Friday, March 19, 2004
Where's OUR territory?
If you've ever watched a nature show, you've heard references to every critter in existence having a "territory." Every critter, that is, except US.
Surprised to hear the idea of human beings having a territory? You SHOULDN'T be, as every living thing needs to have some area that it lives in and gets its food in, and that's what a territory IS. Despite that, every time human beings are on any piece of ground, we hear how it's the territory of an endless parade of animals, birds, reptiles and even INSECTS, but there's never a hint that that bit of ground or any other might be OUR territory.
There are over 6.1 BILLION human beings on this planet; why is there not one square inch that's defined as "territory of the human race"? Why is every one of our homes, and every field where we get our food, the territory of a bunch of lower creatures instead of being OUR territory?
Come to think of it, there IS one other creature that I've never heard referred to as having a territory; the RAT. Swell.
It's long, LONG past time for biologists, ecologists, and assorted tree-huggers to accept that human beings are a part of life on this planet, NOT invaders from outer space, and so are entitled to as much food and shelter as we need, as much as we can grab and hold, just like all the other creatures of the world, and that any such land that we claim as ours is OUR territory, NOT still the territory of whatever was there before.
EVERY species spreads as far as it can, takes over as much land as it can, and eats every bit of food it can, killing every other creature it can in the process; that we're so much more successful than any other species doesn't somehow mean that the proportionately greater amount of land and resources we use should count against us and deprive us of the right to have ANY territory; if anything, the fact that we, unlike all other creatures, set aside land for other species, cultivate our food so that we don't strip the entire surface of the planet bare by gathering food all over, and place limits on killing creatures in the wild, should entitle us to MORE rights to territory.
I am an animal. I have needs. I have the RIGHT to food, shelter, and whatever I can get to make my existence more comfortable and happy, same as every other critter. I have the right to a TERRITORY. So do YOU. So do the 6.1 billion other members of our species. Next time you hear anyone refer to an area where HUMANS live as being the territory of some species of mouse, sparrow or bug, speak up and say, "This is part of the territory of homo sapiens." You'll get some shocked looks, but you'll be making a point that's long overdue for people to hear.
Surprised to hear the idea of human beings having a territory? You SHOULDN'T be, as every living thing needs to have some area that it lives in and gets its food in, and that's what a territory IS. Despite that, every time human beings are on any piece of ground, we hear how it's the territory of an endless parade of animals, birds, reptiles and even INSECTS, but there's never a hint that that bit of ground or any other might be OUR territory.
There are over 6.1 BILLION human beings on this planet; why is there not one square inch that's defined as "territory of the human race"? Why is every one of our homes, and every field where we get our food, the territory of a bunch of lower creatures instead of being OUR territory?
Come to think of it, there IS one other creature that I've never heard referred to as having a territory; the RAT. Swell.
It's long, LONG past time for biologists, ecologists, and assorted tree-huggers to accept that human beings are a part of life on this planet, NOT invaders from outer space, and so are entitled to as much food and shelter as we need, as much as we can grab and hold, just like all the other creatures of the world, and that any such land that we claim as ours is OUR territory, NOT still the territory of whatever was there before.
EVERY species spreads as far as it can, takes over as much land as it can, and eats every bit of food it can, killing every other creature it can in the process; that we're so much more successful than any other species doesn't somehow mean that the proportionately greater amount of land and resources we use should count against us and deprive us of the right to have ANY territory; if anything, the fact that we, unlike all other creatures, set aside land for other species, cultivate our food so that we don't strip the entire surface of the planet bare by gathering food all over, and place limits on killing creatures in the wild, should entitle us to MORE rights to territory.
I am an animal. I have needs. I have the RIGHT to food, shelter, and whatever I can get to make my existence more comfortable and happy, same as every other critter. I have the right to a TERRITORY. So do YOU. So do the 6.1 billion other members of our species. Next time you hear anyone refer to an area where HUMANS live as being the territory of some species of mouse, sparrow or bug, speak up and say, "This is part of the territory of homo sapiens." You'll get some shocked looks, but you'll be making a point that's long overdue for people to hear.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Odd and powerful synchronicities
Last night, I had a dream in which I was in a car wearing a shirt and underwear but no pants; I've had all the standard naked-in-public dreams, but this partially-dressed-in-a-car thing was a new one on me. Today, I read part of a story posted online, the sort of "guy trying to get laid" tale that normally wouldn't interest me, but the author has a clever turn of phrase; one of the characters ended up in a car in, you guessed it, underwear and a shirt. It gets even better; although it has no connection to anything else in the story thus far, he had the main character give a monologue about synchronicity and Jung-I nearly fell out of my chair.
