Considering how Sartre lived, it is beyond doubt he scribbled each word, that he did, with the seriousness of an impending nuclear catastrophe: a quality that seldom can be associated to words here. I’m, however, unsure  whether seriousness is equitably warranted toward every written word. I sometimes wish words were not considered serious to a point of defeating reason and compassion: like holy texts.

Why is world awash with seriousness for the trivial like Twitter bursts of a peculiar president. Before you elucidate anything said by a powerful man is serious, allow my proposal to examine whether what is said is said with conviction or out of vanity; And whether what is said is considered for it’s impact or it’s redicule worthiness. Can we serve it the variety of attention it deserves: ignored as nuisance.

Not that I’m an expert, but I suspect there exists a limit to how much stuff brains can attend to seriously, for there isn’t much else but food taken seriously by a hungry man. So can someone please publish an app to tell us not what is but to tell us, just as reliably, what is to be taken seriously so we don’t all perish in a matter of centuries.

The post trivial first appeared on honestrooster.



Celebrities get asked this question, or something along similar lines, a lot: which is your most favorite among all the songs you’ve heard, all movies you’ve watched, all books you’ve read and so on. It usually is reciprocated with a cringe inducing reply or, more appropriately, a reaction which is painless to empathize with. But then, empathy is one thing and sympathy entirely another which I have none for the contemptuous and, at times, condescending reply.

Such questions are invariably appraised as those for which replies are sought to determine a preference or taste. It is conceivably the wrong perspective for, of course, there is no such thing as the best song, movie or book of all. It is instead a question asked to learn about loyalty to a particular moment of joy. And loyalty requires passion which in turn is rooted at least partially in irrational. 

A response to this question does not stand in need of recalling, for example, all songs and carefully analyzing merits of each to arrive at the one you’d bestow your personal all time best Grammy to. It requires a mad, unreasonable passion and conviction for how you felt that one time you heard a song and then never to let go of it irrespective of how wonderful many songs you might have heard to since.

Dear celebrities, just give us a mad reply with a mad conviction. Don’t be so bland as to cast off the question as brainless because you insist on using your brain when it’s needed that you use you heart. Show your passion, not your analysis.

The post passion first appeared on honestrooster.


As the question of what is loveliest encounters, the usual suspects to affect the conscious are beautiful beings: animate and inanimate. A lovely face, lovely child, lovely gift and so forth.

What is loveliest isn’t an elusive question conditional to agreement about properties of exquisite beauty: is it that which appeals to the eye? To the heart? To the mind? Or to the spirit? One especially scarce commodity, i think, stands taller than its few contenders to the title: nature’s beauty can author catharsis far reaching in impact than simple admiration, kindness can endow bliss beyond the giver and the receiver. Good health foreshadows a healthy mind. These are worthy contenders.

A  quick aside. Quickly ensuing conclusion of it’s duty toward describing ordinary words, “lovely” metamorphoses into a collosal entity routinely encapsulating space and time into what it describes. If you think about it, there isn’t much left to describe beyond a lovely day and a lovely time (Which begs the question as what is meant when a day is said to be lovely, beyond good weather perhaps, and if that is adequate to make a day lovely).

Back to the original thought. If an object is to be loved on account of savoring and not only of yearning for, then freedom, is plausibly, the loveliest of all. We starve for freedom: of choice, of speech, of belief, from poverty, from slavery and several more hardships. And yet, for the few who enjoy it’s essence, nothing correlates so directly to their meaningful existence as freedom does. Good health, beauty and gratitude might go unappreciated, but freedom is enjoyed even if you refuse to. That’s why it stands tall. That’s why it’s beauty is exquisite. It is lovely.

The post exquisite first appeared on honestrooster.


If craft reduces original art to algorithm, and if technology reproduces everything described as an algorithm, then no other art form has been devoured and taken hostage to technology as much as music. It’s no coincidence toddlers can tell between music genres which follow a pattern as predictable as Japanese speed trains.

For heaven’s sake, “musicians” hardly hide the lack of originality – what with calling their “compositions” remixes. What can one say to that – “kudos to your honesty”? Must we then lament that most if not all popular music is an aftermath of teenagers fiddling digital knobs on iMac rather than musicians interacting with occasional melody or rhythm? Perhaps not.

