

Wounded (and approximate distance from the National Guard):

• Thomas Mark Grace 225 ft (69 m); struck in left ankle
• Joseph Lewis Jr. 71 ft (22 m); hit twice in the right abdomen and left lower leg
• John R. Cleary 110 ft (34 m); upper left chest wound
• Alan Canfora 225 ft (69 m); hit in his right wrist
• Dean Kahler 300 ft (91 m); back wound fracturing the vertebrae - permanently paralyzed
• Douglas Wrentmore 329 ft (100 m); hit in his right knee
• James Dennis Russell 375 ft (114 m); hit in his right thigh from a bullet and in the right forehead by birdshot - both wounds minor
• Robert Stamps 495 ft (151 m); hit in his right buttock
• Donald Scott MacKenzie 750 ft (229 m); neck wound

Immediately after the shootings, many angry students were ready to launch an all-out attack on the National Guard. Many faculty members, led by geology professor and faculty marshal Glenn Frank, pleaded with the students to leave the Commons and to not give in to violent escalation.  After 20 minutes of speaking, the students left the Commons, as ambulance personnel tended to the wounded, and the Guard left the area.

Although initial newspaper reports had inaccurately stated that a number of National Guard members had been killed or seriously injured, only one Guardsman, Lawrence Shafer, was injured seriously enough to require medical treatment, approximately 10 to 15 minutes prior to the shootings.

---

Lyrics:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,

We're finally on our own.

This summer I hear the drumming,

Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it

Soldiers are cutting us down

Should have been done long ago.

What if you knew her

And found her dead on the ground

How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it

Soldiers are cutting us down

Should have been done long ago.

What if you knew her

And found her dead on the ground

How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,

We're finally on our own.

This summer I hear the drumming,

Four dead in Ohio.

Neil Young’s lyrics are especially poignant in light of this story, encapsulating the tragedy in his impassioned nasal vocals.  Young penned the lyrics to "Ohio" after seeing the photos of the incident in Life magazine.  On the evening that CSNY entered Record Plant Studios in New York City, the song had already been rehearsed, and the quartet with their regular rhythm section recorded it live in just a few takes.  During the same session they recorded the song's equally direct b-side, Stephen Stills' ode to the war's dead "Find the Cost of Freedom."  Like its companion, the Stills track was cut live, the four voices blending to the accompaniment of only Stills' guitar.  It also appeared on the So Far LP of three years later.

The record was mastered with the participation of the four principals, rush-released by Atlantic and heard on the radio with only a few weeks delay.   In his liner notes for the song on the Decade retrospective, Young reported that "David Crosby cried when we finished this take."   Crosby can be heard keening "four, why? why did they die?" and "how many more?" in the fade.

The lyrics help evoke the turbulent mood of indignation and shock in the wake of the shootings, especially the line "four dead in Ohio," repeated throughout the song. "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming," refers to the Ohio National Guardsmen who killed the student protesters and Young's attribution of their deaths to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon. Crosby once stated that Young keeping Nixon's name in the lyrics was "the bravest thing I ever heard." After the double's release, it was banned from some AM radio stations because of the challenge to the Nixon Administration in the lyrics, but received airplay on then underground FM stations in larger cities and college towns. The American counterculture took the group as its own after this song, giving the four a status as leaders and spokesmen they would enjoy to varying extent for the rest of the decade.

The song was later re-recorded by Devo on the 2002 album When Pigs Fly: Songs You Never Thought You'd Hear. The song was of particular significance to this group, as its founding members Jerry Casale and Mark Mothersbaugh had been present at Kent State during the tragedy.

The song has been covered acoustically live by the band Rise Against during their fall 2006 coheadlining tour, with Thursday, during Rise Againsts encore, and by The Dandy Warhols, who placed a version of the song on their 2004 B-sides and covers album Come on Feel the Dandy Warhols, available only through the band's own website. John & Mary and The Valkyries added the song to their live set list in late 2006.

As noted earlier, this song was also selected as the 385th Greatest Song of All Time by Rolling Stone.