The REALLY big synchronicity of this week came a couple of days ago, but I was too excited about what I'd discovered to think about it; I'd asked a friend of mine who is from another country to loan me some of the books she had about it, and her culture, so that I could understand her background. She agreed, but the next time I saw her the book she offered me was one containing essays on the future of science; it was in THAT book that I found the essay that talked about animism and sparked by biggest epiphany in ages. This friend isn't into karma and doesn't know that I'M into it, but somehow she picked THAT book out of the many she owns to loan to me, even though it's not what I asked her for. Coincidence? Not on your life.
The REALLY big synchronicity of this week came a couple of days ago, but I was too excited about what I'd discovered to think about it; I'd asked a friend of mine who is from another country to loan me some of the books she had about it, and her culture, so that I could understand her background. She agreed, but the next time I saw her the book she offered me was one containing essays on the future of science; it was in THAT book that I found the essay that talked about animism and sparked by biggest epiphany in ages. This friend isn't into karma and doesn't know that I'M into it, but somehow she picked THAT book out of the many she owns to loan to me, even though it's not what I asked her for. Coincidence? Not on your life.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Do we remember what love really looks like any more?
If the movies we flock to are any example... NO.
We look at movies like Titanic and see them as portrayals of great romance and everlasting love, when the reality is that all there is are 2 horny kids going at it, pretending that they can be together when in fact she would never be happy living out of a knapsack with a tramp husband, and he would lose his lust for her after she'd had a few months to nag at him, and that they were both just plain too young to pick life partners.
The Bridges of Madison County shows us mature adults (well, not very mature, but adults in any case) who, after a few days together, not enough time to even make a dent in knowing someone much less KNOW them, supposedly form a bond that keeps them obsessed with each other for the rest of their lives. This is seen as another example of great romance, as opposed to, in her case, an example of someone with no life who's too lazy to make the best of what she has, and in his case someone with a work-filled life who chose to use a memory as an excuse to never have closeness and a family.
There are several movies that show a woman who is terminally ill and a man who's falling all over himself to get deeply involved with her knowing that she's about to die; this is seen as romantic, when in reality it's self-destructive and stupid on his part and selfish and using on her part (not that he couldn't be her friend if he could handle it, but it's sick to invest emotionally where you KNOW gargantuan pain is just around the corner).
Then there are the many movies where one or both halves of the couple act in the most atrocious ways, proving beyond a doubt that they are NOT good relationship material, and then one makes goo-goo eyes at the other, who then melts, and we're supposed to be thrilled to see that they're getting back together... as if they've had total personality changes and things won't go right back to the way they were before the sheets are dry.
Worst of all are the countless movies that show total strangers falling madly in bed with each other, based on which they magically form a compatible relationship free of any sign of the struggles and hassles of everyday life, with some token problem coming between them that they resolve while tossing out witty quips and looking great in designer clothes before heading off into the sunset together.
With all this nonsense being thrown at us, and so few of us knowing any couples that have stood the test of time (or at least none in our age range) to serve as real-life examples, is it any wonder that the first time a fight lasts more than 2 minutes, or the mattress doesn't smoke when we have sex, we assume the relationship is over? We've over-simplified and cheapened our conception of love to the point where we think infatuation and lust are the real thing, and have lost sight of the fact that we're biologically incapable of feeling that way for more than 2 years, tops... and then we decide we're "out of love" and bail just as we're getting to REAL love.
Want to know what real love, a real adult relationship, is like? You fight about a half-dozen things a day. You deal with endless messes, things breaking down and needing to be repaired or replaced, never having enough $ to cover what you need and more than a little of what you want, and the conflicting demands of work, family and friends. Once the fog of infatuation clears, you find that this other person is totally different than you, and that their wants and needs in every area of life, from sex to where to go on vacation, are also totally different, which means that nothing in life works out the way you would have wanted. You discover that your little love bunny will scream at you, use an ugly tone, call names, curse, criticize, manipulate, and every other normal human reaction during a fight. You end up feeling what can only be called HATE for them more frequently than you ever did for your worst enemy. And...