Music attains, and some times hustles, value from how a listener responds to it irrespective of whether it’s genesis is it’s creators deep passion or plain mundane craft. Its evident electronic music creates unmatched euphoria and it counts for a lot of what music must do.

But, lament we should, oh lament we must for the ravishing remix of a transcending melody which must never be allowed reinterpretion into a 128bpm “track”. While wonderful, even novel, some melodies are better left untouched than be remixed by Mozart.

The post music first appeared on honestrooster.


Much was staked on my reply to a question I received several years back: how would you describe the color pink to a blind man? 

As I remember, my first thought was to surmise that time spent here was of no avail for conclusion about my job candidacy had been arrived at before this question was asked. As it turned out, it had, I think, been arrived at. Such suspicion attenuates the scent of opportunity liberating thought in a sense that it is no more constrained by the gravity of stakes. I proceeded then to consider the question solely on its merit.

What a curious question: inviting, through a response, proof for one’s faculties to empathize and tightrope through pretentious, absurd prospects for a reply. Would I even venture into such task or apologies sincerely for lack of imagination and vocabulary. What if it wasn’t the blind person’s curiosity, but my desperation, may be out of love, to share the joy of sight – how would I then set about my predicament.

I frankly don’t know. Yet, I replied “I’d tell pink feels like the scent of a rose”. I didn’t get the job.


Political ideology has hardly ever manifested in as strange a phenomenon as the intolerable obsession with replacement of a nation’s health care policy. An obsession strange not for how life is bequeathed with little regard (which unfortunately is common across nations) but for how the most vulnerable will uniformly suffer irrespective of creed, idealogical affiliation or, ironically as you’ll see, race amid an ensuing unnecessary beaureacratic tussle – A tussle intertwined with undoing a perceived legacy of an individual – An individual disliked undoubtedly in arrears of racial bias.

An iPhone, albiet only a mere material possession, is a curious object of desire which occasions immense joy upon its replacement for a next iteration of its own self. Makes one wonder if it’d be replaced as often and willingly if Siri were to remonstrate like a devoted partner cut loose. Makes one wonder if partners wouldn’t be replaced more often and willingly if they were mute like smartphones. The conclusions here are likely forgone.

Is replacement necessary? Countless cells replaced and a man is still clueless. Countless generations replaced and the world is still ignorant.


If honesty is about not only whether everything said is true, but also whether everything has been said, then how scarcely this blog catalogues my deep fears, vices and guilt borders between ironical and hypocritical in consideration of it’s name: honest-rooster!

There’s good reason for such restraint; after all, it connects to my LinkedIn feed. This kind of dishonesty, I reason therefore, isn’t unique to me. Shouldn’t it instead be the norm? Aren’t you better off resisting your speech rather than be embarrassed across “tens of millions” or “tens” or most likely two readers for an overly-enthusiastic or just plain-stupid thought. Especially when there is no lack of judging eyes. But then humans aren’t alike or, to some, not even same species. Many naturally disagree to this theory of restraint.

I’m endlessly fascinated by celebrities, politicians, acquaintances and friends who think of it as nothing to unresistedly post cryptic, at times blatantly vitriolic,  and often other times supremely narcissistic content – with eager expectation that it is widely liked. To think uncivil immodest conversations are unusual is, I admit, a rather naive view of human nature for it is evident that we, generally speaking as a species, are a bunch of flawed hindquarter cavities. However, it is the vaguely mundane yet universal phenomenon which escape my comprehension – like our irresistible penchant toward selfie!

Talking about judging eyes – the special selfie made with decided resolve (not accidentally), on a dull mundane hour of a dull mundane day (not on a special occasion), with none others in the frame (not a friend, not a celebrity nor a notable statue) marking the festivity of update-profile-picture is nothing but a face with a slapped-on smile, for the occasion, shamelessly declaring  “look at me; I have nothing to say”. I’m fascinated how we are OK, and frequently delighted, with this degree of nothingness in conversations? 

Come to think of it, how are we OK with using so many words to say nothing – nothing about our fears, vices or guilt? Perhaps I digressed – I meant how is one to not resist honesty and say all that there is to be said with so many judging eyes.