---

Years ago, I was strolling through the cereal aisle of my local grocery store, when I noticed a new product that could only have been designed by the Gods themselves, Captain Crunch's Oops! All Berries.

I remember when I was a kid, I would always eat the sweetened corn and oats first, leaving myself an uninterrupted  bowl of the delicious crunch berries at the end.  Therefore as an adult, I loved the idea that there was some sort of mix-up at the factory creating whole boxes of 'all berries'.   It occurred to me, however, that the cereal industry is missing out on the true morning moneymaker of our time.  I would like to be the first to suggest the following product to the maker of Lucky Charms:

Kip Ludwig's What the #&$%?!?! All Marshmellows!

That's right.... I'm hoping for another industry mishap where nothing but Lucky Charm marshmellows are sent out in boxes.  I guarantee you these bad boys would outsell any cereal on the market.  And think of the ancillary benefit to the businesses of dentists and doctors - I'm guessing we can get some up-front funding.

So, what do you think of my business idea? 

After posting my thoughts on the contentious topic of abortion and getting a number of thoughtful responses from both sides of the debate, I've decided to throw another potential hand-grenade out there.  Unfortunately, my opinion on the subject is decidedly in the minority for those who would take the time to debate it.  Every time I've voiced this opinion, a number of people have rather vehemently chastised me for my ignorance.  My suspicion is, however, that the silent public at large in America is heavily on my side... and the numbers back me up.

 

Here is my big, bold, controversial statement:

 

I DID NOT VOTE IN THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS, NOR WILL I APOLIGIZE FOR IT!

 

*** Gasp! ***

 

Even more inflammatory is my reason for not voting:

 

ONE VOTE DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

 

Before anyone starts yelling, keep in mind I was a Political Science major, and finished six credit-hours short of the degree.  To be specific, I was an English/Political Science major with the intent of going to law school and then into politics.  I loved the idea of an open democracy where anyone can make a difference; I loved the idea of joining the political process with the idea of helping people.  Then I learned a few immutable facts in my studies:

 

1)  Politics are insanely complicated… and this from a man whose fallback was studying neuroscience and performing brain surgery.  Whatever you think you know about a given subject as a citizen, chances are you aren’t completely aware of all of the intricacies.  People in the government still have more information than you do, no matter how much you read in the media.  Being informed is good, but it is not a complete substitute for hands-on experience.  Try not to judge politicians so harshly, they are mostly good people, even if sometimes their actions seem very strange in light of the information we get.  Even the most simple of black and white issues get very grey inside of political forums.

 

It is the people of the United States who force politicians to become hypocrites, flip-floppers, and experts at avoiding issues.  Believe me – most politicians absolutely hate having to pander to the people.  They’d much rather be straightforward about their views, but they know they can’t get elected that way.  Politicians realize that they have to keep their eyes on the prize, and reaching the prize always involves distasteful compromises.  We habitually vilify politicians for doing the best they can with the shackles we have placed on them.      

 

2)  Even though I was born in the United States, I cannot become President.  I’d actually have a heck of a time reaching any significant state or local office.  I am an agnostic; although we have had a Jewish vice-presidential candidate, and we have Muslim members of the Houses, admitting you don’t believe in the afterlife is political suicide in the United States.  I am unsuitable for office despite the fact my sole motivation for running would be to help others.  As of the moment, the office of President is available only to rich, white, males who openly avow faith in a God.  Here’s hoping Hilary or Obama can broaden this historical base of potential job applicants. 

 

3)  The playing field is no where near level in the United States.  The idea of ‘one vote can make a difference’ is perpetuated to make the average person feel they have an effect on the political process, a sense of political efficacy.  Realistically, ‘one vote’ never makes a difference, only an aggregate total of concerted ‘one votes’ does.