And...
They're the first person you want to pass along interesting news to. Things you see or hear everywhere remind you of them. You get a kick when you can surprise them with something only you know they'd like, and you feel a glow when they do the same for you, even if it's just a little container of Silly Putty... especially if it's a little container of Silly Putty. Life isn't complete when they aren't around, and feels subconsciously more "right" when they ARE around, even if they're in another room, or out in the yard watering the flowers, or snoring on the couch.
If you've been nodding your head, congratulations; you have true love, or at least HAVE had it and will know it when you see it again. If you've been shocked and horrified, think I'm crazy, and can't relate to any of it, just wait; with any luck, you'll "get it" one day, and will have someone to whom you can say, "Can you believe how ridiculous this romantic comedy is? Did you take out the trash? Do you know that the VCR ate another tape? Did you leave the milk out on the counter AGAIN? We've got a billion chores to catch up with this weekend... do you want to go the zoo instead?"
We look at movies like Titanic and see them as portrayals of great romance and everlasting love, when the reality is that all there is are 2 horny kids going at it, pretending that they can be together when in fact she would never be happy living out of a knapsack with a tramp husband, and he would lose his lust for her after she'd had a few months to nag at him, and that they were both just plain too young to pick life partners.
The Bridges of Madison County shows us mature adults (well, not very mature, but adults in any case) who, after a few days together, not enough time to even make a dent in knowing someone much less KNOW them, supposedly form a bond that keeps them obsessed with each other for the rest of their lives. This is seen as another example of great romance, as opposed to, in her case, an example of someone with no life who's too lazy to make the best of what she has, and in his case someone with a work-filled life who chose to use a memory as an excuse to never have closeness and a family.
There are several movies that show a woman who is terminally ill and a man who's falling all over himself to get deeply involved with her knowing that she's about to die; this is seen as romantic, when in reality it's self-destructive and stupid on his part and selfish and using on her part (not that he couldn't be her friend if he could handle it, but it's sick to invest emotionally where you KNOW gargantuan pain is just around the corner).
Then there are the many movies where one or both halves of the couple act in the most atrocious ways, proving beyond a doubt that they are NOT good relationship material, and then one makes goo-goo eyes at the other, who then melts, and we're supposed to be thrilled to see that they're getting back together... as if they've had total personality changes and things won't go right back to the way they were before the sheets are dry.
Worst of all are the countless movies that show total strangers falling madly in bed with each other, based on which they magically form a compatible relationship free of any sign of the struggles and hassles of everyday life, with some token problem coming between them that they resolve while tossing out witty quips and looking great in designer clothes before heading off into the sunset together.
With all this nonsense being thrown at us, and so few of us knowing any couples that have stood the test of time (or at least none in our age range) to serve as real-life examples, is it any wonder that the first time a fight lasts more than 2 minutes, or the mattress doesn't smoke when we have sex, we assume the relationship is over? We've over-simplified and cheapened our conception of love to the point where we think infatuation and lust are the real thing, and have lost sight of the fact that we're biologically incapable of feeling that way for more than 2 years, tops... and then we decide we're "out of love" and bail just as we're getting to REAL love.
Want to know what real love, a real adult relationship, is like? You fight about a half-dozen things a day. You deal with endless messes, things breaking down and needing to be repaired or replaced, never having enough $ to cover what you need and more than a little of what you want, and the conflicting demands of work, family and friends. Once the fog of infatuation clears, you find that this other person is totally different than you, and that their wants and needs in every area of life, from sex to where to go on vacation, are also totally different, which means that nothing in life works out the way you would have wanted. You discover that your little love bunny will scream at you, use an ugly tone, call names, curse, criticize, manipulate, and every other normal human reaction during a fight. You end up feeling what can only be called HATE for them more frequently than you ever did for your worst enemy. And...
And...
They're the first person you want to pass along interesting news to. Things you see or hear everywhere remind you of them. You get a kick when you can surprise them with something only you know they'd like, and you feel a glow when they do the same for you, even if it's just a little container of Silly Putty... especially if it's a little container of Silly Putty. Life isn't complete when they aren't around, and feels subconsciously more "right" when they ARE around, even if they're in another room, or out in the yard watering the flowers, or snoring on the couch.
If you've been nodding your head, congratulations; you have true love, or at least HAVE had it and will know it when you see it again. If you've been shocked and horrified, think I'm crazy, and can't relate to any of it, just wait; with any luck, you'll "get it" one day, and will have someone to whom you can say, "Can you believe how ridiculous this romantic comedy is? Did you take out the trash? Do you know that the VCR ate another tape? Did you leave the milk out on the counter AGAIN? We've got a billion chores to catch up with this weekend... do you want to go the zoo instead?"
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Animism
Animism is the idea that everything, from rocks to thunder to plants to earthquakes to every sort of animal, is alive in a way, has some sort of soul (not necessarily seen as the same as, or equivalent to, a human soul), and can influence the events in our lives. This belief is common amongst what we see as "primitive" cultures, from the caveman days right through to the beliefs of some of the Native American nations; some of what WE would see as inanimate objects, including manmade things such as artworks and weapons, have even been seen by these cultures to possess consciousness, or to contain spirits, even gods.
I hadn't thought of this potential facet of karma specifically until today, but, if true, it would make sense, as a soul is just energy, and the "energy signature" of a rock, caused by its unique arrangement of atoms and the particles within them, could be seen as its "soul," which would make the beliefs of "primitive" cultures basically correct, just described with the poetic license that ALL belief systems use to codify their underlying principles.
Why am I even speculating about this? Because today I read a fascinating essay by a British biology professor, Brian Goodwin, called "In the Shadow of Culture," and he lays out a possible scientific basis for this belief. Starting with the obvious truism that consciousness is based in large part on feelings, he asks where feelings come from; the scientific answer is that they come from our complex nervous system, which is made up of matter that itself has no feeling or sentience. Our feelings thus arise as "emergent properties" of that system... and that's where the kicker comes in.
All "emergent properties in complex systems" that have been observed by science (physics as well as biology) demonstrate that there is something in each "complex system" that is a precursor to the "emergent property"; in other words, you don't get something from nothing, what you get is like the "roar of a crowd" that is based on the individual sounds made by many people. Given all that, and the consistency that nature shows, how is it possible that feelings and therefore consciousness arise from matter that has NO feelings or consciousness? That WOULD be getting something from nothing, and Goodwin solves this dilemma by believing that there's a tiny bit of feeling or sentience in all matter, that gets "amplified" within the right kind of system, such as our own brain. Since we know from quantum physics that subatomic particles act as if they can think and respond to us, changing their behaviors based on whether or not they have reason to "believe" we are watching them, this isn't such a big leap to make (and certainly the New Age types have been saying this for ages, imbuing crystals with magic powers and seeing our planet as Gaia, a thinking and feeling "being").
Science, metaphysics, karma, and the spiritual beliefs of many cultures, all pointing to the same conclusion; makes you wonder, doesn't it? All matter is in fact "organized energy"; what if that energy, the energy that makes up all the subatomic particles that make up all known matter, is in fact the SAME energy as the energy of thought, of the soul, of spirits, of KARMA, as opposed to just being controlled by that energy? If LIGHT can exist as either a particle or a wave, depending on the circumstances, can it be so hard to imagine that the energy of karma could exist either as particles (such as quarks) or in wave forms (such as thought)? This would make even my over-arching theory of karma a subset of the truth, and gives me a MASSIVE amount of food for thought.
Edit: years later, I finally found the relevant part of Goodwin's essay online, so here it is:
"Where Does Consciousness Come From?
One of the recent arrivals on the scientific agenda is the origin and nature of consciousness. Clearly, a primary aspect of consciousness is feeling; our feelings, together with our thoughts, constitute the content of our awareness. Feelings can be about ourselves, such as when we experience pain, pleasure, well-being, or they can be about the outside world, as when we see a crying child, an injured animal, a dying tree. So within the question "Where does consciousness come from?" there is the question "Where do feelings come from?" The answer we are forced to give in science is that feelings arise from a particular dynamic organization of insentient matter, such as nervous systems at a particular level of complexity and order. Our feelings arise as emergent properties from something that has not the slightest trace of anything that could be called feeling or sentience. And here we face a problem.