 

Individual votes have a cost associated with them.  You pay for the vote in terms of time spent researching the subject, time spent driving to the voting booth, time spent in line to vote, etc.  If you want to try to influence multiple votes, the cost is much greater.  This is the reason why voter turnout amongst the poor is lower than the rich; this is a reflection of their sense of political efficacy.   Individually, poor people simply can’t afford the cost associated with motivating a block of people to vote.  This is why we perpetuate the myth of ‘One Vote Makes a Difference’, to trick the disenfranchised poor into thinking they can individually affect the political process in the same manner that a rich person can.  The advantage of democracy, however, is that if the privileged go too far, the poor will become motivated enough to vote spontaneously as a block without the need for organization.

 

Realistically, one vote has a negligible chance of making a difference considering the size of the voting populace.  I can’t help but giggle at the spurious examples and analogies people use to attempt to convince me otherwise:

 

“In New Mexico, the decision was made by 512 votes… this shows that one vote can make a difference!”

 

-  Uh… do the Math.  This shows 512 votes may have made a difference in the outcome of the election in New Mexico.  The fact that you are straining to make this mathematical argument only underscores how little the probability is that one vote would change the outcome of an election.  Moreover, this doesn’t address the ‘effective’ value of the vote; if the outcome of the election changed, would it have made the difference I intended.  (See my argument in point (1))

 

“You recycle don’t you?  Even though your individual contribution had negligible impact statistically, you still recycle because choosing not to recycle is causing an infinitesimal amount of damage to the environment.  Not voting is the same thing.”

 

-  This analogy is flawed.  The act of not voting does not cause damage, and is therefore in and of itself not inherently evil.  No one accuses the inner-city mother of four who is working two jobs to make ends meet of being evil for not having the time to vote.  The more accurate analogy would be a builder who will replace your roof for $10,000 dollars, but will do absolutely nothing for any amount less.  Would you give him a dollar, or five dollars, or 100 dollars, to do nothing anyway?

 

“If you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain about the government.”

 

-  Read the constitution.  Find me where it states that if I choose not to vote I forfeit all of my rights.  Using the inner-city mother of four argument again, does she lose her rights because she couldn’t find the time to research the topics and vote?  Hmm - then again, maybe this is exactly what does happen…

 

“You should vote, because what would happen if everyone thought like you do and chose not to vote?  Or better yet, all the people who didn’t vote actually voted?”

 

-  Um... exactly how does my choice not to vote create the extreme absurdity of everyone not voting?  This is like arguing that I shouldn't drink water because if everyone drank as much water as I do in a day, it would severely stress the plumbing of America.  Please explain to me how my individual choice not to vote determines the voting tendencies of all the other apathetic people out there.  I am not culpable for the world’s ills by not voting, and my vote, in and of itself, does not influence others to vote.  Or at least, you voters out there are just as culpable from a statistical perspective for not influencing more people to vote.

 

I may be the only one who found Paris Hilton fronting MTV's Rock the Vote campaign, but not voting herself, to make sense.  Her individual vote would have had no impact, but her ability to influence others through the media may have had a profound effect.  Her decision was cost effective - she maximized her influence on the political process with respect to time devoted.   And yes, I realize that her media influence could have been mitigated by her personal choice not to vote... but her decision not to vote was discovered after the election.  

 

As a scientist, I am well of aware of the difference between knowing a little about a subject, and researching enough to make an informed decision.  And despite my interest in a number of hot-button political topics, I’m well aware I don’t know enough.  The level of research required to make an informed decision is staggering, and most of the people who vote simply don’t do their due diligence.  I know that if I voted, I’d just be another slightly informed idiot adding to the noise, preventing the truly informed individuals from making a difference.

 

I am starting a political party called the Apathetic Party.  We’d have over half the people of the United States as members.  Unfortunately, motivating us to get off our asses and vote may be a little difficult.  

 

Here's my challenge to all of you voters out there.  I am open to voting; I came close last election, but was turned off by rain and a six-hour line.  Convince me why my one vote would make a difference.    