The many examples we have of emergent properties in complex systems all have precursors of the emergent property in some form. For instance, the rhythmic behavior of ants tending the queen and brood in an ant colony can be described as an emergent property. This is because we cannot predict that this orderly behavior will arise from the activity of individual ants, which is actually chaotic, and their interactions, in which they excite one another. Nevertheless, rhythmic behavior is what is observed in real colonies, and it also occurs in computer models that simulate this behavior. This unexpected order consistently arises in systems organized dynamically in this way.
What is the dynamic precursor of the collective rhythm of ants in the brood chamber? It is the activity/inactivity pattern of individual ants. This pattern is chaotic in the technical sense of the term: There is no preferred periodicity. However, chaos is made up of a complex pattern of rhythmic components, so it is not hard to imagine that when ants interact by excitation, a preferred rhythm emerges. There is no miracle here of getting something from nothing. Nature is consistent, and once we see what happens, we can make sense of the phenomenon in terms of the behavior of the parts of a system and their pattern of interactions. This applies to the many examples of emergent behavior that occur in solid state physics as well as in biology.
However, if feelings emerge from matter that has not the slightest trace of what we call feeling, then we are indeed getting something from nothing. This sounds to me like a miracle. As a scientist, I prefer to put a tiny bit of feeling or sentience into matter in some form and allow it to get amplified in systems organized in particular ways--a view that has been extensively explored in the writings of such philosophers as Alfred North Whitehead (Process and Reality, 1929), Charles Hartshome (Whitehead's Philosophy, 1972), and David Ray Griffin (Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem, 1998)."
I hadn't thought of this potential facet of karma specifically until today, but, if true, it would make sense, as a soul is just energy, and the "energy signature" of a rock, caused by its unique arrangement of atoms and the particles within them, could be seen as its "soul," which would make the beliefs of "primitive" cultures basically correct, just described with the poetic license that ALL belief systems use to codify their underlying principles.
Why am I even speculating about this? Because today I read a fascinating essay by a British biology professor, Brian Goodwin, called "In the Shadow of Culture," and he lays out a possible scientific basis for this belief. Starting with the obvious truism that consciousness is based in large part on feelings, he asks where feelings come from; the scientific answer is that they come from our complex nervous system, which is made up of matter that itself has no feeling or sentience. Our feelings thus arise as "emergent properties" of that system... and that's where the kicker comes in.
All "emergent properties in complex systems" that have been observed by science (physics as well as biology) demonstrate that there is something in each "complex system" that is a precursor to the "emergent property"; in other words, you don't get something from nothing, what you get is like the "roar of a crowd" that is based on the individual sounds made by many people. Given all that, and the consistency that nature shows, how is it possible that feelings and therefore consciousness arise from matter that has NO feelings or consciousness? That WOULD be getting something from nothing, and Goodwin solves this dilemma by believing that there's a tiny bit of feeling or sentience in all matter, that gets "amplified" within the right kind of system, such as our own brain. Since we know from quantum physics that subatomic particles act as if they can think and respond to us, changing their behaviors based on whether or not they have reason to "believe" we are watching them, this isn't such a big leap to make (and certainly the New Age types have been saying this for ages, imbuing crystals with magic powers and seeing our planet as Gaia, a thinking and feeling "being").
Science, metaphysics, karma, and the spiritual beliefs of many cultures, all pointing to the same conclusion; makes you wonder, doesn't it? All matter is in fact "organized energy"; what if that energy, the energy that makes up all the subatomic particles that make up all known matter, is in fact the SAME energy as the energy of thought, of the soul, of spirits, of KARMA, as opposed to just being controlled by that energy? If LIGHT can exist as either a particle or a wave, depending on the circumstances, can it be so hard to imagine that the energy of karma could exist either as particles (such as quarks) or in wave forms (such as thought)? This would make even my over-arching theory of karma a subset of the truth, and gives me a MASSIVE amount of food for thought.
Edit: years later, I finally found the relevant part of Goodwin's essay online, so here it is:
"Where Does Consciousness Come From?
One of the recent arrivals on the scientific agenda is the origin and nature of consciousness. Clearly, a primary aspect of consciousness is feeling; our feelings, together with our thoughts, constitute the content of our awareness. Feelings can be about ourselves, such as when we experience pain, pleasure, well-being, or they can be about the outside world, as when we see a crying child, an injured animal, a dying tree. So within the question "Where does consciousness come from?" there is the question "Where do feelings come from?" The answer we are forced to give in science is that feelings arise from a particular dynamic organization of insentient matter, such as nervous systems at a particular level of complexity and order. Our feelings arise as emergent properties from something that has not the slightest trace of anything that could be called feeling or sentience. And here we face a problem.
The many examples we have of emergent properties in complex systems all have precursors of the emergent property in some form. For instance, the rhythmic behavior of ants tending the queen and brood in an ant colony can be described as an emergent property. This is because we cannot predict that this orderly behavior will arise from the activity of individual ants, which is actually chaotic, and their interactions, in which they excite one another. Nevertheless, rhythmic behavior is what is observed in real colonies, and it also occurs in computer models that simulate this behavior. This unexpected order consistently arises in systems organized dynamically in this way.
What is the dynamic precursor of the collective rhythm of ants in the brood chamber? It is the activity/inactivity pattern of individual ants. This pattern is chaotic in the technical sense of the term: There is no preferred periodicity. However, chaos is made up of a complex pattern of rhythmic components, so it is not hard to imagine that when ants interact by excitation, a preferred rhythm emerges. There is no miracle here of getting something from nothing. Nature is consistent, and once we see what happens, we can make sense of the phenomenon in terms of the behavior of the parts of a system and their pattern of interactions. This applies to the many examples of emergent behavior that occur in solid state physics as well as in biology.
However, if feelings emerge from matter that has not the slightest trace of what we call feeling, then we are indeed getting something from nothing. This sounds to me like a miracle. As a scientist, I prefer to put a tiny bit of feeling or sentience into matter in some form and allow it to get amplified in systems organized in particular ways--a view that has been extensively explored in the writings of such philosophers as Alfred North Whitehead (Process and Reality, 1929), Charles Hartshome (Whitehead's Philosophy, 1972), and David Ray Griffin (Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem, 1998)."
Monday, March 15, 2004
Common courtesy is an oxymoron, grrrrrrrrrr
The guests we were expecting yesterday decided to go to a movie at the theater near our house before coming over here. They're both college grads, and so theoretically able to do the math and realize that they were going to be done with the movie and on our doorstep a HALF HOUR EARLY... but they didn't bother to check, and didn't call to let us know. When the movie let out, and they saw how early it was, they could have called on their cell phones and asked if we were ready for them to come over... but they didn't. They could have entertained themselves for a half hour at the many stores right there in the frigging mall for half an hour and THEN come over, but they didn't do THAT, either. What they DID do, these 2 educated, professional people from upper middle class backgrounds, is call us to announce that they were parked in front of our house and ready to come in!!
Neither my husband nor I was dressed, so I told them they'd have to wait; I personally hadn't even STARTED getting ready, and my husband was about to step into the shower. I flung cleaning products into the bathtub, sprinted for the bedroom and started to scramble to get presentable, while my VERY stinky, unshaven husband got dressed and went to let them in. They had strained small talk, and I missed their first-ever reaction to seeing me in a home of my own for the first time EVER, while I frantically tried to make something presentable out of my face and hair. Once I was marginally acceptable, I waited until I was sure by their voices that they were all standing where they couldn't see into the hallway and made a mad dash for the guest bathroom, which was NOT cleaned fully yet, as my husband wanted to shower first and have the steam loosen the gunk and crusts on every surface (I don't know, and don't WANT to know), locked the door, and began to scrub furiously at everything I could reach.
When I'd done all I could, I went and greeted my friends (who managed to look a little embarrassed by this time), and excused myself and my husband to go into the bathroom so that I could point out to him what he needed to do a rapid-fire cleaning on before one of the guests needed to use the facilities, and then went out to keep the miscreants company. We couldn't get started with any movies or the games they'd brought because we weren't all together, and my husband returned only long enough to see if anyone was going to need the bathroom before he showered, and then took off with another change of clothes (the ones he had on stank already) to bathe, leaving us to kill MORE time while we waited.
By the time we were all assembled, it was WAY after the original agreed-upon arrival time, and we ended up not having time to do some of what we had planned; between that, and the elaborate song and dance we had to do to get them in the front door and kept company until we were both ready, I think they learned that showing up a half hour early with no warning was a bad, BAD idea... I'm still in shock that this was something they didn't grasp on their own.