 

   

 

                

 

     

 

 

As today is my birthday, I didn't have the time to research a story for a song tonight (I have three in mind for next week though!). For this week, I couldn't help but start thinking about an article I read a few weeks ago:

AP: "In Fallujah's darkened, empty streets, U.S. troops blast AC/DC's 'Hell's Bells' and other rock music full volume from a huge speaker, hoping to grate on the nerves of this Sunni Muslim city's gunmen and give a laugh to Marines along the front line. Unable to advance farther into the city, an Army psychological operations team hopes a mix of heavy metal and insults shouted in Arabic - including, 'You shoot like a goat herder' - will draw gunmen to step forward and attack...The Marines' psychological operations came as U.S. negotiators were pressing Fallujah representatives to get gunmen in the city to abide by a cease-fire... At night, the psychological operations unit attached to the Marine battalion here sends out messages from a loudspeaker mounted on an armored Humvee. On Thursday night, the crew and its Arabic-language interpreter taunted fighters, saying, 'May all the ambulances in Fallujah have enough fuel to pick up the bodies of the mujahadeen.' "

At first I was skeptical of the 'psychological advantage' of blaring music at the enemy.  Heck, I'd enjoy having AC/DC blared at me. 

Then I had the unfortunate experience of going to a Mexican restaurant that had the CD 'MTV's songs to piss Kip off with' on an unending loop.  I used to like Jimmy Buffet's 'Wasting away in Margaritaville', but after it replayed for the fourth time... well, if I ever see Jimmy Buffet I'm dragging his ass to rehab.

So here is my question to the blogging community.  If you had to pick one song to play over and over to torture the enemy, what song would it be?

 

I'm looking to quit drinking diet coke again this week.  In honor of yet another impending failure in my unending battle against diet coke addiction, I thought I'd repost one of my first posts on blogstream.  I've been trying to get the diet monkey off my back for a very long time.   

---

I have come to realize in the past bunch of years that I have a very addictive personality.  The sad thing is, I don't have that many bad habits.  I drink only occasionally (I never drink at home on my own), I don't smoke, I don't do drugs... and all of that is a very good thing.  Addiction is in the genes:  my brother was an alcoholic, and my mother is an anorexic/bulemic.  My addictions, in no particular order of preference, are salt, diet coke, candy, and more recently, blogging.   I'm such a panzy when it comes to addiction, I think I'd be completely screwed if I ever became a drug addict.

The reason I think I'm a wuss when it comes to addiction stems from the few times I have tried to quit my bad habits in recent years.  I tried cutting out diet coke a bunch of years back - I made it about three days.  After the first day, I had the usual symptoms of a recovering caffeine addict: fatigue, insomnia, headache, and a profound inability to concentrate.  I thought these symptoms would subside after a little bit, but they continued to get worse and worse into the end of the second day. 

The third day is where things got really strange.  After a restless night, I finally fell asleep for about 15 minutes.  During those 15 minutes, I had the following dream (I swear to God I am not making this dream up):

I walked into a dark, damp cave.  I followed a winding tunnel for a long time, and eventually I noticed a faint light in the distance.  I made my way to the faint light, where I found that the cave opened up into a huge cavern.  At the top of the cavern was a small opening in the ceiling, shining a veritable halo of light into the dead center of the room.  At the perfect center of the halo was a large golden pedestal.  On top of the pedestal was the largest 7/11 Big Gulp you've ever seen, almost overflowing with sweet, sweet diet coke.  Oh my little caffeine goodness, sweet nectar of the gods, how I missed you so!

Almost like some cloying romantic movie, I started running towards the Big Gulp in slow motion - arms spread wide and slightly behind me.  At some point in the run, I believe I started skipping - until I ran head first into an invisible wall around the pedestal, and was knocked 3 feet backwards, directly onto my ass. 

I spent the rest of the dream pounding on the invisible wall, trying desperately to find any small opening in the seemingly impenetrable shield.  Picture the scene in A Streetcar Named Desire where Stanley screams 'STELLA" to the heavens; that sort of angst and longing, but directed towards diet coke.  

My will completely broken at that point, I woke up from the dream, immediately went downstairs, and slammed an entire 2-liter.  Needless to say, I'm going to avoid starting a heroin addiction any time soon.

Would it be a horrible insult to drug addicts everywhere if I showed up at a narc-anon meeting for a diet coke addiction?