In these days where everyone over the age of 5 has a cell phone, there's just NO EXCUSE to show up on someone's doorstep a half hour early with no warning, whether it's friends, family or a date. You wouldn't show up to dinner or a party at your boss's house a half hour early, and your loved ones, and those you hope to eventually have sex with, deserve at least as much respect, do they not? You know perfectly well that, with the exception of guy-only get-togethers, the people whose home you're going to are preparing themselves and their domicile for your visit, and they are NOT going to be done more than a few minutes early, if early at ALL, and they won't be happy for you to show up before they've finished the preparations... there's nothing like spending hours getting ready only to have guests see you and/or your home still looking like a wreck.
If you have a REALLY good reason to be early, call from a mall or something so that they don't feel obligated to do what my husband and I did to get you in the door; give them a graceful way to ask you to stay where you are for a while and then show up on time if needed, which it usually will be. Or, better yet, use the extra time to go to the mall and get flowers or a hostess gift, and then show up on time with it... and you won't cause someone to write a blog entry like THIS about YOU.
Neither my husband nor I was dressed, so I told them they'd have to wait; I personally hadn't even STARTED getting ready, and my husband was about to step into the shower. I flung cleaning products into the bathtub, sprinted for the bedroom and started to scramble to get presentable, while my VERY stinky, unshaven husband got dressed and went to let them in. They had strained small talk, and I missed their first-ever reaction to seeing me in a home of my own for the first time EVER, while I frantically tried to make something presentable out of my face and hair. Once I was marginally acceptable, I waited until I was sure by their voices that they were all standing where they couldn't see into the hallway and made a mad dash for the guest bathroom, which was NOT cleaned fully yet, as my husband wanted to shower first and have the steam loosen the gunk and crusts on every surface (I don't know, and don't WANT to know), locked the door, and began to scrub furiously at everything I could reach.
When I'd done all I could, I went and greeted my friends (who managed to look a little embarrassed by this time), and excused myself and my husband to go into the bathroom so that I could point out to him what he needed to do a rapid-fire cleaning on before one of the guests needed to use the facilities, and then went out to keep the miscreants company. We couldn't get started with any movies or the games they'd brought because we weren't all together, and my husband returned only long enough to see if anyone was going to need the bathroom before he showered, and then took off with another change of clothes (the ones he had on stank already) to bathe, leaving us to kill MORE time while we waited.
By the time we were all assembled, it was WAY after the original agreed-upon arrival time, and we ended up not having time to do some of what we had planned; between that, and the elaborate song and dance we had to do to get them in the front door and kept company until we were both ready, I think they learned that showing up a half hour early with no warning was a bad, BAD idea... I'm still in shock that this was something they didn't grasp on their own.
In these days where everyone over the age of 5 has a cell phone, there's just NO EXCUSE to show up on someone's doorstep a half hour early with no warning, whether it's friends, family or a date. You wouldn't show up to dinner or a party at your boss's house a half hour early, and your loved ones, and those you hope to eventually have sex with, deserve at least as much respect, do they not? You know perfectly well that, with the exception of guy-only get-togethers, the people whose home you're going to are preparing themselves and their domicile for your visit, and they are NOT going to be done more than a few minutes early, if early at ALL, and they won't be happy for you to show up before they've finished the preparations... there's nothing like spending hours getting ready only to have guests see you and/or your home still looking like a wreck.
If you have a REALLY good reason to be early, call from a mall or something so that they don't feel obligated to do what my husband and I did to get you in the door; give them a graceful way to ask you to stay where you are for a while and then show up on time if needed, which it usually will be. Or, better yet, use the extra time to go to the mall and get flowers or a hostess gift, and then show up on time with it... and you won't cause someone to write a blog entry like THIS about YOU.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Prejudice in medical research
Are you aware that the large majority of medical studies have been done on men only, because of the risk of pregnancy for women (and the risk of harming a fetus) and because of the "complications" of correcting for gender factors when analyzing the results from both genders? We don't actually KNOW how a wide variety of drugs and other medical procedures affect women, other than what experienced doctors can report if asked... and that's a MUCH bigger danger to women than a possible oopsie pregnancy in a woman participating in a study... and the medical costs of treating women for whom most treatments involve some guesswork FAR outweigh what the extra work in analyzing data for a 2nd gender would be.
Gee, gals, aren't you thrilled to be a "complication" to those heavily-funded researchers, such that they'd rather just ASSUME that the results apply to us rather than be SURE?
There are many other such biases included in medical research; the elderly of both genders, and people of color of all ages, are grossly under-represented, even though it's common knowledge both that geriatrics is a whole separate field and that people of different racial backgrounds have different likelihoods of a wide variety of ailments, due to both genetic factors and cultural factors such as diet; the white male has been the stand-in for all of us.
I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone how the misperception of AIDS as a "gay disease" slowed the research into it and cost countless lives; the gay and transgendered communities are STILL being pretty thoroughly overlooked by medical researchers, and this is especially hard for the latter, as they don't know which drugs are safe to take with their hormones long term, or at all, until it's too late.
There's another sort of prejudice in medical research, and that is to avoid anything that would get them derided or possibly called crackpots. There's some chemical found in tobacco that is an excellent treatment for schizophrenia, and in fact most schizophrenics self-medicate with cigarettes, but the research isn't getting done because of the uproar against smoking. Something in marijuana fights nausea far better than any known drug, which is literally life or death to some cancer and AIDS patients, but no one will study it because they'd have to fight against the illegality if it. And there's another whole category of research that is truly glaring by its omission; with all the different ways they have to scan the brain and see what's going on in it, allowing them to see EXACTLY what happens where in the brain during every kind of action, thought and feeling, why, why, WHY has NO ONE undertaken a study of "people who demonstrate an ability to act consistently beyond the laws of probability," aka psychics, and gotten some idea of what parts of the brain are responsible? Why won't they even attempt (or pretend to attempt, if they are believers) to "prove" that the parts of the brain which become active during psychic activity are the same as those that are active when people are trying to deceive, and therefore that psychics are all fakers? Why won't they touch anything that smacks of "the occult" with a 10 foot pole?
Why do you think?
If one researcher, just ONE, is willing to use his time and his access to, say, an MRI machine, to look into the brain activity of even ONE psychic, a domino effect will be started that will lead to many of the mysteries of karma being solved in our lifetime, and that researcher will achieve international fame and a place in history. I hope that some researcher somewhere is realizing that right about now...
Gee, gals, aren't you thrilled to be a "complication" to those heavily-funded researchers, such that they'd rather just ASSUME that the results apply to us rather than be SURE?
There are many other such biases included in medical research; the elderly of both genders, and people of color of all ages, are grossly under-represented, even though it's common knowledge both that geriatrics is a whole separate field and that people of different racial backgrounds have different likelihoods of a wide variety of ailments, due to both genetic factors and cultural factors such as diet; the white male has been the stand-in for all of us.
I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone how the misperception of AIDS as a "gay disease" slowed the research into it and cost countless lives; the gay and transgendered communities are STILL being pretty thoroughly overlooked by medical researchers, and this is especially hard for the latter, as they don't know which drugs are safe to take with their hormones long term, or at all, until it's too late.
There's another sort of prejudice in medical research, and that is to avoid anything that would get them derided or possibly called crackpots. There's some chemical found in tobacco that is an excellent treatment for schizophrenia, and in fact most schizophrenics self-medicate with cigarettes, but the research isn't getting done because of the uproar against smoking. Something in marijuana fights nausea far better than any known drug, which is literally life or death to some cancer and AIDS patients, but no one will study it because they'd have to fight against the illegality if it. And there's another whole category of research that is truly glaring by its omission; with all the different ways they have to scan the brain and see what's going on in it, allowing them to see EXACTLY what happens where in the brain during every kind of action, thought and feeling, why, why, WHY has NO ONE undertaken a study of "people who demonstrate an ability to act consistently beyond the laws of probability," aka psychics, and gotten some idea of what parts of the brain are responsible? Why won't they even attempt (or pretend to attempt, if they are believers) to "prove" that the parts of the brain which become active during psychic activity are the same as those that are active when people are trying to deceive, and therefore that psychics are all fakers? Why won't they touch anything that smacks of "the occult" with a 10 foot pole?
Why do you think?
If one researcher, just ONE, is willing to use his time and his access to, say, an MRI machine, to look into the brain activity of even ONE psychic, a domino effect will be started that will lead to many of the mysteries of karma being solved in our lifetime, and that researcher will achieve international fame and a place in history. I hope that some researcher somewhere is realizing that right about now...
